Man Barred From Being Alone With Daughter After Informing Police of Porn On PC

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Barred From Being Alone With Daughter After Informing Police of Porn On PC

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 7, 2012 @06:45AM from the too-much-information dept.

First time accepted submitter robably writes "A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months. Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November. As a result social services said he 'should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.'"

560 of 777 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bottom line: never cooperate with the authorities by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

That is all.
I thought this was known by now by ravenspear · 2012-03-07 06:47 · Score: 5, Informative

If you find something like that, you do NOT report it.
It doesn't matter if you obtained it, you will likely take the fall.
1. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  They're from the government and they're here to help. Trust them.
2. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished.
3. Re:I thought this was known by now by Loualbano2 · 2012-03-07 06:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Be careful.
  From: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C110.txt
  -HEAD-
  Sec. 2258. Failure to report child abuse
  -STATUTE-
  A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.
  So if you're working on a machine, see CP and don't report it, you are on the hook.
4. Re:I thought this was known by now by N1AK · 2012-03-07 07:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you find something like that, you do NOT report it.
  How about we wait and see what the result is here before we make wide generalisations. The guy isn't under arrest. The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why. The guy does have child pornography on his laptop; it's not like a reasonably likely cause of that isn't himself. There is a chance, I couldn't guess on odds, that the guy had looked at child pornography and was concerned his details may have gotten to the police. I think it is pretty reasonable for the police to want to make sure that isn't the case and I can see why they are concerned about him being left alone with a child in the meanwhile.
  
  The other option he had, assuming he is innocent, is to delete it and hope that the police don't come knocking about the fact his laptop was used to download some child porn. Having deleted it isn't exactly in his favour if that came before a jury. Obviously the odds are small. Finally, clearly the child pornography was there because someone put it there. Either he did it by accident (which may be possible if he was downloading something else shady) or someone else is using his laptop to do it. They might do it again and they won't get caught if he didn't report it.
5. Re:I thought this was known by now by betterunixthanunix · 2012-03-07 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The guy isn't under arrest. The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why.
  So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.
  
  The guy does have child pornography on his laptop; it's not like a reasonably likely cause of that isn't himself.
  So he reported his own child pornography to the police?
  
  There is a chance, I couldn't guess on odds, that the guy had looked at child pornography and was concerned his details may have gotten to the police.
  So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
  
  I think it is pretty reasonable for the police to want to make sure that isn't the case and I can see why they are concerned about him being left alone with a child in the meanwhile.
  
  So why even bother with courts and trials? If the police suspect someone is guilty, we should immediately start procedures to protect everyone else from that dangerous person! Presumption of innocence? System of laws? Why bother?
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
6. Re:I thought this was known by now by s0nicfreak · 2012-03-07 07:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'd rather be arrested than be legally barred from being alone with my children.
  
  I can't even appreciate why this was done. If someone was found to be looking at adult porn, would you forbid them from being alone with adult women? What about their adult offspring?
7. Re:I thought this was known by now by networkBoy · 2012-03-07 07:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think I would have securely deleted it, then reported that I was trying to download some music and it was a CP site, report it that way. Likely it is a techonophobe ruling that because it was on your PC then you intentionally put it there.
  By saying you saw it elsewhere you are dutifully reporting it as mandated while not admitting that you were in possession. I doubt they'd make the connection that to see it you copied it at least to your browser cache.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
8. Re:I thought this was known by now by softwareGuy1024 · 2012-03-07 07:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Indeed, you should be careful reporting anything illegal. Remember this guy. Unfortunately many law enforcement agents would rather go after a whistle blower, who may be easier to prosecute, then build up a case against the real criminals.
9. Re:I thought this was known by now by mk1004 · 2012-03-07 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  Be careful.
  From: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C110.txt
  -HEAD- Sec. 2258. Failure to report child abuse
  -STATUTE- A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.
  So if you're working on a machine, see CP and don't report it, you are on the hook.
  From the snippet it looks like this statute applies to employees or contractors working on federal land, not individuals. Of course, if you get child porn on your computer 'accidentally' and the police find you before you report it, you'll still be in a world of hurt. I wouldn't be surprised if the government has some way of tracking traffic from known sites hosting child porn and those downloading it.
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
10. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  You say he isn't under arrest, but at some levels what's going on is even worse. My wife works nights as we can't afford day care, this would effectively force me to hire a baby sitter to supervise me with my own children. Let children service come in, see if there is ANY evidence of abuse and if not, then assume for a moment the guy is innocent since he is the one who brought it to the police's attention. If you find evidence it may have been him, then reconsider, but this seems really harsh.
  One of my sisters-in-law is a heroinatic and my other sister-in-law is trying to get custody of her son; every time the clean one find heroin needles in her house (and typically where the kids could reach it) she refuses to call the police as she doesn't want to get in trouble and doesn't want children services investigating her. In a better world with a better system, she would call and would have all the evidence she needs to get custody of my nephew. Punishing parents like this makes the world a worse place, not a better.
11. Re:I thought this was known by now by mcgrew · 2012-03-07 07:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Indeed. From TFA: "Mr Robinson said: 'It makes you feel as though you shouldn't have reported it in the first place'."
  Never EVER trust the police. Any police. When I was in the USAF stationed at Dover in 1972, I had barracks duty one day and the duty sergent came to me as I was sweeping, held up a hand rolled something and said "what's this?" I replied, well, it's either a cigarette or a joint."
  "How do you tell?" I took it, broke it open, and said "It's green. It's a joint."
  So the stupid old man asks "what should I do about it?"
  I told him to throw it in the dumpster and forget about it. He said "I dunno, maybe I should report it?"
  I told him "if you do, all you'll accomplish is sitting around filling paperwork about it for two days."
  When I saw him the next day he said "you were right, I should have just thrown it away. Damned assholes treated me like a criminal and I had to fill out paperwork all damned afternoon. Now I'm behind in my real work."
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
12. Re:I thought this was known by now by Taty'sEyes · 2012-03-07 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Dude, wait and see? Do you have a clue as to how costly this shit is to fight? The State has stepped in and forced him into supervised visits with his own daughter. Can you imagine the emotional turmoil of something like this happening to you? And guess what? At the end of it, he'll be cleared and The State will turn and walk away. They will not even apologize. In fact, there will now be animosity because they "lost". Wait and see... are you fucking kidding me?
  
  --
  We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
13. Re:I thought this was known by now by firex726 · 2012-03-07 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  Funny since they have prosecuted teenagers for receiving what was deemed CP even though they never opened the file.
  So not only was he guilty of having it, even without his knowledge; but also guilty of not reporting it, again without his knowledge.
14. Re:I thought this was known by now by Tubal-Cain · 2012-03-07 07:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
  It's like reporting your car stolen to hide the fact that you were the getaway driver.
15. Re:I thought this was known by now by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-03-07 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the staff at Penn State read this. :)
16. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter?
  Yes, the state can look out for the welfare of his child while they investigate the rather peculiar circumstances whereby "I downloaded music," morphs magically into "somehow that child porn got on my computer."
  
  So he reported his own child pornography to the police?
  So we'll imagine any conspiracy possible that will explain why he's innocent, but nobody can imagine a single scenario where this could happen? Because I sure can. Man downloads child porn. Wife finds it, freaks out. Man, in damage control mode, goes "but honey, I swear I would never do this, I thought I was downloading music! I'll report the very serious crime I was an unwitting victim of right away!" Wife accompanies him down to the station, where they file report alleging that "somebody out there in those magic tubes gave my sweet innocent husband child pornography when he thought he was downloading the latest Michael Buble album!"
  Here's the thing: I've never once downloaded an MP3 from amazon, or itunes, or emusic, or an independent artist's distribution site, and ended up with child pornography. So I naturally find the claim of "I thought I was downloading music, but turns out it was pictures and video of a 6 year old being raped," to be a little hard to swallow.
  The police have to investigate the reported crime; given that this man was doing "something" online that resulted in his laptop getting some child porn on it, it's not unreasonable to think that he might have downloaded them intentionally, and then hoped to cover his ass by acting out his mock outrage in front of the police when he the files were discovered by, say, his wife.
17. Re:I thought this was known by now by MozeeToby · 2012-03-07 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why.
  You're not a parent obviously. Not being able to be alone with my daughter would be devastating to me and my family. Not only is it unwarranted, unjust, and probably unconstitutional, it is also massively disruptive to the day to day workings of the modern family. This isn't the freakin 60s, I have an active and important role in my child's life; I get her out of bed in the morning, take her to day care, take off work when she's sick... etc etc. There is a chance that he looked up child porn, but this 'precaution' is being implemented on essentially zero evidence and without any due process.
  Also, 4 months? They're worried about him spending 5 minutes alone with his own child and it's been 4 months without any decision as to whether he's a violent sexual predator or a good, (overly-)responsible parent. So which is it? Is he so dangerous he can't be trusted with his own flesh and blood or is he so innocuous that there's no need to actually, you know... investigate him?
18. Re:I thought this was known by now by berashith · 2012-03-07 07:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  the article never tells how he got this stuff. As a devils advocate, the possibility exists that he was discussing the porn on his laptop with his wife because she discovered it. If this is a single zip file that he opened then he can be cleared, if this can be proven to be months or years worth of material that he has been holding on to, and obtaining over time, then he is going to have a hard time using the "oops" defense.
19. Re:I thought this was known by now by Loualbano2 · 2012-03-07 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  It's vague. It depends on how that OR and and AND are grouped.
  Here is more, from the state level:
  http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/child-pornography-reporting-requirements-isps-and.aspx
  Here is some stuff about ISPs:
  http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/132/IV/13032
  I guess my point was that you have to be careful, you might be in trouble for not reporting, if that fact is discovered.
20. Re:I thought this was known by now by MozeeToby · 2012-03-07 07:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  the social services worker made a judgement call that there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself.
  I'm glad an underpaid bureaucrat can destroy my life and my hurt my family based on a "non-trivial chance", that's... that's just awesome.
21. Re:I thought this was known by now by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-07 07:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I don't think Hull is under federal jurisdiction.
22. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not the police, in this case - it's social services. The police have no remit to decide whether children are at risk and whether anything needs to be done to mitigate/eliminate that risk. It's perfectly reasonable that they should refer this to the social services. It's the conclusion that the social services reached on the basis of the facts given to them that is inexcusable (assuming the reported story is representative of what really happened).
23. Re:I thought this was known by now by sjames · 2012-03-07 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Are you denying that he and his daughter would both be much better off right now if he had just deleted the files and kept quiet? Perhaps he should have just re-installed and if asked, said it was acting up and he didn't know why but the re-install got it going again.
  Arguably, by depriving the daughter of a normal relationship with a loving parent, child services is endangering her welfare right now.
24. Re:I thought this was known by now by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-03-07 07:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I told him to throw it in the dumpster and forget about it.
  Atrocity!
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
25. Re:I thought this was known by now by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-07 07:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It doesn't say *where* he was downloading music from. Quite possibly a p2p network of some form, and he just got falsely-named file.
26. Re:I thought this was known by now by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-07 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  If they lost... if he found child porn while trying to download music, he was more likely than not using a p2p network. They'll just find some way to use copyright law against him. The only thing that can stop police in a case like this is the threat of really bad PR: Going to the press might be the best thing he could do.
27. Re:I thought this was known by now by nukenerd · 2012-03-07 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Holmedog wrote :-
  
  there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself
  
  There is a non-trivial chance that any person chosen at random will have CP on their PC. Does that mean everyone should be forbidden access to their children?
28. Re:I thought this was known by now by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2012-03-07 07:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.
  Sorry, I was too busy thinking about a proposed law that divides the American public into two groups: registered sex offenders and unregistered sex offenders.
29. Re:I thought this was known by now by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2012-03-07 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sounds pretty dumb if no-one had actually noticed that a getaway had ever taken place.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
30. Re:I thought this was known by now by Merk42 · 2012-03-07 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do you get barred from driving for 4 months if you report your car stolen?
31. Re:I thought this was known by now by networkBoy · 2012-03-07 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  then nuke it from orbit and disavow ever seeing it.
  CP is such a charged issue it's simply not reasonable to get involved with it for any reason at any level.
  Lets be honest, we're all geeks and would do something to cover our asses.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
32. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Never EVER trust the police. Any police.
  And above all, never EVER, talk in absolutes.
33. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  In Sweden, viewing child pornography is a crime even if one expects something else and does not realise what it is until too late.
34. Re:I thought this was known by now by X0563511 · 2012-03-07 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sexual acts with adult woman are not morally reprehensible acts (according to society), like it is with children. That's the difference.
  Now, I agree with you that this whole thing is retarded.
  Sure, look into him. But don't take fucking 4 months to figure it out, meanwhile not allowing him to be alone with his children.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
35. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Please America - invade and liberate Hull! We don't want it any more.
36. Re:I thought this was known by now by X0563511 · 2012-03-07 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Think of the children. But don't "think" of the children. ... at least, that's how politicians say it should be.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
37. Re:I thought this was known by now by X0563511 · 2012-03-07 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why.
  You're not a parent obviously.
  How so? You missed the part where he said "The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh"?
  You seem to be one of those people who insist on confusing "understand" with "condone."
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
38. Re:I thought this was known by now by Serious+Callers+Only · 2012-03-07 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you find something like that, you do NOT report it. It doesn't matter if you obtained it, you will likely take the fall.
  The assumption here of course is that he is above suspicion. The police might have other reasons for suspecting something funny is going on, and might not believe his excuses as to why these pics ended up on his computer. Maybe his wife found the images, and this is his cover story invented on the spur of the moment. So she insists on reporting it, and we end up with a story in the press. As it stands, no-one on slashdot is going to provide any meaningful data on this story, the article certainly doesn't, so it's really quite pointless to pontificate one way or the other without knowing more information about why this was reported and by whom.
39. Re:I thought this was known by now by crmarvin42 · 2012-03-07 07:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I do know that even if you are not a federal employee, or on federal land there are various professions where you are a mandatory reporter of child abuse if discovered. My mother is a nurse and she claims that she is required by law (not sure if state or federal) to report any child abuse she sees while in a patients home (if doing community nursing) or while with a patient in a hospital setting. Being proved to have turned a blind eye could cost her job or medical license and even land her in jail supposedly. However, I doubt that applies to anyone screwing around on their own computer.
  
  --
  Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
40. Re:I thought this was known by now by fluffythedestroyer · 2012-03-07 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  fyi Hull is in UK...not in US lol
41. Re:I thought this was known by now by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-03-07 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
  It's like reporting your car stolen to hide the fact that you were the getaway driver.
  No. It is like reporting that your car is full of cash to hide the fact that you were the getaway driver.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
42. Re:I thought this was known by now by rrohbeck · 2012-03-07 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can't even appreciate why this was done.
  Guilty until proven innocent. Duh. Think of teh children!
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
43. Re:I thought this was known by now by holmedog · 2012-03-07 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Read my post history and you can find that I have been on the receiving end of an ICE (USA version of whatever department this man is having to deal with) in the past. However, I *STILL* think we don't have enough details to jump straight to this guys defense. Judging by what we're given, sure it sounds like he's getting fucked. However, being a rational adult I have to think that there are details to the situation that we are not privy to and I absolutely get tired of seeing everyone jump to defend when they don't know the full details. Anyway, enough trashing my karma for today - it's obvious everyone here wants to instantly defend the "little man" without having a good idea of why.
44. Re:I thought this was known by now by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-03-07 07:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So you, also, wondered why they didn't just burn the evidence, like normal people?
45. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the thing: I've never once downloaded an MP3 from amazon, or itunes, or emusic, or an independent artist's distribution site, and ended up with child pornography. So I naturally find the claim of "I thought I was downloading music, but turns out it was pictures and video of a 6 year old being raped," to be a little hard to swallow.
  Ignoring for the moment the comedic inclusion of "hard to swallow" in a discussion of porn, note the guy didn't say, "I just downloaded music from Amazon." Or iTunes or emusic. This may come as a shock, but rumor has it there are other, somewhat less formal, sources of music. You may have heard of the RIAA getting their panties in a bunch about this. It has been known for evil bastards whose motives I can't even guess at to upload to these alternative sources files that aren't what they say they are. It is not at all beyond the realm of belief that this guy thought he was downloading some songs when the files in question actually contained CP.
  The guy may have realized his downloading of unlicensed music was wrong, but thought the CP was a bigger criminal issue in which the police would have interest. Silly him. For all such incidents I recommend a low profile and a secure erase program.
46. Re:I thought this was known by now by SpooForBrains · 2012-03-07 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hypothesis: his wife caught him with it. He claims that he accidentally downloaded it instead of some music. He then takes up her suggestion to report it to corroborate his story. Police suspect he is not being entirely truthful and size his laptop to examine further. Police find cause for concern.
  
  The basis for this story is the man's own testimony. Why should we believe him?
  
  Disclaimer: I hold no opinion one way or the other. Not enough facts are known.
  
  --
  "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
47. Re:I thought this was known by now by cheekyjohnson · 2012-03-07 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  You're not a parent obviously.
  I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The fact that you think he doesn't have the same feelings about this matter as you doesn't mean he isn't a parent. Completely unrelated matters.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
48. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I know everyone around here instantly jumps to the defense of the person conceived to be wronged...
  If you're looking for an explanation - American children are indoctrinated, beginning at an early age, to believe that all persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty.
  
  What a crazy concept, huh? What's next, requiring the state to present evidence before they can convict? Where does it end???
  
  /sarc
49. Re:I thought this was known by now by Golddess · 2012-03-07 07:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I can't decide if that's a step up or down from prosecuting teenagers for distributing CP, when the pictures are of themselves.
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
50. Re:I thought this was known by now by interval1066 · 2012-03-07 07:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I agree,. There's nothing to be gained from alerting any athorities about anything, ever. I don't see anyway of not doing this if you kill a home intruder, just be prepared for a lengthy intrusion in your life, even if you are found not guilty of murder, which a prosecutor is sure to do regardless of the circumstances. Oh- woe to you if you have a past criminal record then find yourself in completely innocent circumstances.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
51. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Hull is under federal jurisdiction.
  They are if the ISP uses a .com domain name, or any of his traffic passes through the USA.
  This is no different than Sweden's Internet being in the US jurisdiction, or New Jersey being in Saudi Arabia's jurisdiction.
52. Re:I thought this was known by now by b1scuit · 2012-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, all you have to do is hammer a screwdriver through the platters and toss it in a dumpster.
53. Re:I thought this was known by now by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  then nuke it from orbit and disavow ever seeing it. CP is such a charged issue it's simply not reasonable to get involved with it for any reason at any level.
  Lets be honest, we're all geeks and would do something to cover our asses. -nB
  There's a non-zero possibility that the police put it there themselves or had someone do it for them. Then when you don't report it, they swoop in. Their "expert" tells the courts that you had the stuff on your machine. You go to jail.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
54. Re:I thought this was known by now by kj_kabaje · 2012-03-07 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  Football coaches read more than X and O?
55. Re:I thought this was known by now by Tastecicles · 2012-03-07 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The SECOND children become the subject or even a tangential consideration to a criminal investigation, Children Services are called in and the police wash their hands of the matter. That is a fact. Same as if a complaint is made of a criminal nature and subsequent filings are made to a county court, it is immediately referred to Family Proceedings and the CAFCASS Guardian is called in. That is also a fact.
  The problem with Family Proceedings is that no matter the nature of the claim, it is treated as a civil matter. The burden of proof is shifted away from those making the claim (in the case of the Local Authority) to those who have to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE (ie the natural parents). And when the standard of proof goes from "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to "Balance of probabilities", if the claim made is some witchcraftian prediction like "risk of future emotional harm", such claim is impossible to defend because THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION. As a result, in such cases where the Local Authority has a stiffy for the blue haired, blonde eyed little munchkins, they end up taking the kids for forced adoption because they also have the judge, every solicitor present and their legion of so-called "expert witnesses" (witnesses? What, exactly, did they witness?) in their pocket.
  I have seen it so, so many times. If I told you, your toes would curl and your hair would turn white. Children Services and the Family Legal System are the embodiment of EVIL. If you EVER find yourself in the crosshairs of these... untermenschen... run. Far and fast. Just pack an overnight and take your kids and LEAVE THE COUNTRY. The only winning move is NOT TO PLAY THEIR GAME.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
56. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  In Sweden it is crime watching adult or cartoon porn, if the person portrayed appears to under 18 or is supposed to be under 18. Sweden is not exactly known for its sanity in sexual crime laws.
57. Re:I thought this was known by now by g0bshiTe · 2012-03-07 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the first time this has happened though. http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=725833
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
58. Re:I thought this was known by now by brainzach · 2012-03-07 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  If you killed someone in your house and not alert authorities, then you are probably a murderer.
  Of course the police are going to question you because there is a dead guy in your house that was shot and killed by you. Call the police, but don't talk without a lawyer.
59. Re:I thought this was known by now by alienzed · 2012-03-07 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Did you not at least specify which dumpster and ask for him to make sure it landed safely on top of something relatively clean?
  
  --
  Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
60. Re:I thought this was known by now by GLMDesigns · 2012-03-07 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  And why did the police report it? Perhaps they are legally required to. Perhaps we should change/repeal/eliminate some laws.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
61. Re:I thought this was known by now by 517714 · 2012-03-07 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  Hugs and kisses with the little boys in the showers?
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
62. Re:I thought this was known by now by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-03-07 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.
  "Think of the children!" bestows a broad and unfair power balance. Accused sex offenders are boned* no matter how things shake loose.
  
  So he reported his own child pornography to the police?
  The way the authorities look at it, yes. To them, who else's would it be? It's his computer, his home, his daughter, his whatever. Whether it was accidental and unintentional procurement is to be considered after his potential victims are safe.
  
  So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
  Again, the authorities can take the liberty of ignoring why the evidence arrived, and focus only the fact that it is, indeed, evidence, as stupid as that is. They probably figure the suspect can just take it up with a judge.
  
  So why even bother with courts and trials? If the police suspect someone is guilty, we should immediately start procedures to protect everyone else from that dangerous person! Presumption of innocence? System of laws? Why bother?
  Because, often, court is the final place to find justice for a suspect, one way other the other. As you said yourself, the police and their handlers are more concerned with protecting potential victims than protecting their suspect's freedom, at least until some undeniable results shake loose.
  
  All that said, this is definitely not the only scenario where a suspect loses their liberty or other rights well before any convictions of a crime. Any person who spends the night in jail after an arrest, waiting to sober up, or for the clerks to finish the booking paperwork knows this well. Sure, it can be obvious that you're drunk, but are they guilty yet? Of course not. Much as we like to say "innocent until proven guilty" there is a VAST number of situations where "presumed innocent" has nothing to do with "free to go about their normal business".
  
  Still, this whole case makes me sick, and while I will always believe that co-operating with the authorities (with the advice of a lawyer, of course) is your best chance of coming through an arrest unscathed (i.e. it's not a good idea to piss off your captors) it's far, far, FAR better if you can avoid scrutiny in the first place, whether you're doing illegal things or not. This is just a sad and scary fact.
  
  *I tried very, very hard to pick a word that wasn't a terrible pun here; but it since that just wasn't possible, I just gave up and followed the Path of Bender.
63. Re:I thought this was known by now by Brian+Feldman · 2012-03-07 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, now consider downloading music "illegally" from a site where the purveyors do not actually benefit from licensing fees when you download it.
  
  --
  Brian Fundakowski Feldman
64. Re:I thought this was known by now by 517714 · 2012-03-07 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  People are not (should not be) defending him, just his rights. There is a big difference.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
65. Re:I thought this was known by now by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-03-07 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Depends; have you ever said the words "child" and "pornography" in the same sentence prior to reporting the theft? If so, yeah, you will be barred from driving, because you'll be in jail.
66. Re:I thought this was known by now by jamstar7 · 2012-03-07 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Social Services isn't bound by 'innocent until proven guilty'. Their mandate is, 'Protect the child at all costs', even if those costs emotionally scar the child worse than any unfounded allegations. You & your other half get ticketted for a joint? Pull the kids til Social Services determines the parents aren't stark raving crack addicts running a meth lab in the basement and take part in a 12 Step program for awhile to keep them off drugs. Get seen spanking your kid? Pull the kids til the parents get cleared of child abuse charges and go to anger management counselling.
  
  Kids get injured at foster care, or abused at foster care, or even molested at foster care? Too bad. No apology, no recourse, and Social Services is still waiting for the parents to clear themselves of the allegations. They're 'thinking of the children' so anything they do is a-ok.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
67. Re:I thought this was known by now by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-03-07 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Better to report it anonymously. Maybe using words cut from magazines. Sort of a "bad things are happening!" note instead of a "ransom" note. Probably, it's best to do ANY sort of crime reporting anonymously. It'll sounds more mysterious, though you will lose your rights to the related Lifetime movie of the week.
68. Re:I thought this was known by now by operagost · 2012-03-07 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I am not an expert in the area of child abuse, and am therefore unqualified to make a determination. How's that?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
69. Re:I thought this was known by now by cdrudge · 2012-03-07 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the staff at Penn State read this. :)
  Would Penn State count as a "federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility"?
70. Re:I thought this was known by now by jamstar7 · 2012-03-07 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Sexual acts with adult woman are not morally reprehensible acts (according to society), like it is with children. That's the difference.
  Problem is, even consentual sex acts between consenting adults can be illegal in some jurisdictions. There are still a ton of 'blue laws' on the books outlawing anything other than sex for procreation by married heterosexual couples. In those jurisdictions, if I get caught spanking my above-age-of-consent girlfriend, I can be arrested tried and convicted of 'sexual battery' and spend a few years as 'guest of the state', and get to sign up for that lovely sex offender registry database, all because it's an election year & some assistant DA wants to push his boss out of the way and climb the political ladder.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
71. Re:I thought this was known by now by Moonrazor · 2012-03-07 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Please don't stop at "some laws". I can think of volumes of laws that should be repealed. The problem with a full time legislature is that they have nothing else to do but come up with laws. All State and Federal legislatures should be paid to only work one month out of the year and the rest of the time they can go back to their "real" jobs. During that one month they can "create" whatever laws are deemed necessary so that should incentivize them do work on the real problems and not all the BS they waste time on. Of course, talk is cheap here in fantasy land...
  
  --
  Burn the land and boil the sea........
72. Re:I thought this was known by now by nurb432 · 2012-03-07 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are screwed either way, so personally id take the safer route of just deleting it. If anyone asks, 'it was offensive, and i didn't look that closely before i deleted it to even know it was underage'.
  Why ASK for trouble?
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
73. Re:I thought this was known by now by mcgrew · 2012-03-07 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Not relevant. Quoting your own quote, with the salient part highlighted: "A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse"
  Besides, I think this happened in Britain. US laws don't apply there.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
74. Re:I thought this was known by now by datavirtue · 2012-03-07 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  it'sthe second set of books....no legal requirement, just institutionalized pressure.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
75. Re:I thought this was known by now by GLMDesigns · 2012-03-07 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Amen. Here's to the day that your comment is not considered to be fantasy.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
76. Re:I thought this was known by now by spasm · 2012-03-07 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  I thin if I ever found child porn on my computer I'd pull the hard drive and destroy it immediately. This guy not only got 4 months banned from being alone with his child (and if the porn was there because it *was* his, how the hell is this supposed to protect his daughter in 5 moths time?) but his name permanently associated with 'child porn' in the minds of everyone in his community.. And I suspect he was *lucky* to have gotten off so lightly. Child porn is the ultimate site of moral panic in the contemporary West, and one so severe it overrides notions of due process or innocent until proven guilty.
77. Re:I thought this was known by now by EvilBudMan · 2012-03-07 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well, well.
78. Re:I thought this was known by now by arth1 · 2012-03-07 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, all you have to do is hammer a screwdriver through the platters and toss it in a dumpster.
  But why? The screwdriver should work perfectly fine afterwards, and I see no reason to get rid of it.
79. Re:I thought this was known by now by Raenex · 2012-03-07 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's the first I've seen of that. It's so fucked up and unreal, it sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie.
80. Re:I thought this was known by now by StikyPad · 2012-03-07 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure the UK doesn't have a constitution.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
81. Re:I thought this was known by now by Loualbano2 · 2012-03-07 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  That was just one example. ISPs are also bound by law to report as well as others under state laws. Canada has a similar law.
  My point was to the poster. Not calling the cops when you find CP in certain situations can get you in trouble, if they find out.
82. Re:I thought this was known by now by tmosley · 2012-03-07 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  If you can't safely report it without fear of having your rights stripped from you without due process, then the people who MAKE the pornography and sometimes really, REALLY hurt or even kill the victims get off SCOT FREE. Because no-one who saw it would ever report it out of free of being crushed by the state.
83. Re:I thought this was known by now by tmosley · 2012-03-07 09:46 · Score: 2
  
  Their laws are worded pretty vaguely. Here is the statute you are talking about:
  
  "Bork bork bork, bork bork bork bork. Bork bork; bork bork bork. Bork bork bork bork bork bork."
84. Re:I thought this was known by now by tmosley · 2012-03-07 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
  
  I guess that's out the window these days.
85. Re:I thought this was known by now by budgenator · 2012-03-07 09:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Depends on whether the teenager distributing the child pornographic images of themselves are prosecuted as an adult or not.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
86. Re:I thought this was known by now by Totenglocke · 2012-03-07 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  The basis for this story is the man's own testimony. Why should we believe him?
  And given the countless number of stories each year of police abusing power, framing people, and committing other crimes, why the hell should we believe the police? This man has no record of bad behavior - the police do.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
87. Re:I thought this was known by now by Totenglocke · 2012-03-07 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  As long as you don't have to pay child support (hah!, yea right!) then I'd totally take not being allowed to go near the kids.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
88. Re:I thought this was known by now by jedidiah · 2012-03-07 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Remove drive.
  Disassemble drive.
  Dispose of platters separately.
  Keep a low profile.
  Don't paint a target on your forehead.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
89. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  That is an accurate summery here where I went to high school. My younger sister told her teacher I hit her with my fist, though that has never happened in reality. The social worker that came to talk to me about it specifically asked her questions in such a way as to trap me into saying I did it. Like the old, "How long have you been beating your wife?" I would be able to understand it better if my sister had had a bruise or something to support the idea, but she didn't.
90. Re:I thought this was known by now by ArsonSmith · 2012-03-07 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  prosecuted as adult than photographed as adult. It's got to be consistent right?
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
91. Re:I thought this was known by now by isorox · 2012-03-07 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sounds pretty dumb if no-one had actually noticed that a getaway had ever taken place.
  Here's a hypothetical
  1) Man collects child porn, or just browses occasionally
  2) Wife finds out
  3) Man denies all knowledge - "it just appeared there, someone must have broken into my computer"
  4) Wife doesn't believe him
  5) Man reports it to the police to prove how serious he is
  6) Police and social workers see right through it, but lack concrete evidence
  7) We get to this situation
  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a theory that fits the (very few) facts that have been reported.
92. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, what a dumbass that Birkenfield guy is. He actually quit a good paying job in nice, scenic Switzerland to go back to the US and blow the whistle on them for violating an agreement with the IRS? What did he think would happen? Where on earth did he ever get the idea that the US Government is the "good guys"?
93. Re:I thought this was known by now by Rene+S.+Hollan · 2012-03-07 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  No! In the cases that were prosecuted the individuals were prosecuted as adults photographing themselves as children.
  "Prosecuted as an adult" as nothing to do with age and everything to do with the severity of the crime and degree of understanding of the child.
  
  --
  In Liberty, Rene
94. Re:I thought this was known by now by isorox · 2012-03-07 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  In Sweden it is crime watching adult or cartoon porn, if the person portrayed appears to under 18 or is supposed to be under 18. Sweden is not exactly known for its sanity in sexual crime laws.
  Lisa Simpson is over 18 now. Which is a good job, as I'm sure people in Sweden have seen the London 2012 logo.
95. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why would his wife suggest he report it, instead of either calling the cops herself to get him in trouble, or telling him to delete it? Is he just a big moron and his wife knew him reporting it would cause him to be arrested, and she used his idiocy against him?
  If the two of them were working together, why wouldn't they just delete it?
96. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, welcome to the brilliance of "zero tolerance" laws. You gotta love how smart our leaders are when they invent these laws that never actually work as planned or claimed.
97. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  You gotta love how Western countries claim to be more advanced and enlightened than Islamic countries, yet they're really just as bad.
98. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  That would be a stupid and wasteful thing to do, especially now that hard drives are in short supply (though this is getting better now). Don't destroy a perfectly good HD. Just use a "wipe" program. It's not like the authorities are going to be busting through your door within 10 minutes.
  Besides, your "destruction" of the HD isn't going to erase the data. If the authorities know you have CP on there, they can retrieve that data; there's labs that specialize in retrieving data from damaged hard drives. They can even take the platters out and salvage data directly from them. Unless you're going to shoot the HD with your .308 rifle in the back yard (which is still questionable, they might even be able to retrieve data from platters with holes in them), you're safer just using a wiping program to securely delete the data. Once those sectors have been overwritten several times with other data, there's no way anyone can retrieve the CP.
99. Re:I thought this was known by now by artor3 · 2012-03-07 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  You don't know if the getaway was noted, and if you wait until the police are knocking on your door to report the car stolen, then they're not going to believe you. The smart thing to do is report it after a realistic amount of time, and to have ditched it somewhere, with the ignition tampered with, stuff "stolen" out of it, and surfaces wiped of fingerprints. Perhaps the smarter thing would be to steal someone else's car for the getaway, though that risks them reporting it before the getaway is complete.
100. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Be careful throwing around phrases like "That is a fact", because you could very well be wrong. What you're saying is probably true in your jurisdiction, but legal things like this vary significantly from State to State and nation to nation. TFA was about a case in the UK, where laws are very different from the US in many ways (e.g. innocent until proven guilty), but even here in the US, things can vary wildly from state to state. Your statements might be true for most of the US, I don't know, but there's always some states that do things differently. Just look at how weird Louisiana is with their civil law.
101. Re:I thought this was known by now by wisty · 2012-03-07 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, if he's not found guilty, why punish him?
  I though it was established in the Magna Carta that you can't punish someone unless they are found guilty by a jury of their peers. If social services has any dirt, they should take him to court.
102. Re:I thought this was known by now by hoppo · 2012-03-07 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  If it makes you feel any better, the bureaucrat is most likely overpaid, not underpaid.
103. Re:I thought this was known by now by John+Jorsett · 2012-03-07 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Be careful.
  From: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C110.txt
  -HEAD-
  Sec. 2258. Failure to report child abuse
  -STATUTE-
  A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.
  So if you're working on a machine, see CP and don't report it, you are on the hook.
  The Los Angeles School District will be a good test of this statute. It's coming out that numerous parents of children in the Miramonte Elementary School reported highly questionable behavior on the part of some teachers and were waved off with no investigation being conducted. Then it turns out years later that those teachers are pervy child abusers. Whoever ignored those reports SHOULD be going to prison. Let's see if that happens.
104. Re:I thought this was known by now by Hognoxious · 2012-03-07 10:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Social Services isn't bound by 'innocent until proven guilty'. Their mandate is, 'Protect the child at all costs'
  Unless the parents are ethnics.
  Female circumcision: Who are we to judge other cultures' traditions?
  Death during exorcism: can we prove, with our racist western so-called science that there is no such thing as witchcraft?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
105. Re:I thought this was known by now by Pax681 · 2012-03-07 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  my friend has a son woth ADHD and ODD and also a daughter with no such afflictions.
  two months ago the son, who is probe to violent outburts, grabbed the girl by the throat. this marked her.
  when the little girl went to school and when asked she said her mother did it. the school reported it to social services as it's their duty to do so.
  The girl said her mother did it as she is pretty scared of her brother
  social services were called in and the kids were taken off my friend overnight while further inquiries were made.
  Whilst being questioned further by social services the little girl admitted it was her brother and it *kind of* calmed down
  BUT.. a child protection order was placed on both children and a social worker... who to be honest is quite a clueless tit for a social worker, meets with them once a week
  this will go on for another 4 months
  it put a lot of stress on everyone involved, especially the kids who both just wanted their mother.
  now the lad is on day and night medication which has worked fucking wonders on him... Ritalin by day and something called melatonin by night.
  the difference is night and day and this fucking social worker said and i quote "these won't help him, they will just mask the problem not treat it"
  and this guy is meant to be knowledgeable of his subject at work? .. what a tit.....
  however there are many professions/organisations that are obligated to report any such matters to social services/police if they suspect something is wrong.
  This occurred in the UK(Nottingham)
106. Re:I thought this was known by now by Hognoxious · 2012-03-07 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  I once clicked a link that said it led to a perl tutorial.
  There was a video of some guy with a quiff singing. Horrid stuff.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
107. Re:I thought this was known by now by Pax681 · 2012-03-07 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  So why even bother with courts and trials? If the police suspect someone is guilty, we should immediately start procedures to protect everyone else from that dangerous person! Presumption of innocence? System of laws? Why bother?
  oddly i can relate another story relevant
  my mate iun Newcastle in England is suffering from depression and has been for a while. he went to his doctor as a supervisor at work is always giving him grief so his GP refered him to a mental health clinic whee he was asked to "vent" and get his frustrations out in a session with them.
  And being a Geordie he went with "venting" with great gusto... he refered to the supervisor at work with many colourful terms and said the fateful words "i'd love to kill the fucker"
  now knowing the guy as well as i do, i can genuinely say that he was just letting off steam and actually mean to physical harm of malice by it
  However the clinic phoned the POLICE adn they were waiting for him as he got off the bus on his way back home. they arrested him and he was charged under section 5(where they can arrest you for an offensive t-shirt) and without any court appearance was fined back at the station to the tune of £80 GBP.
  no judge.. no jury.. just the police deciding he was guilty and fining him.
  basically a thought cr4ime really!
  he is appealing against this with assistance from his doctor and others to get this overturned...
108. Re:I thought this was known by now by ohnocitizen · 2012-03-07 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  ...Except in this very specific instance.
109. Re:I thought this was known by now by Hognoxious · 2012-03-07 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure it has two. It has the one that dumb fat fucks are unaware of because we never felt the need to write it all up on a single piece of dead goat and make a big song and dance about it.
  Even if that didn't exist, there's the ECoHR, which amounts to the same thing, except it's run by Belgians.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
110. Re:I thought this was known by now by chrismcb · 2012-03-07 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  WOW. So you think it is ok for someone who isn't the police to take the guys daughter away, because someone else might have put child porn on his computer? No arrests or charges were made, so the police seem to think "it isn't the case." Yet it is still ok for social services to claim he should have no contact with his own child, or any other child?
  How long should we wait and see? He called police in November. Yes, the police claim it may take them a year to process the laptop, but seriously, 4-5 months isn't long enough?
  It is people like you that make us lose our rights.
111. Re:I thought this was known by now by LocalH · 2012-03-07 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't get the impression that the reference to "four months" was as if it was the length of the "sentence", but rather that he had not been alone with his daughter in the last four months.
  
  --
  FC Closer
112. Re:I thought this was known by now by samboneym · 2012-03-07 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds pretty dumb if no-one had actually noticed that a getaway had ever taken place.
  Here's a hypothetical
  1) Man collects child porn, or just browses occasionally
  2) Wife finds out
  3) Man denies all knowledge - "it just appeared there, someone must have broken into my computer"
  4) Wife doesn't believe him
  5) Man reports it to the police to prove how serious he is
  6) Police and social workers see right through it, but lack concrete evidence
  7) We get to this situation
  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a theory that fits the (very few) facts that have been reported.
  The problem with your scenario is in step 6.
  If they lack concrete evidence then there is no reason for them to take steps against him since he is still innocent.
  As far as I'm aware, even in the UK people are not supposed to be summarily punished until proven guilty.
113. Re:I thought this was known by now by Phrogman · 2012-03-07 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  There's gotta be a good pun about "Penn State" and the "State Pen" in there somewhere but I am insufficiently caffeinated at the moment...
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
114. Re:I thought this was known by now by Ritchie70 · 2012-03-07 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  There are similar state laws as well. Based on a quick glance this appears to be similar to the Illinois one, which defines mandatory reporters as people in a variety of professions that work with children. The professions are enumerated in the Illinois law - medical personnel, teachers, day care workers, etc.
  The Illinois law also mandates training in this law for such people.
  If you aren't in a job defined as a mandatory reporter, you aren't required to report child abuse. Based on my mom's description of interactions with Illinois DCFS, they won't typically accept reports of certain types of abuse except from a subgroup of the mandatory reporters - for example, a report of mental abuse will be accepted from a doctor, but not necessarily a day care worker.
  
  --
  The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
115. Re:I thought this was known by now by bratwiz · 2012-03-07 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Anybody notice the initials for "Social Services" is "SS" ??
116. Re:I thought this was known by now by Em+Adespoton · 2012-03-07 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  He should have used a common expression and just told him to stick it in a pipe and smoke it.
117. Re:I thought this was known by now by Em+Adespoton · 2012-03-07 13:07 · Score: 2
  
  If you need to report CP, the best solution is to report it to a private agency that is required to report it to the authorities. Such private agencies include lawyers, your anti-virus/anti-spam software company, other computer security firms, and other agencies with professional ties (doctors, engineers, priests, ombudsmen, etc.). Make sure it's someone you trust and have a working relationship with, however.
  This way, there's some level of credibility between you and the report, and the private agency can still testify that you reported it to them, as opposed to them finding it on your system. When things are done this way, the authorities generally investigate the full path to the CP's origin as opposed to the person/organisation reporting it.
118. Re:I thought this was known by now by bratwiz · 2012-03-07 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  If anybody was *actually* "thinking of the children", TV woudn't be pushing every sugar-coated substance known to mankind on kids and supermarkets wouldn't have candy stacked alongside every checkout lane. The penalty for speeding in a school zone or past a stopped school bus with the STOP sign out would be death, and the penalty for marketing alcohol and cigarettes to children would be slow castration followed by death by flogging with a limp noodle. Schools would be masterfully constructed and meticulously maintained and filled with current, relevant and up-to-date books, and the very best teachers receiving a rock star's pay. Families with children wouldn't have to work two, three or more jobs just to barely make ends meet and scrape by, and health insurance wouldn't cost a fucking fortune. School lunches would be healthy and not full of junk. The vending machines in the hallways would be full of milk and fruit juices instead of syrupy sweet coca colas and other sugary drinks. McDonald's would not be allowed anywhere near a school zone, much less opening a kiosk inside the cafeteria. Anyone caught selling drugs to a child or near a school would be summarily squished flat by a large steam roller.
  But of course, nobody's *actually* "thinking of the children", but rather the power and residual monetary benefits they can grab by in their name.
119. Re:I thought this was known by now by Fjandr · 2012-03-07 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, unfortunately when the SS become involved you no longer have any rights.
120. Re:I thought this was known by now by unitron · 2012-03-07 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad football coach isn't one of those professions.
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
121. Re:I thought this was known by now by Totenglocke · 2012-03-07 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, foolish old documents mean nothing! Everyone now is a criminal and is guilty until they can pay a large enough bribe to be declared innocent.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
122. Re:I thought this was known by now by Locutus · 2012-03-07 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  so exactly where does their authority come from if it's not the legal system( including law enforcement )?
  
  and if they do not adhere to the same rules of law as the law enforcement, can they use law enforcement to enforce their rules? ie have the Police help them take children away from their parents.
  
  Sounds like quite the strange setup to me.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
123. Re:I thought this was known by now by jeff4747 · 2012-03-07 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think a better solution is to put a 5-year expiration date on all laws.
  Keeps legislatures busy re-passing the laws against murder and such.
  Also has a natural way for outdated laws to go away without requiring cowardly legislators to stand up and do it. "What do you mean you want to repeal the law against sodomy?! What kind of sexual deviant are you?!?!"
124. Re:I thought this was known by now by Thing+1 · 2012-03-07 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  I had intended to post only that you're absolutely right; bearing a child does not destroy all critical thinking faculties. Then I saw how your comment nicely flowed into your signature, so I'm posting two thanks. :)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
125. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  For some reason, I was always taught growing up that it was guilty until proven innocent in the UK, though the wikipedia page about presumption of innocence doesn't say anything about that (except for the case where a defendant refuses to provide the key to encrypted material, which wasn't an issue when I was younger).
126. Re:I thought this was known by now by misexistentialist · 2012-03-07 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Happens to men all the time when they get divorced
127. Re:I thought this was known by now by spasm · 2012-03-07 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  The local Mr Plod can barely operate their own laptops. And certainly don't have the fiscal resources to go sending a HDD I opened and hit with a hammer a few times to the NSA to try and salvage data from - I'd pretty much have to fly a plane into a building to get that kind of attention. I agree with you though that running dban or something similar is more than enough. I think I'd personally just be so horrified to find CP on a device I owned that physical removal of the storage medium would feel cleansing in some way. After I'd done some forensics on the removed, offline drive to work out how the hell it had wound up there in the first place..
128. Re:I thought this was known by now by stephanruby · 2012-03-07 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  There is a chance, I couldn't guess on odds, that the guy had looked at child pornography and was concerned his details may have gotten to the police.
  In my opinion, there is a higher chance that the child services worker, or that the police officer who tagged along, wanted to punish the guy for being a snitch. Police officers generally don't want to take police reports. In our society, we tend to punish the messenger. And police officers get punished all the time for taking in accurate crime reports that may tarnish their overall crime statistics.
  And the other option is that the child services worker is a child abuser him/herself. It is often that child abusers are attracted to positions of authority. And whether they be Catholic priests or Irish nuns or football coaches, those in position of authority will often protect each others' back when they've been doing the same thing themselves.
129. Re:I thought this was known by now by Waccoon · 2012-03-07 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately many law enforcement agents would rather go after a whistle blower, who may be easier to prosecute, then build up a case against the real criminals.
  I learned that lesson while dealing with bullies in elementary school.
  It's kind of sad that learning not to trust "authority figures" was one of the most valuable things I remember from public education. But, that's human nature for you.
130. Re:I thought this was known by now by shiftless · 2012-03-07 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  If you killed someone in your house and not alert authorities, then you are probably a murderer.
  Of course the police are going to question you because there is a dead guy in your house that was shot and killed by you. Call the police, but don't talk without a lawyer.
  What if the room where the armed robbery occurred is is filled with marijuana plants, ballasts, and bulbs, and soil?
131. Re:I thought this was known by now by LQ · 2012-03-07 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hypothesis: his wife caught him with it. He claims that he accidentally downloaded it instead of some music.
  According to TFA, on discovering the images he discussed the situation with his wife and immediately called police to report the incident. The police took the laptop to investigate the source but didn't charge him then social workers waded in with their usual hysterical over-reaction.
132. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 22:23 · Score: 2
  
  Kids get injured at foster care, or abused at foster care, or even molested at foster care? Too bad. No apology, no recourse,
  Utter bullshit. Do you think foster carers are given some sort of immunity from prosecution? You have no idea what you're talking about.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
133. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Most people who are convicted of criminal offences have committed the traditional crimes of assault, robbery, murder, kidnapping, extortion, rape or whatever.
  
  The idea that the courts are there to inventy new laws to ensnare innocent citizens is just pure Randian guff.
  
  The whole topic of drug-related laws/crimes is something else again
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
134. Re:I thought this was known by now by xenobyte · 2012-03-07 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  now the lad is on day and night medication which has worked fucking wonders on him... Ritalin by day and something called melatonin by night.
  You never mention the age of the kid and thus weather he can be prosecuted. In my opinion these afflictions has been severely abused as an excuse for not prosecuting offenders. This is wrong on every level. They need to to be prosecuted and we need to make it clear that if you are suffering from something that make you dangerous to others you must be medicated to such an extent as to eliminate the danger to others. If this isn't possible (sometimes the medication have little or no effect - indicating that it's really a different affliction masquerading as ADHD) the only acceptable solution is the remove the dangerous from the general public, i.e. lock him/her up in a mental institution.
  Basically it comes down to this: If someone attacks you with violence, you'd expect the same punishment regardless of the reason behind the attack. Mental problems should not change the punishment except for where time is to be served. In my opinion, known mental problems should increase the severity of the punishment if the defendant has failed to use the prescribed medication or similar. If someone is a danger to others and cannot be reliably medicated, the only solution is a straitjacket in a padded cell indefinitely.
  Oh, and I hinted as this above... The diagnosis of ADHD is *severely* abused these days. Unless we're seeing an epidemic during the past decade, a lot of people is being diagnosed with this in error. The number of people with diagnosis has exploded and it makes no sense. It seems like all behavioral problems are symptoms of ADHD these days. A growing number of doctors are questioning this development and estimate that less than 1% of the people with a ADHD diagnosis actually suffer from anything except bad parenting or similar. It is the impulse control aspect that's the most mis-diagnosed part. Just because someone easily gets very upset and perhaps violent doesn't mean that this person has ADHD.
  Often it's just a bad temper combined with a lack of social limits. As a child I used to be very hot headed with a nasty temper for instance, but a person in my daycare caught this early and through simple talks with or without parents instilled the limits I needed and I've never since been truly angry (throwing things, hitting people etc.) and I don't even get upset much at all these days. But had I been a child today I'd have been medicated out of my mind, despite it obviously not being necessary.
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
135. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  I agree,. There's nothing to be gained from alerting any athorities about anything, ever. I don't see anyway of not doing this if you kill a home intruder, just be prepared for a lengthy intrusion in your life, even if you are found not guilty of murder, which a prosecutor is sure to do regardless of the circumstances. Oh- woe to you if you have a past criminal record then find yourself in completely innocent circumstances.
  My God, how dare the prosecutor's interfere with your right to murder another human being without explanation.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
136. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Hull is under federal jurisdiction.
  I'm quite impressed there's someone in Hull who has a computer, presumably it fell off the back of a lorry heading towards civilization.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
137. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  If the police wanted to frame him, they did a shit job of it as he hasn't been charged with anything.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
138. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  And the problem is that almost everyone caught with child porn uses the "it downloaded itself from the internet and I never even knew it was there" defence.
  
  It's either that or the Pete Townsend/Chris Langham "I was just doing research into paedophiles and had to force myself to watch these disgusting images" defence.
  
  So the police are going to be fairly cynical, although I imagine someone turning over the evidence off their own bat is pretty unusual.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
139. Re:I thought this was known by now by foksoft · 2012-03-08 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, because filming/distributing/watching porn with adults is not a crime. While porn with child is treated quite differently.
  But I still don't get why he was banned from seeing his child when there is no accusation against him. Or is there something missing from the article?
140. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  All that said, this is definitely not the only scenario where a suspect loses their liberty or other rights well before any convictions of a crime. Any person who spends the night in jail after an arrest, waiting to sober up, or for the clerks to finish the booking paperwork knows this well. Sure, it can be obvious that you're drunk, but are they guilty yet? Of course not. Much as we like to say "innocent until proven guilty" there is a VAST number of situations where "presumed innocent" has nothing to do with "free to go about their normal business".
  If you are arrested for anything and spend any time in jail/custody, you are still innocent until found guilty by a court. If the police arrest you and bring you in for questioning you are not free to go about your normal business, even though you have not been found guilty of anything.
  
  Your comment makes no sense.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
141. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather be arrested than be legally barred from being alone with my children. I can't even appreciate why this was done. If someone was found to be looking at adult porn, would you forbid them from being alone with adult women? What about their adult offspring?
  Looking at adult porn isn't illegal, genius.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
142. Re:I thought this was known by now by interval1066 · 2012-03-08 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  The law in my state is very clear on home intrusion. Yes, I would consider a prosecutor's mucking with the clear evidence of that a problem, with an expectation of complication, as that law is written. If I am allowed to defend myself in my own home expect to excersise that right without years of hassle from prosecutors making spend my life savings defending my self from bogus accusations. People accuse people of crimes, that's the nature of crime and punishement in english common law. The accused is accused by a third party, there's a clear chain of culpability. How clear is it when a man points to a problem, and says "Here is". Just as clear as far as can see. But NOT to the court. Why? Automatic processes out of the control of ordinary people, or even those in charge. Its the nature of government. Now; look at a father's SHOWING that there is a clear violation of statuate that he didn't create, but their removal of his custodial rights to HIS child pursuiant to some PERCIEVED illegalty based on that erroneous presumption and a clear PROBLEM with the system. Ot are you going to argue some angle that makes taking the man's daughter away by the state reasonable? I see that if I kill a home intruder is going to cause some paperwork. The problem is the unforseen consequences the state machine doesn't have code for. I have a problem with that. I'm happy to notice that you can rest easy at night knowing that big brother is looking after you, however.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
143. Re:I thought this was known by now by Pax681 · 2012-03-08 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  holy hell... the boy , who is TEN by the way, most definitely has ADHD and ODD and is going to a specialist school starting from two weeks time.
  his diagnosis is 100% correct, his mother is a GREAT mother and has to work with him every day.
  
  the medication change has worked wonders on the lad. to be quite frank your pompous presumption that he isn't a genuine case along with your "lick them away" attitude truly sucks,. This is not simply a bad tempered bratty child, this is a 10 year old kid with not one , but a double whammy of TWO conditions that affect his behaviour
  don't judge everyone by your standards or by your case history.
  having said that, your opinion that people with mental illness/medical conditions that affect behaviour should be more severely punished speaks, volumes about you to be frank. it pretty much seems a case of "out of site ,out of mind".
  
  he is just a wee boy who has two conditions that affect his behaviour and now his treatment WORKS and he'll be going to a fantastic specialist school where the teacher/pupil ratio is 1 teacher to 6 pupils and he'll get a lot of help besides.
  anyways, here's hoping you never become a policy maker in his area then eh?
144. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, look into him. But don't take fucking 4 months to figure it out, meanwhile not allowing him to be alone with his children.
  But then if after the investigation he is charged with possessing child porn, all the Daily Mail types will be piling into social services for allowing the children to be put at risk for so long.
  
  Social services can't win. If they leave children with abusive parents and the child dies, it's their fault. If they take the child into care, they're breaking up familes, and it's their fault.
  
  Personally, I think that to default to putting the interests of children (who are in a position of little power) above adults (who can look after themselves) is the sensible one.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
145. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I can't even appreciate why this was done.
  Guilty until proven innocent. Duh. Think of teh children!
  Yeah, fancy social services (who have a duty to protect vulnerable children) acting to protect the interests of potentially vulnerable children against potential paedophiles! What's the world coming to?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
146. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  There's a non-zero possibility that the police put it there themselves or had someone do it for them. Then when you don't report it, they swoop in. Their "expert" tells the courts that you had the stuff on your machine. You go to jail.
  There's also a non-zero possibility that the police could just bring you in and plant the child porn on your computer at the police station and get their expert to verify that it was there. Or, indeed, just drag you down an alley and execute you if you're that much of an evil threat to society.
  
  There is also a non-zero possibility that you are fucking paranoid.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
147. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  the social services worker made a judgement call that there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself.
  I'm glad an underpaid bureaucrat can destroy my life and my hurt my family based on a "non-trivial chance", that's... that's just awesome.
  The reason it's a non-trivial chance is that it was found on the man's own fucking computer. If it had been on a work colleague's or something, you might have a point.
  
  People are unsurprisingly suspicious about child porn "just turning up" on someone's computer.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
148. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? I guess that's out the window these days.
  He hasn't been found guilty of any crime, therefore he is still innocent.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
149. Re:I thought this was known by now by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  I know everyone around here instantly jumps to the defense of the person conceived to be wronged...
  If you're looking for an explanation - American children are indoctrinated, beginning at an early age, to believe that all persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. What a crazy concept, huh? What's next, requiring the state to present evidence before they can convict? Where does it end??? /sarc
  Al Capone was never convicted ofbeing a gangster, they got him on tax avoidance.
  
  But I think most people would agree that he was guilty of being a gangster..
  
  So, no, I don't see why it is a good thing to automatically jump to the defence of someone accused or suspected of a crime.
  
  It's just another example of the libertarian viewpoint that anything done by the State is assumed to be evil, and that therefore the "little guy" must be right.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
150. Re:I thought this was known by now by dkf · 2012-03-08 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure the UK doesn't have a constitution.
  It does, but not a consolidated one like the US has and constitutionality is genuinely a matter for experts only.
  That said, one of the general requirements on the authorities (including both the police and social services) is that the actions they take are proportionate to the type of risk that they are intended to prevent. This is a very far-reaching principle that enormously constrains the power of the state to act in an arbitrary fashion. I believe there's also a right for action to be taken reasonably promptly; dragging things out leaves the state open to having to pay compensation (plus the legal costs of the challenge; UK courts usually award costs provided those costs are themselves reasonable and proportionate). That all adds up to the authorities having to be able to show that this was the right action to take (given the facts, which we don't have) and to having to get on with the investigation or drop the order.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
151. Re:I thought this was known by now by jamstar7 · 2012-03-08 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Kids get injured at foster care, or abused at foster care, or even molested at foster care? Too bad. No apology, no recourse,
  Utter bullshit. Do you think foster carers are given some sort of immunity from prosecution? You have no idea what you're talking about.
  The agency is unprosecutable, not the caregivers. The 'caregivers' are just civilians, they can be sued, you can't touch the agency involved.
  
  Problem is, trying to see your kids outside of supervised visitation is a crime and can lead to the kids being permenantly taken away as well as some jail time/fines/the usual 'punishment'. This includes showing up at your kids' school to ask them why they have now casts on both legs & how it happened. The agencies don't want you to know the names of the 'caregivers', or any info about them, on the off chance that you'll 'kidnap' your own kids and take off. Getting ahold of that info after the kids have been returned is difficult and expensive. You'll need a lawyer, many many many subpoenas. They won't give you that information until the kids are returned. The agency will fight you every step of the way to cover its own ass.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
152. Re:I thought this was known by now by X0563511 · 2012-03-08 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think the real solution is to take whatever action you're supposed to... and not take half a damn year to figure it out. If it takes 4 months to figure out if that child porn was his or not... then you're doing something seriously wrong.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
153. Re:I thought this was known by now by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-03-08 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Slow down there, turbo. I'm pretty sure you just said the same thing I did. If you get hauled downtown by the coppers, they can keep you while they perform their initial investigation. If you are seen as a potential danger to the public or are a flight risk, they can even keep you until your initial arraignment and beyond, and this happens a lot, especially in violent or sexual crimes. They can even post your mugshot in "busted" the very day of your arrest.
154. Re:I thought this was known by now by Grishnakh · 2012-03-08 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  What the fuck is wrong with you? How the hell is keeping him from his children "not a form of punishment"?
  How about we keep you from ever visiting any of your family members again, as long as you live, and see if you don't find that to be a form of punishment?
155. Re:I thought this was known by now by tmosley · 2012-03-08 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Innocent men are punished just the same as the guilty, then.
156. Re:I thought this was known by now by RussellSHarris · 2012-03-08 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'd also like to point out, this case has absolutely nothing to do with 'child porn'. JUST PORN.
  No, I'm afraid you're wrong. Hey, if the correlation between "child abuse images" and "pornographic images" in the BBC's report was a little bit too obscure for you to catch, perhaps you'd be better off at the Daily Mail. Here:
  
  A father has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter after telling police he accidentally accessed child porn ... he was trying to download an album by the rock guitarist Slash from a file-sharing website ... When he opened the folder of files he had downloaded, which he says he believed contained music, he found files with girls' names.
  'When I opened some of them up, I realised they were young girls,' he said.
157. Re:I thought this was known by now by RussellSHarris · 2012-03-08 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  If you read some other sources, you find that apparently the guy found a torrent which was labeled with an album name, downloaded it, and then discovered that the files inside it were actually CP.
  That much should be easily enough verifiable (by the police, obviously). We can assume he knows what the name of the torrent file was; in fact he probably still has it. It would be trivial for their forensics lab to fire up a copy of uTorrent and determine whether or not the torrent contained those files.
  If so, I consider it a pretty much open and shut case: Unless there is evidence elsewhere on his computer that he actually searched for this sort of stuff - and it shouldn't take very long to determine this - it is fairly evident that it was a mislabelled torrent file. It's pretty obvious that he didn't know what it contained until he opened the folder (yes, I realize that many torrent trackers will list the files inside a torrent, but if there's no evidence that he downloaded this sort of thing regularly, there's no reason to suspect that he checked the files until after he downloaded them).
  If anything, the authorities should be going after the other downloaders/seeders in the torrent's IP cloud right now, instead of hassling the guy who reported it.
  Although, it's also pretty obvious that he was very stupid to report this the way he did. The proper thing to do would have been to anonymously submit the torrent's hash and/or the URL of the page where he found the torrent to a cyber-crimes tip line. Meanwhile, delete the torrent and files, scrub his drive, and hope they never come after him.
158. Re:I thought this was known by now by julesh · 2012-03-08 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Kids get injured at foster care, or abused at foster care, or even molested at foster care? Too bad. No apology, no recourse,
  Utter bullshit. Do you think foster carers are given some sort of immunity from prosecution? You have no idea what you're talking about.
  No, but that's a police matter, not social services. As far as social services is concerned, the still did their job.
159. Re:I thought this was known by now by AlongForTheRide · 2012-03-08 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  So if you're working on a machine, see CP and don't report it, you are on the hook.
  Only if you work for the government and it happens on government property or in a government facility:
  
  A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility
  
  (Emphasis mine)
  Those definitions are quite important. Although, I admit, I don't know what subsection (b) or (c) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 says. Maybe they do say 'anyone, anywhere'. I'm just going off of what's reproduced here. Cheers!
160. Re:I thought this was known by now by julesh · 2012-03-08 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Gary McKinnon didn't think Glasgow was under federal jursidiction, either.
161. Re:I thought this was known by now by julesh · 2012-03-08 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  The basis for this story is the man's own testimony. Why should we believe him?
  Have you spent any time using the file sharing networks that don't rely on web sites with verified links to content? Prior to switching to bittorrent, I on many occasions downloaded a file that appeared to be perfectly innocent content and discovered it to be porn. I don't usually look too hard, so I have no idea if any of it was child porn, but it seems likely that at least some was.
  Unless there is more evidence against him than has been revealed, I see no reason to doubt his story. It is perfectly credible, and probably happens to hundreds of people per day. Of course, there may well be evidence we are not aware of; we have only been given his side of the story, as agencies like social services in the UK have strict policies of not discussing individual cases with the press. Only if and when it comes to court will we hear their side.
162. Re:I thought this was known by now by julesh · 2012-03-08 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the thing: I've never once downloaded an MP3 from amazon, or itunes, or emusic, or an independent artist's distribution site, and ended up with child pornography. So I naturally find the claim of "I thought I was downloading music, but turns out it was pictures and video of a 6 year old being raped," to be a little hard to swallow.
  I've ended up with porn while attempting to download music from Gnutella, Fasttrack, and eDonkey2000. I don't believe using either of these three systems constitutes grounds to have your children taken away from you.
163. Re:I thought this was known by now by julesh · 2012-03-08 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure the UK doesn't have a constitution.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
  That it doesn't consist of a single document does not mean it does not exist.
164. Re:I thought this was known by now by Coren22 · 2012-03-08 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  What would be your reply if instead they didn't do this, and he abused his daughter in this time? To social workers (in the US at least, can't speak for UK) it is better to separate the kids from their parents temporarily while the issue is investigated than for the child to be hurt because they didn't. I know I would be hurt by having my kids taken away (I'm a single male parent), but I would rather that happened than to hear about a child being hurt by their own parent and being screwed up for life. You have to balance the harm, and on the state's scales, preventing a bad situation that is possible is a better outcome.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
165. Re:I thought this was known by now by s0nicfreak · 2012-03-09 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  You must not have kids, then.
166. Re:I thought this was known by now by s0nicfreak · 2012-03-09 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  By that logic you should keep every single person from being alone with their kids.
167. Re:I thought this was known by now by s0nicfreak · 2012-03-09 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no shit. I'd say "why?" but I don't want to get into an argument about why viewing (it's understandable that making cp is illegal) adult porn is legal while child pron isn't and the advantages/disadvantages of making it legal.
  
  Let's say he looked at a video of an adult rape. Would you say he should then be kept away from all adults?
168. Re:I thought this was known by now by s0nicfreak · 2012-03-09 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  So if he robbed a store, would the reaction be to ban him from being alone with his child? No; so it isn't simply that watching child porn is illegal.
169. Re:I thought this was known by now by s0nicfreak · 2012-03-09 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Watching CP does not mean you will molest your own child any more than watching adult porn means you will rape your adult offspring. Social services should put their resources toward helping children that are actually being harmed rather than on the pedophile witch hunt.
170. Re:I thought this was known by now by Totenglocke · 2012-03-10 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, I've been bright enough not to knock up a girl and wreck my life. One of these days in the near future I'm going to go to the vet and get snipped and make sure that disaster never happens.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
171. Re:I thought this was known by now by wwphx · 2012-03-11 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I was working for a police department in computer services and had bought a condo. The previous occupants didn't take much more than clothes and electronics when they left, and I was stuck with a month-long cleanup. I came across a tiny baggy of pot, wouldn't have even made a joint, so I tossed it. Then I came across a baggie with several ounces of a white crystalline substance. I knew that he/they'd made bathtub meth, so I called the cops and had them come and pick it up. They did a field test, and it wasn't cocaine, so they tagged it for destruction and that was the end of that. Had it been coke, I don't think I would have had a problem as the previous occupant had spent time in prison and was a known drug offender and rumored dealer, but it probably would have cost me some time being interviewed.
  
  --
  When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
172. Re:I thought this was known by now by ArsonSmith · 2012-03-12 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  If they photographed themselves as children then they are children and should be tried as such. If they are prosecuted as adults then they are considered adults including in the photos.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
173. Re:I thought this was known by now by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-13 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think a better solution is to put a 5-year expiration date on all laws.
  On all laws?
  I don't think you'd like the results if the constitutional laws expired ... they would certainly put them back in "improved" form.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
174. Re:I thought this was known by now by Nehmo · 2012-03-13 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Utter bullshit. Do you think foster carers are given some sort of immunity from prosecution? ...
  In a way, they do. The foster people are part of the Child Protective Service (CPS) system. They are paid contractors for CPS, and CPS doesn't want them to look bad. In other words, CPS is investigating itself when it comes to investigating foster people hurting the kids CPS places in their custody.
  
  --
  (||) Nehmo (||)
175. Re:I thought this was known by now by Nehmo · 2012-03-13 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  People (in the US) who are required to report if they "reasonably suspect" "child abuse or neglect" are called "mandated reporters" in the jargon. The law defining who is a mandated reporter varies from state to state but it usually includes a long list of professions like doctors, teachers, coroners etc. (Some states [eg, FL] appended to the list the phrase "...or other person.", meaning that everyone is a mandated reporter.) But neither "child abuse or neglect" nor "reasonably suspect" is ever clearly defined, and people aren't really prosecuted under these laws.
  In any case, criminal child abuse is legally substantially different than social service civil child abuse (I know, it doesn't make sense). In felony criminal abuse or any felony, not reporting it is misprisioning a felony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony, which is usually a crime in the US. Ric Werm has a site on the subject government child "protective" agencies: http://wermenh.com/dcyf.html
  
  --
  (||) Nehmo (||)
176. Re:I thought this was known by now by foksoft · 2012-03-14 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Producing, distributing and watching child porn is illegal. Period. So if you are accused of committing such crime, it could be seen as reasonable preventive action to prevent you from being alone with child. Any child. In your original post you mentioned sex with adults and that was thing I was mainly reacting at. It is not crime to watch porn with adults and adults only. However this guy was not arrested and even accused of any crime by police. And this is weird in this case. He has been banned from seeing his child only based on request of some people from child protective services.
177. Re:I thought this was known by now by s0nicfreak · 2012-03-15 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  So if you are accused of committing such crime, it could be seen as reasonable preventive action to prevent you from being alone with child. Any child.
  No, that could not be seen as reasonable at all. It is done, sure. But the only way I see it is as a pedophile-witch hunt, "forget human rights, think of the children!" bullshit reaction.
  
  Robbing a store is illegal, period. So if the man were accused of robbing a store, would it be a reasonable reaction to no longer allow him to be alone with a child? Would it be a reasonable reaction to no longer allow the man to go to stores alone?
I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

And I'll say it again. Never, ever, under any circumstances, contact the police unless your life is in danger and they are your only hope. NEVER

You will only end up much worse off than you were before you called them.
1. Re:I've said it before... by amiga3D · 2012-03-07 06:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'd say never contact them no matter what. Better to die.
2. Re:I've said it before... by Fallingcow · 2012-03-07 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yep. Call them only if:
  1) You can accept that someone will be arrested, and
  2) The situation is so bad that you don't mind if that someone is you
  If being arrested isn't better than whatever's happening, don't call them. Period.
3. Re:I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent....more insightful..
  And if you are not sure, watch this...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
4. Re:I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Probably. They might run out of leads and try to pin it on you.
5. Re:I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, unless you want to be investigated for the murder of your neighbor.
6. Re:I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A man who turns to the law grabs a wolf by the ears.
7. Re:I've said it before... by Surt · 2012-03-07 07:02 · Score: 2
  
  If you don't want to be arrested for murdering your neighbor, yes.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
8. Re:I've said it before... by marcello_dl · 2012-03-07 07:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  At first sight, this behaviour from the police is self detrimental, because people who report stuff are useful and alienating them makes criminals safer.
  In truth this behaviour maximises the control of police over both people and their own work. Over people, because those who didn't report and are later discovered become automatically suspects, so they can be threatened. Over their own work, because nobody can accuse them of failing to investigate or succeed in their investigation after a report, if nobody reports.
  If you expect people in power finding ways to maximise control, no matter under what flag, religion, or ideology, you usually explain things better than the theory that incompetence reigns over c.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
9. Re:I've said it before... by marcello_dl · 2012-03-07 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  ..ommon sense.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
10. Re:I've said it before... by Compaqt · 2012-03-07 07:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah, you beat me to it.
  For those who haven't seen it:
  Don't Talk to the Police
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
11. Re:I've said it before... by networkBoy · 2012-03-07 07:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sadly this is true.
  We were broken into, lived in a seedy part of town, called the PD.
  They showed up and saw some glassware (what most nerds would consider basic chemistry needs) and assumed I was a drug cooker.
  I had to dig out all the science kits I bought for my kids and actually show them a basic science experiment (viscoelastic fluid using cornstarch and water), which my children happily explained to them, before they would back off on their obvious intent to arrest me.
  On the bright side I think the cop that was actually paying attention actually learned that a similar fluid is responsible for his transmission's torque converter functioning properly, as well as the fan clutch for his car's radiator.
  Go figure.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
12. Re:I've said it before... by Johann+Lau · 2012-03-07 07:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah. No Valhalla for you.
13. Re:I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What screwed up country do you life in? Arround here the police officers are actually pretty nice and helpful.
14. Re:I've said it before... by Master+Moose · 2012-03-07 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  Sometimes it is necessary to contact them for insurance purposes.
  After all, how are you going to prove to the insurance company that your car was stolen?
  
  --
  . . .gone when the morning comes
15. Re:I've said it before... by Sarten-X · 2012-03-07 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  Not to claim that I'm aware of exactly what was said or tone of voice used, but it seems a police officer, in the normal course of duty, saw something suspicious, investigated, verified the presented story, and found nothing wrong. Isn't that their job?
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
16. Re:I've said it before... by berashith · 2012-03-07 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  begin making sure to document who you were with at that time. I once spent hours under questioning as the defense of " i fell asleep watching tv, and I have no idea what you are talking about" was very hard to prove since I was the only one home at the time.
  your situation will require you to know how those were gunshots (not any other type of noise), why you think it was a stranger ( how nosy are you, are you interested in your neighbors lives and property) , what car, and also provide physical evidence of the stranger and the car you observed. It is gonna be a long night.
17. Re:I've said it before... by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-03-07 07:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Try reporting something to them like finding child pornography on your computer and see what happens.
18. Re:I've said it before... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  This was my thought too. Even worse, if it was a set-up then the police would certainly come knocking one day and find you'd destroyed the evidence which looks pretty bad. Still, I probably wouldn't have called the police myself.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
19. Re:I've said it before... by Moses48 · 2012-03-07 07:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is that so many things are suspicious to the superstitious and uninformed. Your arduino board looks an awfully lot like a bomb to some laman. I mean there are wires and a circuit board. I saw that on NCIS once, it must be a bomb!!!
20. Re:I've said it before... by roc97007 · 2012-03-07 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd say never contact them no matter what. Better to die.
  Or, defend yourself.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
21. Re:I've said it before... by networkBoy · 2012-03-07 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  In that vein, correct 100%.
  What I didn't really elaborate on is the instant tone change both in body language and verbal word selection/tone once they saw the glassware, one of them actually lowered his hand towards his Tazer! And for the record:
  couple glass petri dishes
  box of 30CC test tubes
  assorted beakers from 250mL to 1L
  one volumetric flask (500mL)
  two 500mL Erlenmeyer flasks
  one 500mL Erlenmeyer vacuum filtering flask with glass funnel.
  two stands and assorted clamps.
  really not all that special. Not like I had a condensing head out (I keep that boxed because it is so fragile)...
  I think what set them off was the Erlenmeyer flasks. They seem to scream mad scientist to non chemistry people.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
22. Re:I've said it before... by roc97007 · 2012-03-07 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  It's not necessarily the officers. They are generally nice and helpful in my area too. I've met some real assholes downtown, but I think those are just another example of how your environment changes you.
  The point is, it's not the officers who made the decision to separate him from his daughter. That was made by a bureaucrat somewhere, probably in child protective services. The officers carry out the order because it is their job to do so and they aren't in a position to make up the law as they go along.
  That doesn't change what he said, though. Regardless of whom makes the decision, trying not to put yourself in a position where the state can screw you seems like good advice.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
23. Re:I've said it before... by beelsebob · 2012-03-07 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  Or more likely, if they investigate (which they will), discover you were in at the time, and discover that you didn't report it, they'll be extremely suspicious of what was going on.
24. Re:I've said it before... by Loosifur · 2012-03-07 07:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's a little hyperbolic, but Fallingcrow's got a point. If you're a cop and you get called to the scene of an alleged crime, you might not get a chance to arrest the suspect(s) again. So if it's not blatantly obvious that one person is the assailant and the other is the victim, for example, the SOP is to pick everybody up and sort it out later. Get all the evidence you can before it's hidden, tampered with, or otherwise compromised. It's the judge's/jury's responsibility to sort out who did what.
  So yeah, cops are great for stuff like asking for directions, or getting a homicidal lunatic to stop chasing you. Not so good for areas where you might be suspected of culpability.
  
  --
  This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
25. Re:I've said it before... by X0563511 · 2012-03-07 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  Congratulations!! You've forgotten the difference between local, state, and federal police! You've also forgotten about this wonderful thing called Jurisdiction!
  The local police that he refers to as "pretty nice and helpful" will be overridden by the assholes.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
26. Re:I've said it before... by Sarten-X · 2012-03-07 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  The Tazer bit's easy to explain, and standard protocol: Drug labs (specifically meth labs) produce fumes that make the cooks unpredictable, paranoid, and often more concerned with escape than self-preservation. If you were a cook, you could at any time decide that the best resolution was to throw said glassware at their faces and run. The Tazer's one of few things that can stop a sufficiently-crazy person. (Source: I spent a few months working with cops in a very unstable environment, culminating in a night where someone tried to steal the police chief's gun, and one of my coworkers took a fire extinguisher to the face. This was the discussion during the calm parts)
  The lab equipment is also everything except a stove needed to cook precursor compounds. Methamphetamine recipes, if my memory serves me, basically consist of "throw stuff in a pan in measured amounts, and boil off the bad parts. Sell what's left."
  The fact that you obviously know some real chemistry shows you're skilled, so if you are making illegal drugs, you'd likely have some lethal protection somewhere funded by one of the local nasties. I'd bet you scared the cops pretty well, until you spent some time showing them something kinda cool, corroborated your story, and showed a not-paranoid demeanor.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
27. Re:I've said it before... by brainzach · 2012-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  And I'll say it again. Never, ever, under any circumstances, contact the police unless your life is in danger and they are your only hope. NEVER
  Sorry, but if someone steals my car, I am calling the police.
28. Re:I've said it before... by project5117 · 2012-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. No Valhalla for you.
  You, sir/madame/or other, made my day. If I had mod points, or extra automobiles, I would bestow them, but as I do not have either, I may only provide my thanks in words.
  Thank you.
29. Re:I've said it before... by I(rispee_I(reme · 2012-03-07 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Police officers are required to enforce all the laws, not just the ones they agree with.
  Therefore, any police officer can be no better than the worst law.
30. Re:I've said it before... by justinlindh · 2012-03-07 08:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This story reminds me of something that a friend is going through at the moment. He's a recently released felon that's trying to get his life back on track, and has routine visits from his parole officer. The PO was looking through his computer's disk drive and found a file named "LICENSE.txt". He was immediately accused of creating fake driver's licenses, and had to explain in great depth that the file he'd found was a software license (just opening the file and showing the contents didn't even placate this guy).
  A few weeks later the PO came to inspect again, and found an e-book titled "Google Hacks". It's a book on optimizing search engine results/etc. The PO accused him of attempting to hack Google and left. He was placed in a halfway home 2 hours away from where he was staying for observation until they could come to a decision on what to do with his "offense". Most of the authorities involved agreed that this was an offense worthy of revoking his parole and sending him back to prison. There were gears in motion to do just that, until someone stepped in and outlined what the book actually was and how it in no way violated any conditions of his parole. They backed off on sending him back to prison, but they'd decided he should be shipped to Texas to live in a halfway house "just in case". He's OK with this, because he's legitimately scared of the vendetta that his PO has against him at this point and will be under the jurisdiction of a different one where he's being sent; though he no longer has the option to live with his family.
  Technological ignorance and fear in those with authority is a very, very scary thing.
31. Re:I've said it before... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-03-07 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's pretty ridiculous if they just assume you're probably guilty because they spot something that you may or may not be able to use for a crime.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
32. Re:I've said it before... by Tastecicles · 2012-03-07 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  fuck that. Better use the time you have left to do one of two things:
  1. fight to survive;
  2. take as many of hte bastards with you as you can!
  The police are under NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
33. Re:I've said it before... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-03-07 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  Over people, because those who didn't report and are later discovered become automatically suspects, so they can be threatened.
  Except that this demonstrates that those who do report automatically become suspects. The problem with the thinking that you are outlining (and it is common among many with power) is that while it increases the feeling/b. of power that the police have, it actually reduces their power to change people's behavior. If the police are going to treat me as guilty whenever they interact with me, than I have no reason to treat them with respect, I merely have to refrain from giving them justification to hurt me.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
34. Re:I've said it before... by izomiac · 2012-03-07 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I really hope I'm never in distress with you as the only bystander...
35. Re:I've said it before... by Brian+Feldman · 2012-03-07 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  ...and this idiot thought people synthesize drugs, a very risky crime, in such minuscule amounts?
  
  --
  Brian Fundakowski Feldman
36. Re:I've said it before... by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-03-07 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  It very much depends on what you need help with. If it's anything that may reflect poorly on you, your call should be to a lawyer, not the police. Doesn't matter how nice and helpful they are. It's not even whether the cops are assholes, nice, competent, or bumbling... it's about being prepared to start process over which you have no control.
37. Re:I've said it before... by nbauman · 2012-03-07 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not to claim that I'm aware of exactly what was said or tone of voice used, but it seems a police officer, in the normal course of duty, saw something suspicious, investigated, verified the presented story, and found nothing wrong. Isn't that their job?
  That's why they're so dangerous.
  There are many cases, some of them on Slashdot, of the cops or firemen coming into somebody's apartment, seeing some chemistry equipment, leading to a whole criminal proceeding.
  One retired chemist in Massachusetts had a home laboratory, and the local town confiscated it (probably at greater risk than if they had left it alone). He knew the risks better than they did. The striking thing was the stupidity and ignorance of the local town people, who didn't understand anything about chemistry. Meth labs use chemistry equipment. This is chemistry equipment. So this is a meth lab, right?
  The fact that they're doing their job is no consolation to the innocent victims who wind up defending themselves sometimes from criminal charges sometimes at great financial cost. To add insult to injury, a lot of DAs don't even want to dismiss charges when they turn out to be wrong, but want the victim to take a plea bargain and conviction.
38. Re:I've said it before... by bhlowe · 2012-03-07 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Geeze, calling the cops is idiotic. Erase offending images from your drive and delete your browser cache and history. Maybe cover your ass and send an anonymous email alerting the right authority to the offending material.
39. Re:I've said it before... by Dahan · 2012-03-07 08:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think what set them off was the Erlenmeyer flasks. They seem to scream mad scientist to non chemistry people.
  Erlenmeyer flasks (and much of the other glassware you mention) are illegal to possess in Texas without a permit--and in order to get a permit, you must allow the police to search your house (or place of business) unannounced: The Precursor Chemical Statute
40. Re:I've said it before... by doston · 2012-03-07 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah they'll be real nice while they're restraining your wrists (and ankles, if you're black), they'll help you into the car, help you with any paperwork at the station, help you incriminate yourself, help you feel comfortable not contacting an attorney. Nice and helpful; that's their style.
41. Re:I've said it before... by slackware+3.6 · 2012-03-07 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Many areas have precursor for meth production laws. In my area three precursor's can get you charged (ie Sudafed, acetone, red phosphourus, propane, muratic acid etc). Now if you have a legitamate reason for owning these things your fine however owning these items with no legitamate reason is a crime.
  How many people have a reason for owning muratic acid? Concrete finishers or someone who owns a pool. Now if a cop were to go to someones house because the neighbors complained they could smell pot coming from the house and the cops see a case of muratic acid in the porch and no pool they have probable cause to search, now if they find some glassware a case of Sudafed and a bottle of acetone you are going to jail.
42. Re:I've said it before... by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-03-07 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually my statement was asserting even the "pretty nice and helpful" local police will when confronted with evidence of a crime always 100% of the time try to arrive at a conviction for said crime as quickly as possible using the closest people at hand. The same local police who are normally "pretty nice and helpful" will become assholes pretty quickly.
43. Re:I've said it before... by formfeed · 2012-03-07 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that so many things are suspicious to the superstitious and uninformed. Your arduino board looks an awfully lot like a bomb to some laman.
  Bombs have red blinking leds. What uc platform do you use to make leds blink. Well?
44. Re:I've said it before... by networkBoy · 2012-03-07 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Um... Scratching Tx of my places to move.
  Stuff like this is also needed for fairly basic chemistry and biological science experiments that are no longer taught in school due to budget cuts.
  I had a parent teacher meeting the other day with my daughters teacher and the principal because she was talking about a comparative of Greek and Roman myth in school (apparently she got in a heated argument when someone said she was lying about the Minotaur, King Midas, Cerberus and such...). She is in third grade and reading at somewhere between 6th and 8th grade level books. She has a similar interest level in science, with a bent on explosives (she makes me so proud:). Surprisingly her math skills are abysmal and the only way I've found to interest her is through organic chemistry, and baking, both of which are math heavy. We'll leave the explosives synthesis out till she's 16, if she's still interested then we'll start with how to make your own black powder for the musket.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
45. Re:I've said it before... by roc97007 · 2012-03-07 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I understand, but defending yourself and facing a jury afterwards seems preferable to huddling on the floor waiting to die. I could be alone in this...
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
46. Re:I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  No. Wrong. So very, very, very wrong.
  Plus you are an.... Nope, won't go there.
  There are plenty of laws the police are not required to enforce. There are plenty of laws the police choose NOT to enforce. After all it is up to them to report if they saw anything 'suspicious' as they performed their duties. Yes, some of these laws are outdated like the requirement that all cars be proceeded by a man waving a red flag and some are just stupid. Others are very, very maliciously enforced as needed by the police.
  For instance, one day I was driving along, in a town I had never visited, at the speed limit, when a cop pulled me over. The cop asked for my license and ran it. He came back and gave me a ticket for not wearing my glasses. My glasses were broken at the time. He never said why he pulled me over. Nine chances out of ten it was because he didn't recognize the car and that was suspicious enough for him. He could not have known I wore glasses and so he could not have pulled me over for that reason but, having pulled me over, he felt obligated to give me a ticket for something.
  Cops are slimy, untrustworthy bastards and should all be fired -- preferably from a canon.
47. Re:I've said it before... by tmosley · 2012-03-07 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you stole your own car in order to get the insurance money for terrorism and kiddie porn.
  
  Book 'em, Danno!
48. Re:I've said it before... by danlip · 2012-03-07 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Bombs also always have a big digital countdown display and color coded wires :)
49. Re:I've said it before... by SleazyRidr · 2012-03-07 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  I've often thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea to just synthesize enough for myself and a few of my closest friends. It'd be hard for me to get myself caught, and I wouldn't have to deal with any shady characters.
  Of course, I never did manage to get myself hooked to anything like that, so I never put my idea into practice.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
50. Re:I've said it before... by hoppo · 2012-03-07 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's really about the only option we have remaining to escape the ever-growing police state.
51. Re:I've said it before... by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  I've found calling 911 can be helpful and safe when reporting things seen as an anonymous witness in public, generally on the road. So, for instance, if I witness a large object in the highway, I'll call 911 and report it, because it's dangerous. With my small car, it's unlikely they'll try to blame it on me dropping cargo. This actually happened once: I was in heavy traffic, and there was (what appeared to be, it was so fast at 70+mph) a fuel tank in my lane. I managed to swerve around it even though there was a concrete wall next to my lane, but the guy behind me wasn't so quick with his reflexes, plus he was following me too closely, and he ran over it, trashing his Acura Legend/RL and blowing the front tire. I called it in immediately as that had the potential for turning into a pile-up.
  If it's something, however, where there's another party involved and you disagree (i.e. there's been an altercation), the police are NOT going to be helpful. You'll be lucky if you don't get hauled off to jail, even if you were assaulted and completely the victim.
52. Re:I've said it before... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-03-07 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  How many people have a reason for owning muratic acid?
  But "legitimate" is subjective. As I said, I think it's ridiculous that they make you prove your innocence. Just about anything can be used to commit a crime.
  Besides, I think all drugs should be legal, anyway.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
53. Re:I've said it before... by gknoy · 2012-03-07 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think the phrase is, "better to be tried by twelve than buried by six" (carried by six?).
54. Re:I've said it before... by Sarten-X · 2012-03-07 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about right, but it certainly matches up with my knowledge for "accurate". I recently spent some time living in a jurisdiction that bans all open flame, with no regard for size. That means that a romantic candlelight dinner with my wife is illegal without a permit.
  Of course, it really means that the cops have clear-cut authority to tell the idiotic kids to stop playing with matches in their garage next to old propane tanks, and anybody using fire safely is left alone.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
55. Re:I've said it before... by toriver · 2012-03-07 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hah! You probably arranged the "theft", you insurance defrauder you.
56. Re:I've said it before... by marcello_dl · 2012-03-07 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  But we agree on that, those who report become suspect now, those who don't become suspect maybe later, that's exactly what I was talking about, maximisation of power.
  (at least, many friends of mine that happen to be policemen do that)
  The single policeman might try his best to be respected, starting with good manners, but the system they are part of doesn't care about respect. It cares about control.
  Note that I don't hate the individuals who are part of the system, (those friends of mine that happen to be policemen are good people, even). Responsibility is always personal, thinking otherwise means hating categories, which means being more subsceptible to be manipulated by the aforementioned system.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
57. Re:I've said it before... by roc97007 · 2012-03-07 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  It is "carried", but I try to speak in my own words rather than recite bumper stickers. (A general behavior of the Facebook community that I loathe.)
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
58. Re:I've said it before... by Hognoxious · 2012-03-07 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  You (and the cop) are failing to apply common sense, namely asking yourselves the question: "if he was running a meth lab, what's the probability he would have invited us over?"
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
59. Re:I've said it before... by Ritchie70 · 2012-03-07 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure I'm 100% there, but it is colossally stupid to call them over something like this. Assuming he isn't guilty of anything else, he's guilty of being stupid.
  If your house is broken into or your car stolen, call them so there's a police report to give the insurance company. Who knows, maybe they'll do something productive, too.
  
  --
  The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
60. Re:I've said it before... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  The Tazer bit's easy to explain, and standard protocol: Drug labs (specifically meth labs) produce fumes that make the cooks unpredictable, paranoid, and often more concerned with escape than self-preservation.
  Aren't they flammable? A Taser could set off an explosion! High voltage sparks are good at that (that is how a spark plug works).
  The lab equipment is also everything except a stove needed to cook precursor compounds. Methamphetamine recipes, if my memory serves me, basically consist of "throw stuff in a pan in measured amounts, and boil off the bad parts. Sell what's left."
  It's all bad parts.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
61. Re:I've said it before... by Culture20 · 2012-03-07 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  You have to admit, that's not a standard children's chemistry set (usually just 4-5 test tubes) you're describing. If I saw someone with that much glassware at home, I'd be curious what they use it for too.
62. Re:I've said it before... by Trogre · 2012-03-07 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Good grief, have things really gotten that bad in the US? Where I live the police are actually helpful. One example - we had some property vandalised, and the then anonymous vandal had left some evidence behind. One call to the police and they came by, lifted prints, etc and were able to use the evidence to track down and arrest the perp, who later confessed and was ordered by court to pay for the damaged property.
  Now I could have just let it go, but then I would have been without my stuff and unable to afford to have it repaired.
  Now I have some questions for you - if the situation is so messed up in your country, will you continue to accept that as status quo? If so, do you realise that you are advocating a slide towards effective anarchy? If you don't accept the current situation, what are you going to do about it?
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
63. Re:I've said it before... by gmhowell · 2012-03-07 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Home brewing, esp. yeast culture propagation.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
64. Re:I've said it before... by jonwil · 2012-03-07 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Its not just chemistry and the war on drugs, go ask model rocketry hobbyists how its getting harder to engage in their hobby because the things used to fuel their rockets are considered "explosives" by the US government (even though these fuels are specifically designed NOT to explode which is what you want when you shoot off a rocket).
65. Re:I've said it before... by Xacid · 2012-03-07 14:48 · Score: 2
  
  Sweet fucking jesus what the fucking fuck. Usually I have better words for this. But fuck.
66. Re:I've said it before... by Sabriel · 2012-03-07 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  Bloody hell. Illegal glassware. Let me know when Texas criminalizes the possession of silicon dioxide.
67. Re:I've said it before... by rubycodez · 2012-03-07 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  cut the red one! otherwise, run like hell down the hall in front of the ensuing fireball
68. Re:I've said it before... by Yosho · 2012-03-07 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  You make it look like someone doing elementary chemistry experiments in Texas would need a permit. That can't be right, but you sure make it look convincing.
  
  As somebody who went to school in Texas: no, it's quite right. Science departments in schools all apply for those permits. If you want to have chemistry equipment at home, you have to, too.
  
  --
  Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
69. Re:I've said it before... by aiht · 2012-03-07 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Muratic acid? Sure, I guess that might be a cause for suspicion, I don't even know what that is. The GP was talking about a bottle. A glass bottle.
70. Re:I've said it before... by nbauman · 2012-03-07 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  I feel for them. I used to build rockets when I was in high school.
  One of the favorite fuels was zinc dust and sulfur, because it was self-extinguishing. As the pressure went up, the reaction slowed down, or so they told me. I mixed up pounds of Zn + S fuel.
  There were a few other fuels that were a bit more unstable, particularly those based on potassium chlorate and perchlorate.
  It was a lot easier in the post-Sputnik days. Do you want the Russians to beat us into space? We were America's hope.
71. Re:I've said it before... by jareth-0205 · 2012-03-08 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  There are a number of reasons:
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=97484157416073610
  Remember, the police are not your friend. They deal all day every day with people trying to get the better of them, get around them, there is no way a person can be in that job and not be affected by it.
72. Re:I've said it before... by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say never contact them no matter what. Better to die.
  Yeah, when I had to contact the police a while ago in relation to some minor trouble my daughter had witnessed, it would surely have been better if I'd just killed myself instead, rather than be subjected to the living hell of them being helpful and courteous.
  
  Sometimes, I feel as though everyone else on slashdot is living in an alternative cyberpunk reality as Bladerunning Neuromancers on the edge of the law.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
73. Re:I've said it before... by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Be careful with that defending yourself thing - depending on local laws, defending yourself from violent assault can land you in jail, or allow your assailant to sue you for injury (if they survive). For example, in Texas, if someone breaks into your house and attacks you, you're allowed to shoot them (as long as they die), but if you hit them with an axe or a large knife, whether they die or not, you face jail time.
  I suppose you could always shoot them a lot to cover up the knife or axe wounds?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
74. Re:I've said it before... by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  I understand, but defending yourself and facing a jury afterwards seems preferable to huddling on the floor waiting to die. I could be alone in this...
  Oh come on, even here in the UK you're allowed to kill people in self defence. It's just that the courts tend not to look on ambushing unarmed burglars with a shotgun as self defence.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
75. Re:I've said it before... by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations!! You've forgotten the difference between local, state, and federal police! You've also forgotten about this wonderful thing called Jurisdiction!
  The local police that he refers to as "pretty nice and helpful" will be overridden by the assholes.
  In the UK, the police are the police. I mean, there's Special Branch, MI5 and so on for terrorism and stuff, but all "normal" crimes are investigated by your local police force.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
76. Re:I've said it before... by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Again, this is speaking from the Uk, but the police just gather evidence and pass it to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to proceed with charges.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
77. Re:I've said it before... by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not to claim that I'm aware of exactly what was said or tone of voice used, but it seems a police officer, in the normal course of duty, saw something suspicious, investigated, verified the presented story, and found nothing wrong. Isn't that their job?
  But we're all far too important and busy here reinventing the future to be bothered by minor state functionaries! Let them go arrest some of the little people instead!
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
78. Re:I've said it before... by X0563511 · 2012-03-08 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  We have stronger divisions between the top and the bottom of the pile - our roots were "the government should keep it's hands out of everyone's business" after all (oh how corrupted that root has become).
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
79. Re:I've said it before... by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  fuck that. Better use the time you have left to do one of two things:
  1. fight to survive; 2. take as many of hte bastards with you as you can!
  The police are under NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU.
  The fact that you can't sue the police for not preventing criminals doing something bad, does not mean that they always just stand by and watch while the crims murder you to death. As a rule I'd rather have a couple of cops deal with a nutter than try it myself, but obviously it depends on the circs.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
80. Re:I've said it before... by cyberchondriac · 2012-03-08 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think what set them off was the Erlenmeyer flasks. They seem to scream mad scientist to non chemistry people.
  Erlenmeyer flasks (and much of the other glassware you mention) are illegal to possess in Texas without a permit--and in order to get a permit, you must allow the police to search your house (or place of business) unannounced: The Precursor Chemical Statute
  That's insane!! Didn't expect that from Texas. CA maybe...
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
81. Re:I've said it before... by Builder · 2012-03-08 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is that in the UK, just an arrest can ruin your life. First, they get to keep your DNA and fingerprints even if they don't charge you. There's now a time limit on that, but it's still invasive and wrong.
  Secondly, if you work in any profession or volunteer in any area that requires an ECRB check, all interactions with the police show up on this report. This includes arrests and hearsay recorded against you. In an economy like this, if you've got an arrest on your record, regardless of whether or not charges were brought, you can forget almost any job working with certain groups. There are plenty of people out there who _haven't_ been arrested to choose from.
82. Re:I've said it before... by roc97007 · 2012-03-08 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I understand, but defending yourself and facing a jury afterwards seems preferable to huddling on the floor waiting to die. I could be alone in this...
  Oh come on, even here in the UK you're allowed to kill people in self defence. It's just that the courts tend not to look on ambushing unarmed burglars with a shotgun as self defence.
  I'll have to take your word for it. I remember reading or hearing somewhere that in urban parts of the UK, even having a cricket bat by your bed is "looking for trouble", the implication being that if someone robs you, you should just give them your stuff and hope they don't hurt you. But like here, it may depend on the area. No country is homogeneous. (Besides, beating an armed burglar to death with a cricket bat, while perhaps technically legal, seems a bit, I dunno, uncivilized.) In areas of the US without a "castle rule", you may be required to attempt to escape your home during an invasion rather than defend yourself and your family.
  The problem with burglars, especially at night, is that it's damned difficult to tell whether they're armed or not. In areas in the US that allow defense of home, one can generally consider a stranger breaking into a home as a life-threatening act, (the "reasonable person would be in fear of his life" rule) and use appropriate force to end the threat.
  My impression from reading actual cases in the US is that no matter what the circumstances, no matter how righteous the shoot, there is still a chance (a good chance, in some areas) that you will appear in court. (Criminal, or civil, or both.) My point was that this should not dissuade one from protecting their family and themselves. But that's just my opinion.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
83. Re:I've said it before... by roc97007 · 2012-03-08 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  There is a legend that in modern times (the end of last century I believe) four men broke into a home. The owner, an Iaido practitioner, was home alone at the time. As I recall, all the attackers survived, although all needed major surgery and one was in a wheelchair for awhile. (Hamstrung.) The only comment from the police: "Haven't seen sword cuts in a long time."
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
What else did he expect? by Scrameustache · 2012-03-07 06:48 · Score: 5, Funny

"Hi, police, I am currently committing the crime of possession of child pornography, here's my name and address..."

--
You can't take the sky from me...
1. Re:What else did he expect? by Meshach · 2012-03-07 06:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "Hi, police, I am currently committing the crime of possession of child pornography, here's my name and address..."
  Also imagine if the police did nothing. Then the headline would be "Man with child pornography on his computer allowed unsupervised visits with children". I do not know what he is criticizing.
  
  --
  "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
  Aldous Huxley
2. Re:What else did he expect? by Sarten-X · 2012-03-07 07:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sounds to me like social services just found the guy's name involved in a child porn investigation and assume he's dangerous. This doesn't seem to be an issue of bad police intentionally making somebody's life miserable, but rather a miscommunication that now has to be investigated, verified, checked, reviewed, and accepted by half a dozen different departments before any resolution will come about.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re:What else did he expect? by osu-neko · 2012-03-07 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  More like it's now been investigated, verified, checked, reviewed, and accepted by half a dozen different departments, and this is the resolution. If anyone in this web things the decision was in error, they have five other departments to fight with, who will push back very strongly at the suggestion that they might have made a bad call.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
4. Re:What else did he expect? by gujo-odori · 2012-03-07 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  How dare you inject logic and reason into this conversation?! :p
  Everyone is busy dumping on the police, who had - so far as TFA indicates, anyway - nothing to do with his being barred from being alone with his kid. That's all the doing of whatever they call Child Protective Services over there - an organization that is well known for going ridiculously overboard in both directions (restricting or removing contact with children from people who have done nothing wrong, whilst on the other hand letting people who should have zero contact with any child go happily on their way) over here in the US, too.
  It's not the police that I, as a parent, fear. It's CPS, an organization that means well but is, in far too many cases, utterly incompetent.
5. Re:What else did he expect? by Dhalka226 · 2012-03-07 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  I understand it's pretty rare to accidentally get child porn on your PC, but it is not impossible. Isn't this exactly how you want somebody to react if it happens?
  I'm pretty tired of how lazy the police are getting these days. There are entire categories of crimes that basically amount to "it's too hard to prove you actually committed the crime we want to get you for, so we had this created instead." Are we really at the point where we're going to take somebody's children away for trying to do the right thing because it's too inconvenient to investigate it and arrive at a real conclusion?
  If they have an allegation to make with regards to how the child porn got there, they need to make it. Otherwise they need to commend him and ensure that nonsense like this doesn't happen.
6. Re:What else did he expect? by Sarten-X · 2012-03-07 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Never attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence"
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
7. Re:What else did he expect? by samjam · 2012-03-07 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  And yet he was bullied, confined, mislead and had an awful struggle to make his life what he meant.
  [The Prisoner - for those who haven't made the connection]
  
  --
  blog.sam.liddicott.com
8. Re:What else did he expect? by jayrtfm · 2012-03-07 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  except.. in far too many sorta similar cases, ONLY massive publicity has prevented people's lives from being totally ruined. Have we forgotten the sad lessons of Julie Amero?
  The man is being told he may not be allowed to be alone with his daughter for a YEAR because there is a queue? Just how many OTHER people are in a similar circumstance?
  IMHO the guy should go on the offensive and sue the authorities for COLLABORATING with the pedophiles. They have evidence of crimes that they are just letting sit on a shelf.
9. Re:What else did he expect? by Dr+Damage+I · 2012-03-07 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Parent post is an excellent example of why you should never voluntarily involve the government in your life. Note how the author is utterly indifferent to the consequences of, essentially, tossing a man out of his own home for the duration of the investigation, however long that takes. Note the deep hostility to publicity (it's honesty and professionalism that thrives in the dark after all) and the attempt to paint publicity as being counter to this individuals interests.
  ""no unsupervised contact with a child under 16" is a pretty common bail condition for someone being investigated of Schedule One offences. It's entirely reasonable to err on the side of caution when bailing someone who's involved in an investigation such as this."
  Here's a great reason to go a long distance out of your way to avoid attracting the attention of any government department. The above quote is devoid of any concern for the rights of the accused or for the damage that their process is likely to do to the life of the accused. The author rightly advises that the accused should immediately get a lawyer if not sooner. However, simply by deleting the offending material and keeping his head down, the accused could have avoided the need for a lawyer, the need to make payments both on the family home and wherever he moves to to comply with the supervision order. The accused was entirely correct when he speculated that he should not have reported it. Regrettably, he trusted the government. Government has repaid his trust in the only way it knows how.
  Our rulers do not have our interests in mind. Keep your head down as much as you possibly can.
  
  --
  "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
10. Re:What else did he expect? by Lorens · 2012-03-08 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds to me like social services just found the guy's name involved in a child porn investigation and assume he's dangerous.
  The days when Computers Don't Argue are coming!
  It's the story of the guy sued in small claims court about payment for a book. The book is "Kidnapped" by Robert Louis Stevenson. The computer misfiles it in major crimes, and the guy finds himself on death row for kidnapping Mr Stevenson -- after Mr Stevenson is deceased.
11. Re:What else did he expect? by jmcvetta · 2012-03-11 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Never attribute to incompetence that which is more plausibly explained by totalitarian sadism."
  FTFY
To be blunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Never talk to the Pigs. There is never, and has never been any interaction with the police that will ever benefit you in any way.
1. Re:To be blunt by blackicye · 2012-03-07 06:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Never talk to the Pigs. There is never, and has never been any interaction with the police that will ever benefit you in any way.
  You forgot to add: "...unless you're filthy rich."
2. Re:To be blunt by Surt · 2012-03-07 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But you still don't do it then. You have your lawyers do it.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
3. Re:To be blunt by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-03-07 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  But you still don't do it then. You have your lawyers do it.
  You don't get filthy rich by paying for lawyers. Oh wait...
4. Re:To be blunt by osu-neko · 2012-03-07 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Important corollary: never believe what the police tell you. They love to lie to you if they think it'll help implicate you in something. Worse, they love to lie to your friends about you to try to solicit as "ah, so they already know, might as well cooperate" response. Trashing your relationships? Bah, just part of the job...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
5. Re:To be blunt by asylumx · 2012-03-07 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get filthy rich by paying for lawyers. Oh wait...
  Correct. I believe at that point you start calling them "Politicians."
6. Re:To be blunt by Uberbah · 2012-03-07 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  The rich are even more scared of the police than non-rich people..
  
  Since when? When would the average shmoe be able to get busted for drugs and/or theft like Lindsey Lohan and get off with a slap on the wrist, or less?
7. Re:To be blunt by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Never talk to the Pigs. There is never, and has never been any interaction with the police that will ever benefit you in any way.
  There's an impressive number of Internet Tough Guys/Gangstas contributing to this thread.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
8. Re:To be blunt by blackicye · 2012-03-08 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  ding ding ding - we have a winner. The rich are even more scared of the police than non-rich people..
  P.S. I speak for many ultra high net worth individuals who feel this way. Posting AC for obvious reasons.
  I call bullshit. "Ultra high net worth" individuals fear no one.
Dumb by amiga3D · 2012-03-07 06:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

People expect reason and common sense from the authorities are dumb. I remember a friend of mine reported his roomate for child porn and the police came and took ALL the computers in the place. His roomates and his. They tried their best to implicate him as well as his roomate in the illegal pictures but couldn't quite stretch it far enough so settled for keeping his computers. He never got them back and I guess they scared him so bad he was happy not to be in jail. He said he'd never call the police again if his life depended on it.
1. Re:Dumb by Dyinobal · 2012-03-07 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yep the police are not there to protect you, they are there to punish people, and keep the rabble in line. Sure sometimes some people need punishment but the police operate from the standpoint that everyone needs punishment and if they punish you wrongly well the court system is there and it will be taken care of.
  It basically all comes back to the saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
2. Re:Dumb by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 06:54 · Score: 2
  
  It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying. If the police assume he's telling the truth they risk putting a child in danger (and failing in their duty to protect the innocent) but if they assume he's lying then they can take measures.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
3. Re:Dumb by amiga3D · 2012-03-07 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Janet Reno? Is that you?
4. Re:Dumb by Dark$ide · 2012-03-07 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying. If the police assume he's telling the truth they risk putting a child in danger (and failing in their duty to protect the innocent) but if they assume he's lying then they can take measures.
  There's more too it. The UK had a case (Baby P) where the authorities and social services failed dismally. So now they're shit scared of being tarred by that brush. This poor sap who is clueless about computers and the internet is a victim of the overweening and overzealous UK authorities who now don't want to be caught with their pants down.
  If the pupetrator was caught with his pants down then he should be castrated and thown in jail for the rest of his natural.
  
  --
  Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
5. Re:Dumb by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's Pascal's wager for cops :
  A) Guy's a pedophile
  Do nothing: a child gets abused, serious reputation damage for police
  Do something: child is OK
  B) Guy's not a pedophile
  Do nothing: child is OK
  Do something: minor reputation damage for police
  Not difficult to see which option the police should be choosing there.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
6. Re:Dumb by davester666 · 2012-03-07 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Logical Conclusion:
  Arrest everybody for being a pedophile. Just in case. You can always establish your innocence later.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
7. Re:Dumb by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-03-07 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  Logical Conclusion:
  Arrest everybody for being a pedophile. Just in case. You can always establish your innocence later.
  Stop... Giving... them... ideas. OK? They might take you seriously. If they could, they would arrest everyone in sight. just in case.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
8. Re:Dumb by fahrbot-bot · 2012-03-07 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  If the pupetrator was caught with his pants down then he should be castrated and thown in jail for the rest of his natural.
  [ insert Muppet joke here ]
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
9. Re:Dumb by willpb · 2012-03-07 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying.
  It's also common sense for everyone to assume the police are lying. Just read a few police reports. Almost everyone that gets arrested is also charged with resisting arrest or interfering with an arresting officer or whatever else they can come up with. Look at an officer the wrong way, that's assault. You can't trust the police as eveyone is just a suspect in their eyes. Call the police if you need to but also protect your rights by filming all your interactions with them.
10. Re:Dumb by MightyMartian · 2012-03-07 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not everybody has child porn on the computer.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
11. Re:Dumb by davester666 · 2012-03-07 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's incredibly difficult to prove you haven't done something. Particularly for something like this. Did he download it, or was his computer taken over by a hacker and just used for temporary storage? Or does the mother of his child want sole custody and just copied the files on his computer or placed the pictures in his house?
  That's why in most jurisdictions, the law has to prove you did something, not that you have to prove you didn't do it beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
12. Re:Dumb by avajcovec · 2012-03-07 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying. If the police assume he's telling the truth they risk putting a child in danger (and failing in their duty to protect the innocent) but if they assume he's lying then they can take measures.
  A child is not "more innocent" than the man in question. They are no less obligated to protect him (following your reasoning).
13. Re:Dumb by davester666 · 2012-03-07 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  They might. It's best just to arrest everybody and then sort out who does and does not have child pornography on their computers or in their homes or offices.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
14. Re:Dumb by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-07 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  I imagine it varies depending on police department, but I know that the standard procedure for a lot of them in cases of computer-related crime is to sieze everything even vaguely computer related - computers, laptops, mobile phones, backup drives, games consoles, keyboards, mice, cameras, monitors, modems. The officers who do the home search aren't techies - they aren't expected to know what is and isn't worth taking, espicially given that criminals may hide their data in obscure places like the SD card in a camera or on a roommate's computer. So if in doubt, they yank it out. Then let the computer forensics department get around to sorting through it all in a year or two. As an added advantage, the extreme social, personal and financial disruption to the suspect(s) gives them a powerful incentive to cooperate - guilty or innocent.
15. Re:Dumb by sjames · 2012-03-07 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  B)Guy's not a pedophile
  Do nothing: child is OK
  Do something: Child is deprived of the one good influence in her life and grows up to be a crack ho. Police deny all responsibility and bust her ass.
16. Re:Dumb by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  My comment was poorly worded. How's this : if there is an indication a crime may have been committed (like the presence of child porn) the police has to gather the necessary evidence and take reasonable action to prevent the defendant runs away or potentially commits further crimes until such time as the courts have decided if there is a case and prosecute, at which time the jury should proceed with an assumption of innocence. Not as snappy. Now if you want to argue that not leaving the guy alone with his daughter is excessive compared to the risk that would be a valid point (though not one we could make based on our limited knowledge of the particulars), but doing nothing is not an option.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
17. Re:Dumb by Ihmhi · 2012-03-07 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Penny Arcade has a good take on this subject.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
18. Re:Dumb by HiThere · 2012-03-07 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  People have also been arrested for filming the police. Check the current status in your local jurisdiction.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
19. Re:Dumb by St.Creed · 2012-03-07 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I see you read Conan too :) (the Barbarian one, not O'Brian :))
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
20. Re:Dumb by St.Creed · 2012-03-07 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Stop... Giving... them... ideas. OK? They might take you seriously. If they could, they would arrest everyone in sight. just in case.
  I second this. I was once part of a student movement where the student union had the really stupid idea of giving insane recommendations to the Ministry about how to cut even more funding to students and teachers. The response from the department was: "Thank you - we see several suggestions we are already actively considering and a few more we didn't think of before but will now consider seriously."
  Really, don't *ever* give stupid suggestions to stupid people. They just may do it.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
21. Re:Dumb by Loosifur · 2012-03-07 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well, for one thing, it has a chilling effect on potential informants. If this guy's telling the truth, he's a fantastic lead on a child porn distributor. But if anyone who stumbles across child porn on the internet is terrified to report it for fear of being suspected themselves, well, how many people do you think will step up and do the right thing?
  
  --
  This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
22. Re:Dumb by onkelonkel · 2012-03-07 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Pascal's wager? The Cops should act as if God exists, even if they don't believe it?
  
  --
  None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
23. Re:Dumb by ScuzzMonkey · 2012-03-07 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's job security, innit?
  
  --
  No relation to Happy Monkey
24. Re:Dumb by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  A child is not "more innocent" than the man in question. They are no less obligated to protect him (following your reasoning).
  Yes it is. The child was not in possession of illegal images nor is it capable of defending itself if it were in an abusive relationship with the parent. It is more vulnerable that its father and therefor its rights must take precedence.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
25. Re:Dumb by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  They should've called you Dorothy instead of Dave because you sure love straw men.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
26. Re:Dumb by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's a fair point although I think you are overstating the importance of the information they can get from this. Tracking a download back to its source is tricky at the best of times as Slashdot keeps pointing out again and again in MAFIAA discussions.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
27. Re:Dumb by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  That depends on how well it's handled by the authorities. It seems the kid is always with either her mother or grandmother so she'll probably manage.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
28. Re:Dumb by wintercolby · 2012-03-07 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no, don't tell me . . . He had videos of Ms. Piggy molesting Kermit.
  
  I knew she was crazy, but that's nucking futs.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
29. Re:Dumb by Brian+Feldman · 2012-03-07 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Call the police if you need to but also protect your rights by filming all your interactions with them.
  Too bad police will try to fight that by mis-applying "wiretapping" laws. Or simply destroying your device and never invoking the law one way or the other.
  
  --
  Brian Fundakowski Feldman
30. Re:Dumb by sulimma · 2012-03-07 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  B) Guy's not a pedophile
  Do nothing: Child is OK.
  Do something: Child is traumatized by 4 months of people talking about his dad beeing a criminal without getting the usual level of comforting from its dad to cope with this abnormal situation.
  Fixed that for you.
  Also please note: There is evidence that access to pornography (not necessarily child pornography) reduces the risk of someone molesting a child. (James D. Weinberg: Sexual Landscapes. S. 397ff)
31. Re:Dumb by avajcovec · 2012-03-07 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Is there a legal relationship between vulnerability and innocence? According to the article the man was never arrested or charged, and he states that he was "totally innocent". Isn't innocence an absolute state mutually exclusive with the absolute state of guilt? If the police have a duty to protect the innocent, aren't the adult and child equally deserving of that protection? I'm honestly asking here.
32. Re:Dumb by sjames · 2012-03-07 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  She will never EVER feel quite as sure that her parents will always be there for her as she used to. If her dad can be isolated away from her, so can her mom and her grandmother. Both her mom and her grandmother are stressed well beyond where they would have been otherwise.
  She may 'manage', but that's hardly as good as not having to manage. Much like a person may 'manage' if their leg gets blown off but it's a bit of a stretch to claim they wouldn't be better off if the accident hadn't happened.
  The best possible outcome is that she overcomes the difficulties created supposedly in her best interest and one day she tells her kids that 'the authorities' are a force of evil to be avoided at all costs.
  The only evidence of actual harm being done to the child implicates child 'services'.
33. Re:Dumb by yodleboy · 2012-03-07 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Or does the mother of his child want sole custody and just copied the files on his computer or placed the pictures in his house?"
  
  You better believe this crap happens. Wife wants custody? Bring up child molestion or CP accusations. Who cares if it's true? You might force a settlement! I know people that have spent YEARS in divorce court over that kind of stuff.
34. Re:Dumb by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-07 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  What? Are you suggesting we assume people are guilty until they're proven innocent?
  That doesn't sound like a very intelligent thing to do to me. But it does sound like it's right around the line of thinking of people who throw "for the children" arguments out left and right.
35. Re:Dumb by Jonner · 2012-03-07 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying. If the police assume he's telling the truth they risk putting a child in danger (and failing in their duty to protect the innocent) but if they assume he's lying then they can take measures.
  That is not common sense. It's certainly not protecting the innocent. Rather, it's yet another recent example of authorities ignoring the essential principle of the presumption of innocence.
36. Re:Dumb by cdrudge · 2012-03-07 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying.Then admit you have it. They will believe you are lying and just let you go.
37. Re:Dumb by Tastecicles · 2012-03-07 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Let's set this Baby P thing straight.
  1. His name was Peter Connelly.
  2. Children Services were completely aware that he was being regularly beaten. His GP knew he had broken bones. Incidentally, it is very difficult to break a child's bones, they are still soft, flexible and growing. The extended family had already disowned both parents because of their behaviour towards each other and their son, and their respective addictions. They wanted nothing to do with the family.
  3. Children Services did not intervene because they saw no profit in it. Car analogy: would you buy a car that's so rusty and beat up it didn't look like it would make it to the end of the street? Or would you prefer something shiny and pretty looking, low maintenance and comes with a perpetual warranty for the same money? The adoption industry is the same - pretty, intelligent and unmarked kids is the Grail, folks, not a one armed kid with half an ear and dog bites all over him. Where do you suppose those kids come from? Entire extended families of 8,500 kids a year don't just keel over and die leaving no blood relations to look after them. Something else is intervening. That something else has motive: maintenance of central Government budgets, "outstanding" ratings by OFSTED and the continuation of their legal authority to do what they're doing to ensure that loving and stable families are permanently separated for the good of the State.
  4. Children Services are under no obligation to act on proven cases of abuse: that falls into the purview of the police, who (and I have this on first hand authority) will NOT intervene in cases where children are involved unless there is a death. They will immediately refer to Children Services and wash their hands of the situation.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
38. Re:Dumb by MightyMartian · 2012-03-07 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  And?????
  Look, the guy comes into the cop shop with a weird story about how he was downloading music and child porn appeared on his computer. Now I think even most moderately tech savvy people would at least pause at the story. It certainly requires investigation, and in the meantime, most jurisdictions have rules surrounding minors being in contact with people suspected of child sex or child porn crimes.
  I'm not saying the guy is guilty, and I doubt the cops are saying that either. But they are seeing a highly unusual situation, and they are taking the step they feel can best protect the minor. It sucks if the guy is telling the truth, no doubt about it, and certainly in that case it would seem to be punishing an innocent man, but I think it's a warranted precaution.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
39. Re:Dumb by tmosley · 2012-03-07 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and they should act like all the other gods ever dreamed up exist, and follow all of their contradictory demands as well.
40. Re:Dumb by dcollins · 2012-03-07 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Easier: Just take people randomly until your monthly arrest quota is met.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
41. Re:Dumb by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Way too risky (*), especially considering one can get the same result just by claiming the husband beat her and/or cheated on her.
  (*) Because she could end up getting burned too.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
42. Re:Dumb by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Much like a person may 'manage' if their leg gets blown off but it's a bit of a stretch to claim they wouldn't be better off if the accident hadn't happened.
  You should be glad your leg was blown off. Look how much weight you lost!
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
43. Re:Dumb by Dr+Damage+I · 2012-03-07 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  And, bonus! they get to take a DNA swab while they're at it.
  
  --
  "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
44. Re:Dumb by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  There would be much the same psychological result if the father was actually found guilty of having the child porn, you know.
  
  The reductio ad absurdum would be that you can never punish people who have children.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
45. Re:Dumb by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  The UK had a case (Baby P) where the authorities and social services failed dismally.
  And part of the reason for that was the constant Daily Fail attacks on social workers snatching children at dawn away from their innocent, loving parents.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
46. Re:Dumb by sjames · 2012-03-08 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Like everything else, the harms and benefits must be weighed. That can only happen correctly if child services acknowledges that their actions are not neutral in effect.
  The reducto ad absurdum of child services thinking is that no adult should ever be unsupervised with a child, including the supervisors, 'just in case'
47. Re:Dumb by Tastecicles · 2012-03-08 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  nice how you ignored point 4 to make your justification.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
In other news- by Crasoose · 2012-03-07 06:50 · Score: 5, Funny

The RIAA now has resorted to other means of enforcing their copyrights than normal lawsuits, they have opted instead to inject illegal photos into popular music torrents. More news at 11.
1. Re:In other news- by amiga3D · 2012-03-07 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. That's just so evil it is brilliant. If they aren't doing it yet I bet they soon will.
2. Re:In other news- by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  But then instead of just being possessors (like this guy) they'd be distributors of child pornography. I would imagine that carries much heftier punishments, enough to give even the RIAA pause.
3. Re:In other news- by cpghost · 2012-03-07 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  That chilling thing about this is that you have been modded funny instead of insightful.
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
4. Re:In other news- by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-03-07 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  You'd first have to prove that it was *them* who contaminated your machine with those photos. They're going to deny it, of course, and you most likely didn't check for the source of those torrent packets. Or do you log the IP addresses of connected peers and your uploaders?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:In other news- by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-03-07 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Obviously the RIAA wouldn't be distributing their copyrighted works through torrents, so it can't be their fault.
6. Re:In other news- by idontgno · 2012-03-07 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's because the RIAA has mod points. And modding "Funny" is much more effective at neutralizing an idea than modding "Troll" or "Flamebait".
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
7. Re:In other news- by cpghost · 2012-03-07 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously, the RIAA don't own any copyrights... at least not copyright related to music. It's their members who do. But who said that the RIAA, or maybe one of their many affiliates don't own copyright to *ahemm* those photos? Not implying anything here, just naively asking.
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
8. Re:In other news- by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  People here abuse "Troll" and "Flamebait" so much that I've made "Troll" act as +1 and "Flamebait" as +6 to counteract people suppressing posts due to ideological reasons.
  Surprisingly that doesn't cause too much garbage to show up and what there is is well worth the unhiding of unpopular ideas.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished by johnvile · 2012-03-07 06:52 · Score: 2

Ever.

--
"What Are They Gonna Do When Were All Using Freenet"
Justice by Cajun+Hell · 2012-03-07 06:53 · Score: 4, Funny

He's a snitch. Of course he should be persecuted. Worst of all, he snitched one the one person who should have been able to count on his loyalty and discretion: himself.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I saw this last night... by Richard_at_work · 2012-03-07 06:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

On the BBC website (the link posted in the summary), and it was quite a prominent story - however, I went back to find it this morning and it's nowhere to be found, you have to use a direct link to get to it. Interesting...
The story itself is a typical example of UK officialdom vastly over-reacting, and has been picked up by many mainstream newspapers today - I hope this bloke is absolved and compensated by social services for their idiotic behaviour.
1. Re:I saw this last night... by Shimbo · 2012-03-07 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  On the BBC website (the link posted in the summary), and it was quite a prominent story - however, I went back to find it this morning and it's nowhere to be found, you have to use a direct link to get to it. Interesting...
  Well, yesterday's local news is less prominent today, not a big surprise. And it's fairly straightforward to navigate to by drilling down through the regional pages: News/England/Humberside.
2. Re:I saw this last night... by AliasMarlowe · 2012-03-07 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  On the BBC website (the link posted in the summary), and it was quite a prominent story - however, I went back to find it this morning and it's nowhere to be found, you have to use a direct link to get to it. Interesting...
  It's there, but not in a very prominent place. Go to the England part of the UK section, select Yorkshire & Lincolnshire as your local area, then click on the Humberside section. It's there, for their community to see, but not really presented to the rest of the nation.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
3. Re:I saw this last night... by CaseCrash · 2012-03-07 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's #2 on the Most Read list on the right hand side. That's where I found it this morning.
  
  --
  No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
4. Re:I saw this last night... by u38cg · 2012-03-07 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  The story stinks. Vast quantites of child porn don't just "appear" on your computer. The guy was probably hoarding it, got busted, and decided to try and report it to wriggle out of it.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
5. Re:I saw this last night... by RussellSHarris · 2012-03-08 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  According to the reports on several other sites, the guy claims he downloaded exactly one mislabeled torrent, and it contained CP. It should be trivial for the authorities to verify whether or not that is true. It certainly shouldn't take months.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-07 06:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Clearly, there is a moral lesson here: if you don't know enough about your computers to keep child porn off them, you will probably not be an effective parent. East Riding social services should be complimented for bringing to light this previously unknown connection. Perhaps other similar relationships exist, such as improperly weeded gardens leading to revocation of driver's licences, or lawyers disbarred for insufficient knowledge of breakfast cereal jingles.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Come on people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 06:56 · Score: 4, Funny

There's a new iPad. With 120% more horizantal who-gives-a-shits and a whole bunch of new big-fucking-deals available on the app store.
And you guys are talking about this nonsense? Defending a guy with a hard drive full of child porn, that just somehow "magically" got there, he doesn't know how - a wizard did it?
iPad people, iPad. Apple isn't paying you to defend child molesters, it's paying you to sell them more iPads.
1. Re:Come on people by queequeg1 · 2012-03-07 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had mod points for this. Thanks for the laugh.
2. Re:Come on people by evilviper · 2012-03-07 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  But if slashdot editors just start posting stories about it, for free, they lose out on all that big slashvertisement money down the road...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Another rube will self-identify by Xandrax · 2012-03-07 06:58 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, there are still people out there wearing rose-colored glasses. We can only hope that all the people who think it's a good idea to have bigger government with more authority over our lives will have an event just like this happen to them, so we can get off this road to hell paved by their "best intentions".
1. Re:Another rube will self-identify by SecurityTheatre · 2012-03-07 07:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Non sequitor.
  One of the problems in the US and UK (and to some extent, Australia and Canada) is that they have privatized prisons, which has lead to BILLIONS of dollars in lobbying made to increase sentencing and decrease judicial and police discretion about "minor crimes".
  Your faith in (and I may be putting words in your mouth here) "privatize everything" is misplaced. People in power, by their nature, are corruptable and seek to increase their power.
  I am just as frightened by it being financial and business hegemons OR government untouchables. The difference is that in our system of government, we can remove those in power, we can demand (and even vote for) transparency in their actions and we can lawfully pursue justice where they fail to do it.
  In business, many of those recourses are lost. I'm all for small business, but in an anarcho-libertarian society (the obvious extreme example of your position), global multinationals would become de-facto islands of government, just as they began to do in the 1880s, before the US federal government asserted the people's desire to put controls in place to regulate gross misuse of marketplace domination and monopoly. Things improved for almost all people (except the handful at the top of the business) when those businesses were regulated so they could no longer take gross advantage of the workers, the economy and the environment.
  So I just caution you that your particular tollway, also, may be paved by your best intentions, but I assert it doesn't necessary avoid taking us to a the same destination any less directly.
2. Re:Another rube will self-identify by Xandrax · 2012-03-07 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't get me wrong, I don't have more faith in corporations. As you said, it's a pretty well-paved road going both ways.
  The thing that makes me more wary of the government is that governments, being the highest power, not only answer to no one, they also have access to the country's resources (military, law-enforcement, tax-collecting, etc..). A corrupt powerful government is inherently more dangerous to personal liberties that a corrupt powerful corporation.
3. Re:Another rube will self-identify by Uberbah · 2012-03-07 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's not addressing the central flaw in your "Big Gubbmit" storyline....
4. Re:Another rube will self-identify by Requiem18th · 2012-03-07 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  My 2cents, my political stance, while leaning on increased regulation, is about regulation of financial institutions and protection of environment. For citizens, government should be as local as possible, with local courts being able to overrule federal decisions and such.
  Unfortunately, a situation like this one has little to do with the "size" of government. Something like this could happen in a small county with a small police department and a hopelessly small Social Services staff. The solution of this problem can only take the form of an incentive for the police to be less proactive.
  Two non mutually exclusive solutions are, make it so that policemen arresting innocent people get punished meaning that policemen will have an incentive to be relaxed. Or, make it less rewarding to just arrest anybody for any reason. If anything. I'd go with the first one, I want my police to be very incentiviced to catch criminals but not trigger happy about it.
  Either way, the solution would be MORE regulation (to ensure policemen aren't trigger happy) not less. At least in the general case. Of course it would help if possession of CP wasn't a crime, which may be what you are suggesting. Should possession of CP be a crime or and indication that you are a dangerous person? Well I've always said that if possession and free distribution of CP is purported to be helpful to CP producers then distribution of Big5 music and movies should not be a crime. On the other hand, let's say it was decriminalized and you found out that your neighbor has a huge stash of --completely legal to own-- CP, would you trust your children with him? Would you trust him with *his* children?
  Honestly something has to be done about it, although I can see the argument that being a pedophile and being harmful are not the same way. I think Social Services should have talked with his daughter to find out if he was making her uncomfortable in anyway. In any case, I don't think anarchy is the solution here.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
5. Re:Another rube will self-identify by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, there are still people out there wearing rose-colored glasses. We can only hope that all the people who think it's a good idea to have bigger government with more authority over our lives will have an event just like this happen to them, so we can get off this road to hell paved by their "best intentions".
  Yeah, let's get rid of the evil Big Brother Government Social Workers and Police interfering in the God-given natural rights of parents to torture, rape and murder their own kids in the privacy of their own home.. .
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
6. Re:Another rube will self-identify by SecurityTheatre · 2012-03-09 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  And that's where we disagree, but you have to admit the disagreement is very subtle.
  One thing I will point out is that the government's stated goal is "make life better for the people".
  A corporations stated goal is "make profit by any means possible".
  Governments can be corrupted, but corporations don't even have to be corrupted. They can be pretty evil simply being exactly forthright about what their goals are.
Never ever ever ever talk to the police. by AndyKron · 2012-03-07 07:00 · Score: 1

Never ever ever ever talk to the police.
Re:bad guys by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here at work it is my job to fix IT problems. When I see a server I see a box of problems. There is always something that can be "fixed."
See this is the wrong approach to IT in the same way that it is the wrong approach to policing. The job of IT should be to prevent problems from happening in the first place, you know being proactive instead of reactive.
What Did He Expect The Police To Do? by cmholm · 2012-03-07 07:05 · Score: 1

US, Canadian, and UK law enforcement have a major jones for nailing creators and consumers of child pr0n, who are disproportionately male. As such, when a male comes forward with pr0n on his equipment, the default position will usually be to consider him a suspect until they have a better grasp of the situation.
Given the policy, and that the police aren't mind readers, they may never obtain that grasp, and thus a male in Mr. Robinson's position will likely always be under suspicion. God help him if he ever has family problems that reach the authorities in the future (divorce, child acting out, etc).
Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson seems to be victim to his own naiveté. A typical /. commenter might wonder: what did he expect to accomplish by reporting the results of a file download to the police? They are likely not equipped to deal with cyber crimes, so even if all concerned agreed that Mr. Robinson had inadvertently discovered a criminal child pr0n provider, they'd be hard pressed to do anything about it unless Scotland Yard got involved.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
Social Services by Murdoch5 · 2012-03-07 07:06 · Score: 1

They don't help kids, they just hurt parents!
1. Re:Social Services by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-03-07 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  They don't help kids, they just hurt parents!
  That is completely and utterly false. Social Services does not just hurt parents...they usually hurt the children as well.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
2. Re:Social Services by Murdoch5 · 2012-03-07 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  How many kids get moved from an abusive house to only end up in a place where they either get abused or ignored? How many parents get accused of abusing children when in fact they haven't done anything wrong, I'm going to guarantee that the percentage is more then 0, What are a parents rights when they lose the kids, well pretty much nothing, they get told what they can and can not do. So how exactly is this helping all the kids that need it? I know a kid that got removed from his house and he ended up going into 4 homes where his stuff got stolen, broken and destroyed. He got beat, abused and kicked out on the street.
  
  Explain to me exactly how that helped him? If you want better stories he has more then just make you wonder what is wrong with the social system, kids are getting put into worse situations then they get removed from, I wish I was making this up but it's horrible and sad I'm not.
3. Re:Social Services by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-03-07 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think that story supports what I said, social services does not just hurt the parents, they usually hurt the children as well.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
4. Re:Social Services by Murdoch5 · 2012-03-07 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wow your right, sorry I don't know how I missed your second point sorry!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-03-07 07:06 · Score: 5, Funny

It reminds me of that episode of COPS which opens with an elderly woman in a gas station. The woman holds up a rock of crack, telling the cop it was she that called them because somebody sold her that rock of crack.

The episode comes to a close immedately as the cops cuff her on the spot without question and take her in.
He man not have had a choice by brokeninside · 2012-03-07 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

``Honey, what's this on your computer?''
`What's what? Oh! That!'
``How did it get there honey?''
`Uh, I don't know. It must have gotten downloaded when I was downloading music or something.'
``We should call the police.''
`Uh, yeah, we should do that.'
1. Re:He man not have had a choice by Ihmhi · 2012-03-07 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  If that's what happened and he was nagged into going to the police... well, if this all works out, I'm pretty sure he's got a "Free BJs for Life" coupon coming his way from his wife.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
2. Re:He man not have had a choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  If that's what happened and he was nagged into going to the police... well, if this all works out, I'm pretty sure he's got a "Free BJs for Life" coupon coming his way from his wife.
  You don't seem to be very good at reading between the lines. The implication would be that he downloaded (or otherwise obtained) the material for his own purposes and that he called the police as the only way of maintaining any sort of cover story. If that's the case then there's a good chance that his wife won't be impressed when she finds out.
3. Re:He man not have had a choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  If that's what happened and he was nagged into going to the police... well, if this all works out, I'm pretty sure he's got a "Free BJs for Life" coupon coming his way from his wife.
  Clearly you're not married.
4. Re:He man not have had a choice by cdrudge · 2012-03-07 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  Or divorce papers because he had the child porn on his computer.
5. Re:He man not have had a choice by isorox · 2012-03-07 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Free BJs for Life" coupon coming his way from his wife.
  I don't know how they do it in your country, but I don't recall ever paying my wife for a blow job.
6. Re:He man not have had a choice by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  If he's found guilty he gets to give them to Bubba for life.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
7. Re:He man not have had a choice by Thing+1 · 2012-03-07 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, you did, you did.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
8. Re:He man not have had a choice by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  If that's what happened and he was nagged into going to the police... well, if this all works out, I'm pretty sure he's got a "Free BJs for Life" coupon coming his way from his wife.
  I'm baffled, do you think that women are secretly turned on by paedophiles?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The new Darwin law by deciduousness · 2012-03-07 07:07 · Score: 1

This is almost a new iteration of survival. It doesn't matter if it seems like the right thing to do, contacting the "authorities" will result in a punishment for someone, it is what they do, it is what they are trained and told to do. This guy most likely would have been fine if he would have called a tech and asked for help that way.
Bingo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:09 · Score: 1

NEVER go to government. Let them come to you. If they have determined that there is a problem (and that's for them to decide, not you), then you will be engaged. If they don't know (very possible) or don't care (also very possible), then you will not be engaged, and hence there was never a problem in the first place.
If you go to government when there is no need, what "good" can come of it? You really need to learn some risk management. The downside risk here absolutely dwarfs any "good" that could come from engaging government. At the very least, you will lose in the form of hassle, time, and money. At the most? I think we all know the answer to that.
Government doesn't engage a citizen unless they want something from him. When a citizen engages government, the people making the decisions don't ask "how can we help this citizen?", but rather "what do we want from this citizen?" If they can't determine what they want, then you will cut your losses at the hassle stage. If they can determine what they want, your losses are potentially unlimited.
Example: If I witness a violent crime, then yes, I will do the right thing and report what I know. This is the exception rather than the rule.
Example: If I am rear-ended by a careless driver resulting in a dent on my bumper, I tell him not to worry about it and move on. This is the rule rather than the exception.
1. Re:Bingo by TheCarp · 2012-03-07 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  > Example: If I witness a violent crime, then yes, I will do the right thing and report what I know. This is the exception rather than the rule.
  >
  > Example: If I am rear-ended by a careless driver resulting in a dent on my bumper, I tell him not to worry about it and move on. This is the rule rather
  > than the exception.
  With you on those.... one exception.... I would add violation of the safety of others to 'violent'. The 3 times I have ever called 911.... a dumpster fire I drove by and saw down in the projects, a desk in the middle of the highway at night (or a couch, I couldn't tell at that speed in the dark). The third was this woman who I saw in a parking lot who was way way too fucked up to be driving, who I first thought was just sitting in the car with the A/C on to cool off....then she put the car in gear (after 10 minutes of heavy opiate nods) and drove off.... not cool... especially not in the middle of the day. I have far less problem with someone with a buzz on driving home at 2 am than someone in the middle of the day or so fucked up on anything that they can't even remain awake...I mean come on... its one thing to think the limits are set to low, but... actually passing out is clearly over any defensible line.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
2. Re:Bingo by TheCarp · 2012-03-08 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  > BTW, I would have pulled over and dragged the couch off the highway myself, and then simply driven away. ;)
  Then you either misunderstand the road I am talking about,.... or you are batshit crazy. :)
  I was on rt 2, about 3-4 miles outside of Boston. It was a mostly empty road, but it was very dark and people fly through there at anywhere from 55-75 MPH. I might try crossing that highway if I really had to... but I wouldn't spend any amount of time out in the middle of it.
  That and, I was going a good clip when I flew by it. I didn't even have to slow down to note the mile marker and call.... to do something about it would have meant stopping...then going back to it.... then dragging it off the road as a single person with nobody to keep traffic away? Not without a second set of hands and some rod flares handy...at the very least.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Careful with anecdotes by PIPBoy3000 · 2012-03-07 07:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

I recently had a great experience with police. We had a break-in, and all the laptops were stolen. Fortunately we had Prey on one of them, and it tracked the thieves to a hotel in a nearby town. The local police investigated and recovered almost everything. We drove over the next day and brought them brownies.
1. Re:Careful with anecdotes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:33 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Get off of Slashdot! Everybody knows that all police are working full time on edge cases and civil liberties abuses that are in no way effective at preventing, detecting or punishing any individual occurrence of any widespread crime!
2. Re:Careful with anecdotes by X0563511 · 2012-03-07 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  Local police are usually pretty cool. It seems it's the state/federal ones that have sticks up their asses. That probably grows on them with the job, if you think about it.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Careful with anecdotes by johnb10001 · 2012-03-07 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I accidentally dropped my natural organic medicine in them. I planted it myself and have a prescription.
4. Re:Careful with anecdotes by Pieroxy · 2012-03-07 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Get off of Slashdot! Everybody knows that all police are working full time on edge cases and civil liberties abuses that are in no way effective at preventing, detecting or punishing any individual occurrence of any widespread crime!
  Interesting? This is modded INTERESTING!!! Oh my... Things have gone too far.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
5. Re:Careful with anecdotes by boristdog · 2012-03-07 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When I worked for IT at the state we often had memory and hard drives (small and valuable back in the 90's) disappear. My boss always made me report it to the cops (state police, in this case) rather than having anyone else in the department do it.
  Every single theft I reported I was hauled in for intense interrogation. The cops ALWAYS went with the assumption that I alone did the crime because I reported it, even though there were dozens or even hundreds of people in the department with the same access to the missing equipment. Once I was cuffed to a chair for an hour and questioned for reporting a theft. They will question you about every aspect of your life, financial, personal, professional, sexual, anything. Every time I felt like I was going to end up in prison for reporting the crime. But I did the reporting because my boss asked me to do it and she was a nice lady. She was also black, so I understood why she had me do the reporting. I was the most innocent looking, nerdy, white male in the department so they probably went easiest on me.
  Another anecdote: My wife once reported a reckless driver who ran us off the road, license #, make, model, everything. Because she admitted driving onto the shoulder to avoid him, she got a ticket for unsafe driving.
  So no, unless your life is in danger and you have no other options, do not talk to the cops.
6. Re:Careful with anecdotes by ArsenneLupin · 2012-03-07 10:09 · Score: 1
  Police are pretty good with dealing with property crimes. Not so much with everything else...
  Not even that. Usually it goes like this:
  
  Guy has prey on his laptop.
  Laptop gets stolen.
  Guy hands all the data needed to find the perp to police
  Police sit on their hands, and do basically nothing
  Guy calls up his friends, they form a "geek posse" who apprehend the perp in a shady internet cafe
  Geek posse brings perp to police, who claim all the credit. Or worse: arrest geek posse for endangering the public...
Re:Police State much? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-03-07 07:11 · Score: 1

It's the court's job to assume you are innocent until proven otherwise, it's the police's job to assume you are guilty and find the evidence to support that and make sure you are at the court's disposal.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
In Capitalist America ... by Skapare · 2012-03-07 07:13 · Score: 1

... just sue them for getting it wrong. Besides, suing is the national sport.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
1. Re:In Capitalist America ... by CaseCrash · 2012-03-07 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah that's great, except he's a British man living in the UK.
  
  --
  No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
3 rights make a left, 4 rights gets you nowhere by Thud457 · 2012-03-07 07:13 · Score: 1

People who steal music shouldn't be allowed around impressionable children.
People who steal music and instead get child porn (porn, not pr0n, because it's not the acceptable kind...) shouldn't tattle to the police.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:3 rights make a left, 4 rights gets you nowhere by jmcvetta · 2012-03-11 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  People who steal music shouldn't be allowed around impressionable children.
  I don't think there was any suggestion this man robbed a store or burglarized any albums from his neighborhors. You should really stop slandering strangers.
we are assuming, of course, he is truthful by goffster · 2012-03-07 07:14 · Score: 1

The investigator might have found something to merit being cautious at least.
How many of you have downloaded music to find it was really porn?
I would imagine the answer to be nearly zero.
1. Re:we are assuming, of course, he is truthful by medcalf · 2012-03-07 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, but you never really know what's on the other end of a link until you click it.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
2. Re:we are assuming, of course, he is truthful by HornWumpus · 2012-03-07 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Consider that in England goat.se is extreme porn and illegal.
  Then consider the goat trolls and browser cache.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:we are assuming, of course, he is truthful by Hognoxious · 2012-03-07 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's just a reverse rickroll.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Pointing the blame at the wrong group by hawkbat05 · 2012-03-07 07:17 · Score: 5, Informative

It seems like everyone is blaming the police for this but if you RTFA, no charges or arrests have been made at all. It's social services who made the recommendation and I have NEVER heard of their decision being contested successfully. These people have the ability to apply restrictions like this to anyone with little to no evidence of an actual crime or charges being laid. For parents these organizations are far more intimidating than the police because they can make their own rules and the courts will uphold them.
1. Re:Pointing the blame at the wrong group by MightyMartian · 2012-03-07 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Holy sweeping stereotypes, Batman!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Multiple personalities. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-03-07 07:17 · Score: 1

Clearly, his other self downloaded it.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
1. Re:Multiple personalities. by Kittenman · 2012-03-07 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly, his other self downloaded it.
  I'm in two minds about that.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
To be fair. by inkrypted · 2012-03-07 07:20 · Score: 1

They really should consider if he has any record of criminal behavior in this area before making a decesion like that. I can see the need for caution but this seems very exsussive. I hear stories like this all the time and wonder if child molesters are the communist of the new millennium.

--
Chris Sheppard
what would you do? by bityz · 2012-03-07 07:22 · Score: 1

(re-posting because I accidentally posted as AC)
Personally, I'd be tempted to find out everything I could about who hacked into my system and how they did it.
Would that be wise? I'm not sure. My guess is that you couldn't do such investigative work after calling the police, that it might help if you did it before calling the police, and that if you were in the middle of doing it and the police came knocking, you'd be in even more trouble.
I couldn't just delete it and not try to help - I'd feel guilty the rest of my life and wonder if I could have made a difference for some child. I'd have to call the police.
What would you do?
not following ur logic... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

why is the possibility of getting blamed for something you had no part in not better than the certainty of it?
my sister-in-law's brother is a victim of law enforcement stupidity in this area - he bought a USED computer off e-bay in '02 running XP (pause & think about that for a minute - how many exploits have been found/patched in last decade?) that turned out to be a pron zombie but he was (then) 19, single & still living at home so OBVIOUSLY he was a perv! there's a whole lot more detail (some interesting technical stuff if we weren't talking about ruining an innocent kid's life) to his story - short version is that while it's not possible to 100.0% exonerate him to say there's reasonable doubt would be an understatement of biblical proportion but if you think for a SECOND that opportunistic cops and/or prosecutors are going to let that get in the way of their photo op you're probably still waiting for your hope & change...
one thing I learned from his case is you're a damned fool to assume/expect good faith from law enforcement in this (or probably any) area...
TFA actually states... by JoeInnes · 2012-03-07 07:27 · Score: 1

TFA actually states that social services made a decision based on evidence available to them. We do not know if that information is also available to us. While I, of course, believe in being innocent until proven guilty, there is an additional factor in that if this bloke has been convicted of a sex crime in the past, social services may have access to that information, but they are not allowed to pass it on.

Also, if he IS a paedophile, and suspected the police were closing in on him, then he can now turn around and say "yes, of course that kiddie porn is there; I told you it was". In short, I'm reserving judgement on either party for this one. If he's not guilty, then he deserves to be able to have that decided in a court, rather than have people making up their minds based on a news article. On the other hand, there may well be a very good reason that access has been removed. If there is, then let the courts rule that the decision made by social services is fair.

It's right that he is allowed to challenge, but it's also right that social services are allowed to make a decision based on what they believe at the time to be in the best interests of the child.
1. Re:TFA actually states... by St.Creed · 2012-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that if there is no evidence of any harm (was the child displayed in the pictures?) and there is evidence of someone "doing the right thing" by going to the police when it was MUCH easier to delete evidence, there is little risk in letting the existing situation go on for a while until more information becomes available. But there is obvious harm in not allowing the child to see her father at this young age. And that is quite apart from the stress on the marriage which will impact the child as well.
  Apparently the risk/benefit analysis of the CPA runs as follows: any risk at all to our reputation is unacceptable. Any damage at all to the parents is not our problem. As long as the child is physically okay, we're good.
  Personally, I find that shortsighted and revolting.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
2. Re:TFA actually states... by medv4380 · 2012-03-07 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the better option have been just wiping the Hard drive?
3. Re:TFA actually states... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-03-07 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You are missing the fact that this incident occurred four months ago. Additionally, exactly where in the story did you see that he has had any opportunity to challenge this order? He is under an order to not spend any unsupervised time with his own child for the indefinite future. There is no suggestion that this order may expire at some point.
  Yes, it is possible that when social services investigated this, they found that he was on the UK Sex offender registry. I might be comfortable with this if there was some forum whereby he could actually challenge this ruling by social services and have at least a remote chance of getting it overturned. The story seems to imply that there is no such forum in the UK.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
4. Re:TFA actually states... by JoeInnes · 2012-03-07 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/sscs/
5. Re:TFA actually states... by JoeInnes · 2012-03-07 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore that - my misreading. The correct complaints/appeals would go through here: http://www.lgo.org.uk/ if it had not been adequately resolved by the authority themselves.
Re:bad guys by Sarten-X · 2012-03-07 07:32 · Score: 1

"That server's reporting SMART errors, but it's never had disk problems before. We'll go ahead and let it run, and don't worry about supervising the disks."

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Catch 22 by C0L0PH0N · 2012-03-07 07:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a serious Catch 22 situation. You can only report child porn if you are in possession of it or have knowledge of it. You are committing a crime if you are in possession of child porn, period. Even if you came into possession of it entirely innocently, the burden is going to be on you (probably for the rest of your life) to prove your innocence. This is one of the worst areas of the law to be on the wrong side of. The police will always err on the side of caution, which means, if you are in possession, you are a suspect. They will sort out the details later. If ever. And it appears this Catch 22 situation will only get worse for the foreseeable future. The best thing might be to zip your lip and burn the laptop, and move on. I hope this man is cleared soon, and can be a normal family man again. Very sad.
1. Re:Catch 22 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-03-07 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  what about the people at places that fix pc's are they at risk? Rent a center finds some on returned systems that some one rented?
2. Re:Catch 22 by epine · 2012-03-07 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  The best thing might be to zip your lip and burn the laptop, and move on.
  Smouldering laptops attract no attention at all, and now it really does look bad. Stop deluding yourself into thinking there's any reasonable escape from a witch-hunt gone sour.
  The reasonable escape is to put the thumb screws to the witch-hunt itself. Social conservatives will never allow this because abortion might be next to enter a sane discussion. Whatever your political stripe, when values are hostage to tactics, you're part of the problem.
3. Re:Catch 22 by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, they're absolutely at risk. If they report it, they'll go to jail for possession. No, their employers will not, the low-level employees will take the fall; that's the way it is in this corporatist country.
  If you come across kiddie porn in the line of work, the answer is simple: delete it (a "wipe" program is probably a good idea here, to make sure it can't be undeleted, and then you get blamed for it somehow), and keep your mouth shut.
4. Re:Catch 22 by rsborg · 2012-03-07 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  The best thing might be to zip your lip and burn the laptop, and move on.
  Smouldering laptops attract no attention at all, and now it really does look bad. Stop deluding yourself into thinking there's any reasonable escape from a witch-hunt gone sour.
  The reasonable escape is to put the thumb screws to the witch-hunt itself. Social conservatives will never allow this because abortion might be next to enter a sane discussion. Whatever your political stripe, when values are hostage to tactics, you're part of the problem.
  Smouldering laptops? No, I'm pretty sure C0L0PH0N was NOT indicating that you physically scorch the laptop. Just scrub it clean. A good way of doing this is to physically or logically nuke the hard drive. Simply wipe or buy a new one, and restore or load new OS. Verify, rinse, repeat until verifyably clean.
  One catch - and this is a *windows* problem, is licensing/restore. Linux is free to download and install, and Macs have always had painless DVD, flashdrive or internet-based restore, and licensing is no-hassle. With windows, if you're lucky, the PC has some hidden restore drive/flashdrive. Otherwise, you're pretty much screwed.
  With a modicum of knowledge, an end user should be using backups and restore points. It's possible on Windows, easy on the Mac. However, the kind of folks who would be doing this are likely NOT the ones who would involuntarily get CP on their system.
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
5. Re:Catch 22 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-03-07 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  so that will just lead to the low-level employees black mailing the customers. Say you call them and say I found some child pron so pay up or I will call the cops.
6. Re:Catch 22 by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  The whole thing sounds like a no-win situation. Does anyone know what the current law and situation is, for people working at Geek Squad or wherever, if they find CP on their customers' computer?
7. Re:Catch 22 by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  what about the people at places that fix pc's are they at risk? Rent a center finds some on returned systems that some one rented?
  I thought being shopped by PC repair people was how most stupid owners of child porn.got caught? So I assume the standing instructions are to call the police the second you see any evidence of child porn.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:what would you do? by roc97007 · 2012-03-07 07:38 · Score: 1

Yes, but we're geeks. What do regular people do? They're defenseless.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:bad guys by cdrudge · 2012-03-07 07:40 · Score: 1

Police are not your friends unless you help them "catch bad guys."
And if you look around and don't see any bad guys, guess who the police look at as the bad guy...
what do you do? by roc97007 · 2012-03-07 07:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can't say precisely where things went wrong, but it does look like the system goes after the "easy" cases rather than dig into the ones where children are genuinely in danger. Now we have parents who are trying to do the right thing being routinely badgered by the powers that be (not necessarily the police, who are only the arms of the bureaucrats) while we continually read of kids who were killed or severely traumatized in situations where authorities were aware of the situation but did not pursue it. It really seems like they tend to pursue the easy things. Is this to push up statistics?
When my daughter was young (single digits, don't remember exactly) she got a rug burn at daycare that became infected. I took her to the doctor, who sent me across the street for x-rays. When I came back, there were police waiting. After much hilarity and trauma, they decided they didn't have enough evidence to arrest me and let us go.
So, what do I do the next time she gets injured while playing? Not take her to the doctor?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:what do you do? by IMightB · 2012-03-07 08:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Similar story, when I was younger my Father, sister ( A bit of a tomboy ) and I were playing catch in the backyard with a baseball. My father tossed it to my sister who missed it and it hit her square in the eye and quickly became a great shiner with a fairly decent amount of swelling. To make sure there was no serious damage we all went to the hospital to see the doctor. When asked by the doctor how it happened, my sister (Still in tears) pointed right at my dad and said "He did it!". He was promptly removed from the room for a few hours while me and my sister were asked all sorts of questions by some "Nice people from the hospital". He never really said what he was doing during this time, but I'd imagine that he was being grilled pretty well.
2. Re:what do you do? by roc97007 · 2012-03-07 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ouch. So I'd say, at least wait until she's stopped crying...
  It's almost like you have to coach your kids on what to say before you take them to the hospital, in your own and your family's defense.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3. Re:what do you do? by roc97007 · 2012-03-08 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  That'll teach him, spending time with his kids. Rat-bastard!
  Yeah!! ...Wait, what?
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by artor3 · 2012-03-07 07:48 · Score: 5, Informative

Straight from the horse's mouth: Don't Talk to Police.
The first half is a defense attorney, the second half is a cop. Both speakers make it very clear -- do not talk to police without a lawyer present. Some will try to screw you to boost their numbers, others will screw you by accident, but either way you get screwed. Cops have a very specific job to do, and that job does not involve looking out for your personal best interests. Talk to a lawyer instead - they are legally required to do what's best for you.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-03-07 07:51 · Score: 2

Did you know that all of those correlations you listed ALSO correlate to the well-documented Pirate to Global Warming ratio?

It's truly astounding how far-reaching bulletproof statistics really are.
Re:what would you do? by HiThere · 2012-03-07 07:53 · Score: 1

Considering that cartoons can qualify as "child porn", I'd be really hesitant to make a judgement as to what was found. The label may not refer to the thing you were thinking of.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Cult of childhood rules again by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:54 · Score: 1

I am posting anonymously because of the idiotic attitude of a small minority of people to do with any comments about children and sexuality. At the moment there is a neo-Victorian attitude to children and sexuality as though children are completely innocent of all knowledge and aspects of sexuality until in their mid teens. This is mindless nonsense and most people know it but choose instead to support the pitchfork wielding mob-rule mentality because - well it's good to have a section of society to blame all our ills on isn't it (and if not p3doph1lia then presumably 1slamic M1litants or other people we can burn at the stake). Children ARE sexual. Fact. Most children masturbate and know that touching your privates feels great. I did (as a child) and so did many of my friends. I was also touched (between my legs) by an adult (who I knew as a distant relation) as a child and l loved it. What isn't great is when ANYBODY (child or adult) is forced to do something against their will or treated as an object rather than a person. That hurts (as does being made to feel guilty for being sexual as a child). What about (God forbid) sex education at home and telling children about the facts of life when they ask (as a good parent). I used to play with a little girl the same age and played a 'doctors and nurses' game with her at 8 years old. We were discovered and rather than being punished - my grandparents used it as an approriate time to educate me and her (with her parents permission - they rang them) about bodies, sex and all that - then let us carry on! These days my grandparents (wonderful people they were) would have been arrested! It is entirely possible that this person did download child pornography. What would hurt his children more? The authorities taking his word for it (but perhaps checking up a couple of time in the future) or stopping him seeing his children (or probably cuddling his children like he did before). Right - really helps his children this doesn't it. I'm glad that this story was published - it will act as a warning to everybody else to NEVER trust the Police or Social Services (in the UK) again (or probably in most other western countries as well) It is clear that they cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of parents or anyone else for that matter (except themselves). I guess that we only have ourselves to blame for their attitude - since when in recent times did anybody have a balanced discussion about whether sexuality hurts children without being (metaphorically at least) torn to pieces by the raging mob. OMG I'm so glad I'm not growing up now.
1. Re:Cult of childhood rules again by xmundt · 2012-03-07 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  Greetings and Salutations.
  I realize you are probably nothing more than a troll, but, since you bring up some interesting points, I am willing to ride the carousel ONE cycle with you.
  let us consider the issue of sexual contact between an adult and a child, and, why it is not a good thing. It is true enough that children have a sexual nature early on in their development. After all, the nerves are there and the programming is in place. However, my issue with adult/child sex has more to do with power than sex. By definition, a child is unable to give informed consent to an action. That has been proved time and time again through history and is one reason that most societies have laws that require that the parents make any such contracts. So...by definition, adult/child sex is a form of rape and, can have serious, long-term injury to the child's self-image and sense of worth. These scars can lead to self-destructive behavior later in life. Also, there is the fact that sex is more than just the physical connection - it is an emotional sharing on an equal basis - and that is not possible between an adult and a child. This factor leads to the child being treated as nothing more than an object for stimulation. Since the kids are in their formative years, this objectification will be incorporated in the child's self image, leaving them feeling worthless.
  As for the adults that get involved in that sort of interaction, it has been my observation that they are often developmentally stunted and so unable to involve themselves in a "normal" adult relationship. They are cutting out the emotional sharing and closeness of an adult relationship, and substituting the immature, physical sensation only, relationship of youth. Either that, or they are in a very dark place, and are using their relationship with a much younger person to attain a level of power and control that they feel they do not have in other parts of their life. In either case, it is a negative thing for both parties.
  As regards any interaction with the police - I would tend to agree with you and other posters, who recommend that staying under the radar is far better than stepping out of the way once it is focused on you. While many policemen are humans of good will, many of them ARE out to push and agenda and work out their own anger and such by nailing members of the public. I remember a saying from many years ago that went "to a cop there are only three types of people: Cops, Family of Cops and Perps". This, alas, tends to remain true today. Cops are, generally, very aware of the political tides in their department. So, when the hint is dropped that the prosecutors are not seeing enough cases in a particular area, or that the elected DA needs a high-profile, slam-dunk now that it is a few months before election time, they will start keeping their eyes open for any behavior that will match those needs. It is human nature, and, should not be a surprise.
  One problem with this case is that, as the tenor of the comments attached to the story show, this guy is now tarred for life, whether he is a paedophile or not. Even with no charged brought, and no indication that there was any history of child abuse, the fact that CPS has put up walls around his daughter will be enough proof that they just could not catch him, but he really is one. In America, we have a national registry of sex offenders. While that sounds like a good idea, it has proven to do little good, because the 18 year old who was sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend is listed right next to the evil fellow who just got out of prison for raping a dozen 1 year old babies. Without nuance, there is no way to make an informed judgement about a given person's actual threat.
  In closing, I have to say that I do believe that sex is som
  
  --
  YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
I'll raise you three anecdotes by toadlife · 2012-03-07 07:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

On three separate occasions, we had computers stolen from my workplace and the computers checked in with our WSUS server, after they were stolen, leaving their public IP address. On all three of those occasions we shared the information with the local police immediately NOTHING was done.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
1. Re:I'll raise you three anecdotes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  My brother once had his office broken into. They stole about $60,000 worth of equipment and he also found his checkbook stolen. The next day, a nearby department store cashed one of his checks. They had the guy on video, writing a check from my brother's checkbook! He called the authorities and they said they didn't have time to go through the security tapes now, but maybe someone would do it soon.
  One week later, my brother went out to his car to find 6 (six) police cars surrounding it. He asked if they had his stuff. They didn't know what he was talking about. They were all there to enforce a single unpaid parking ticket.
2. Re:I'll raise you three anecdotes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Similarly, I had my XBox 360 (amongst other things) stolen from my apartment in a break-in a few years ago. I told my real-life friends (who I had added as friends on XBox Live) to keep an eye out for my account. Sure enough, a couple days later my XBL account was signing in periodically. After some research, I found that MS has a system that allows them to place stolen XBoxes on a watchlist, log any connections to XBL, and report the IP addresses to law enforcement. All the local police had to do was fax them a form confirming that it was, in fact, stolen, then wait for MS to contact them.
  When I explained this to the officer on my case, all he had to say was, "Son, this ain't CSI." Needless to say, the form never got sent, and the case never got solved. And this is a police department for a metro area of about a million people, not some podunk town.
3. Re:I'll raise you three anecdotes by phorm · 2012-03-07 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  You probably would have had more luck in the podunk town.
4. Re:I'll raise you three anecdotes by kcbnac · 2012-03-07 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  You have to make it not about the laptop. Make it about what is ON the laptop.
  The laptop, insurance can replace. The value of which isn't enough for the police to "waste their time on" - also, get a VP or someone important to make a scene about it. "How can we do business here when the police won't even investigate our stolen laptops with trade secrets/etc on them?"
  MAKE it important for them. Talk to all of the detectives that could touch it. Who wouldn't want an easy win for a felony property theft conviction?
  "Here's the info - you just need to subpoena the ISP for where this is, and go in. Here, the machine phones home once a week. I'll even move it in our system into a special category so it checks in every 6 hours. (Move it into a seperate AD group where WSUS checks it regularly) You'll know where it is as often as you'd like."
  Hand it to them on a silver platter, and they more often than not will take it, if you can find someone who sees it for what it is. An easy win for them.
5. Re:I'll raise you three anecdotes by jonwil · 2012-03-07 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Too often the police have their priorities totally wrong, they will go to the ends of the earth to enforce an unpaid parking or speeding ticket or to catch/arrest/charge some guy with a few joints in their car but they wont do a thing when someone steals thousands of dollars worth of stuff even if the guy has been caught on security camera.
6. Re:I'll raise you three anecdotes by tehcyder · 2012-03-08 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  The laptop, insurance can replace. The value of which isn't enough for the police to "waste their time on" - also, get a VP or someone important to make a scene about it. "How can we do business here when the police won't even investigate our stolen laptops with trade secrets/etc on them?"
  Yeah, the police just love it when "someone important" starts lecturing them about how to do their job.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Posession is illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 07:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Posession of child porn is illegal. It doesn't matter how you got it, having it is illegal.
So, if you want to get someone in legal hot water, just plant some on their property. Or anonymously text it to their phone when they are somewhere nice and public that it might be seen when they look at it. Just make sure YOU don't get caught with the stuff you are planting on your victim (since distribution is also illegal).
1. Re:Posession is illegal by SlippyToad · 2012-03-07 08:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Posession of child porn is illegal. It doesn't matter how you got it, having it is illegal.
  So what we're saying here is, if you happen to come across it, just delete it and keep your mouth shut.
  Don't try to alert authorities to the source of the illegal material. In fact, don't talk to the authorities at all. Let them do their jobs in ignorance . . . because obviously that's what they deserve.
  Then, when they ask why nobody is reporting on crimes, we can reply "because then you fuckers ruin our lives!!"
  
  --
  One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
2. Re:Posession is illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Then, when they ask why nobody is reporting on crimes, we can reply "because then you fuckers ruin our lives!!"
  They would prefer it if people didn't report crimes:
  -Makes their numbers look better
  -Makes their jobs even easier
3. Re:Posession is illegal by PortHaven · 2012-03-07 10:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I so wish....
  I wish we could just email every politician in Congress a file containing Child Porn and then have them all arrested. But sadly, laws only work that way against the little guy.
4. Re:Posession is illegal by Muros · 2012-03-07 12:09 · Score: 2
  
  dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda sounds like a lot less effort.
5. Re:Posession is illegal by cduffy · 2012-03-07 14:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Then, when they ask why nobody is reporting on crimes, we can reply "because then you fuckers ruin our lives!!"
  Not reporting a crime can be illegal too. I have a friend who got 6 months for merely firing a client who was engaged in illegal activities rather than turning her in.
6. Re:Posession is illegal by EnempE · 2012-03-07 20:35 · Score: 2
  
  Not true.
  
  In the UK where this occurred.
  
  Section 160 Criminal Justice Act 1988
  
  Section 160 CJA 1988 covers the offence of possession of an indecent photograph of a child. There are four defences to this offence: three are listed in section 160(2) CJA 1988, Archbold 31 - 115, and one is listed in section 160A. Three of these defences are very similar to those that apply to some of the offences under section 1 PCA 1978, i.e. marriage, etc of a child aged 16 or 17, legitimate reason, and the defendant's lack of knowledge. The fourth defence, which is not found in the PCA 1978, is that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to the defendant without any prior request made by him and he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
  
  The man in this case, reported the images so we can assume that he had a lack of knowledge until the point of discovery of images transfered to his machine without his prior request at which point he notified the police.
  
  The law is not unreasonable, the people are.
7. Re:Posession is illegal by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  Posession of child porn is illegal. It doesn't matter how you got it, having it is illegal.
  So, if you want to get someone in legal hot water, just plant some on their property. Or anonymously text it to their phone when they are somewhere nice and public that it might be seen when they look at it. Just make sure YOU don't get caught with the stuff you are planting on your victim (since distribution is also illegal).
  Where this is the case, it's a really bad idea to tell the police that you've got some child porn, unless you absolutely know how it got there and can prove it.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
8. Re:Posession is illegal by justforgetme · 2012-03-07 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why is this moderated Funny? Sad and insightful yes, but funny?!
  
  --
  -- no sig today
9. Re:Posession is illegal by cduffy · 2012-03-08 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  ...and hope that your former posession of that content never comes to light; destroying evidence of a crime is also a crime.
10. Re:Posession is illegal by julesh · 2012-03-08 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Posession of child porn is illegal. It doesn't matter how you got it, having it is illegal.
  Erm... no.
  Here's the relevant UK legislation, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by various more recent legislation:
  
  160[F1Possession of indecent photograph of child]
  (1)[F2Subject to section 160A,] it is an offence for a person to have any indecent photographor pseudo-photograph of a child F3. . . in his possession.
  (2)Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—
  (a)that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph [F4or pseudo-photograph] in his possession; or
  (b)that he had not himself seen the photograph [F4or pseudo-photograph] and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or
  (c)that the photograph [F4or pseudo-photograph] was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
  Subsection (2)(c) would appear to apply in this case.
11. Re:Posession is illegal by N0Man74 · 2012-03-11 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, if you possess it (even without your knowledge, consent, or intent), and you discover and report it, you are going to put yourself into a huge mess.
  If you discover it, don't report it, and destroy it, and this is discovered later, you will be putting yourself into a huge mess.
  If you discover it, don't report it, and don't destroy it, and this is discovered later, you will be putting yourself into a huge mess.
  If you never discover it, and someone else does and reports it, you will be in a huge mess.
  Obviously, the solution is to gouge out your own eyes, cut out your tongue, and not have any possessions (or pockets).
12. Re:Posession is illegal by PortHaven · 2012-03-13 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  As the Greeks taught us, Comedy and Tragedy are closely interwoven.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by cpu6502 · 2012-03-07 07:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

- Visit youtube
- Search "Don't talk to police"
Both a lawyer and a policeman explain why you should never volunteer information.
- Practice your Miranda rights (remain silent).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by sohmc · 2012-03-07 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is that retaining a lawyer can be expensive whereas reporting a crime to a police officer is relatively free.
The article doesn't make it clear whether he went to his computer to perform some task and then found pr0n or if he was performing some task and was then inundated with pr0n. If he was trying download music from an sketchy source (e.g. bobsultrasuperlegalandfreemp3s.com) verses amazon.com or itunes, he was probably out to pirate music and those sites are usually filled with viruses. Did he deserve to get pwned? No, but that's besides the point.
It's disparaging that a man who hasn't even been charged is basically being treated like a criminal. I guess when it comes to kids, it's guilty until proven innocent to everyone's satisfaction.

--
We don't live in Shouldland.
Same mistake... by GameboyRMH · 2012-03-07 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the same mistake made by Google in the Wifi scandal and the US military in the accidental Quaran burnings.
You see something illegal on your own property that has hurt no one so far and no one knows about, and will cease to exist and continue to hurt no one if you destroy the evidence of it and cover it up? DESTROY THE EVIDENCE AND COVER IT UP.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The accusation itself does the damage by SlithyMagister · 2012-03-07 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

It does not matter if you are later cleared, acquitted, exonerated or whatever your local legal system calls it.
If you are cleared, there will always be those who think that you are some sort of pervert who "got off".
Also, if you are convicted just because there was porn on your computer, there will be (hopefully) be some people who will recognize the miscarraige of justice..

Once accused -- guilty or not -- your live is forever changed. I will likely cost you your retirement savings to pay to a lawyer to mitigate the damage.

Therefore, do not be your own accuser.
If you find anything incriminating on your computer, delete it irretrievably -- if you don't know how, find out.
Then ever afterwards, stfu.
1. Re:The accusation itself does the damage by gknoy · 2012-03-07 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  "My computer caught a virus because I foolishly clicked a banner ad. I couldn't get rid of it when I re-installed windows, so I destroyed the drive (to safeguard my personal data from thieves) and bought a new one."
2. Re:The accusation itself does the damage by beaviz · 2012-03-08 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Once accused -- guilty or not -- your live is forever changed. I will likely cost you your retirement savings to pay to a lawyer to mitigate the damage
  In my town we have just one (ONE!) male daycare-parent (work from home taking care of other peoples children in office hours). I once had a conversation with him along these lines:
  Me: "I would love to have your job, but I'm just too afraid that someone somewhere will misunderstand something and report me."
  Him: "I guess many are scared of that."
  Me: "Do you ever worry about something like that?"
  Him looking kind of sad: "Every single day!"
  - I died a little inside that day.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by thomst · 2012-03-07 08:28 · Score: 2

artor recommended:

Straight from the horse's mouth: Don't Talk to Police.
The first half is a defense attorney, the second half is a cop. Both speakers make it very clear -- do not talk to police without a lawyer present. Some will try to screw you to boost their numbers, others will screw you by accident, but either way you get screwed. Cops have a very specific job to do, and that job does not involve looking out for your personal best interests. Talk to a lawyer instead - they are legally required to do what's best for you.
Mod this WAY up. The video in question is 48 minutes long, and wildly entertaining throughout. Also, eye-opening.
Thanks.

--
Check out my novel.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-07 08:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Greetings from scenic Clueville! Woosh you were here.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
goes both ways... by Ameryll · 2012-03-07 08:31 · Score: 1

the social services worker made a judgement call that there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself.
I'm glad an underpaid bureaucrat can destroy my life and my hurt my family based on a "non-trivial chance", that's... that's just awesome.
That goes both ways. I've seen children forced to see abusive parents because the courts were trying to decide who gets custody. Often when the child is 'too young' to have an opinion that carries any legal weight in court.
In my opinion the solution is to ask the child (in some circumstance where the child feels safe telling the truth) if they feel safe at home.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by minister+of+funk · 2012-03-07 08:41 · Score: 1

It's really frustrating when people respond without reading the whole post. Unless this individual cannot process sarcasm, READ THE WHOLE POST.
Could there be a valid reason? by thecrotch · 2012-03-07 08:47 · Score: 1

Am I the only one that suspects that maybe "I meant to download music" was just a lie he told his wife, and perhaps there was a ton of child porn on there?
F SS by SuperDre · 2012-03-07 08:49 · Score: 1

Well, what the hell has social services got to do with this? If the newsitem is real (and the images where not of his own children) why the hell do they bar him from being with his children.. One of the biggest problems with social services is that it has too many employee's who don't know their left from right, and those morons have to decide about YOU? No f-ing way... those people have already shown so many times they are incapable of doing their jobs right, it's just not funny anymore.. In a case like this (as I said, if we know all there is to know about this case) and it where my children, then NO-one can stop me from being with my kids..
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by wisnoskij · 2012-03-07 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know how anyone in this day and age could think it was a good idea to have more dealing with the police those that are forced on you.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Misplaced trust by xs650 · 2012-03-07 08:51 · Score: 1

Prior to that event, I bet he was one of those naive people that thought the police were there to help you.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by P-niiice · 2012-03-07 08:53 · Score: 1

People with 'moral lessons' usually have shitty, shitty, horrible logic.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by datavirtue · 2012-03-07 08:55 · Score: 1, Troll

You get what you pay for.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by SlippyToad · 2012-03-07 09:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

You realize that, if they do investigate you, cooperating can make your life far more pleasant, right?
Obviously not, in this case. In this case, he wasn't being investigated, and now, he won't have the defense of a real investigation. Just a smear on his name for the rest of his life.
Since we never know when this kind of bullshit will hit us, it's safer to not cooperate, and to avoid the authorities at all costs. Certainly I won't be reporting any crimes I happen to see . . . I'll just keep my mouth shut so I don't get dinged with guilt by association.
That is what the result of this ham-fistedness will be. Promise.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
I agree by Damase · 2012-03-07 09:02 · Score: 1

NEVER, ever contact the police unless they are your absolutely last hope of help in a life threatening circumstance. They cause far more trouble than they are worth. Keep this in mind, they are here to protect and serve the government (local and otherwise), NOT US.

--
---- Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by joebagodonuts · 2012-03-07 09:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Appropriate for the US. However, I'm pretty sure there "Miranda Rights" aren't applicable in the UK.
Is this is another case of bureaucracy at it's finest?

--
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
outsourcing by DrYak · 2012-03-07 09:05 · Score: 1

P2P download are distributed accross the world any way.
Just make sure that the people planting the booby-trapped files are in jurisdiction where they won't get automatically on the death row for it.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-07 09:07 · Score: 1

You noticed?

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Paracelcus · 2012-03-07 09:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am indigent, I will only speak to a court appointed public defender, do NOT do what the first one tells you is in you own best interest! Remember the cops and the public defender work for the same entity, you have the right to fire one after the other with the mantra He does not represent my interests, keep doing this until they are forced either to drop the charges or retain a private attorney for you.
And remember, some states require that if you invoke the right to a speedy trial they have X number of days to comply or drop the charges (the docket is SO full of killers and rapists, that unless some prosecutor has a hard dick for you, they'll drop).

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-07 09:12 · Score: 3, Funny

I don't know! Who are you quoting?! What website is this?!

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Not in the US by random_ID · 2012-03-07 09:19 · Score: 1

Did any of you people throwing around US Constitional rights and laws notice that he lives in the UK? The situation is still crap, but you're looking at the wrong set of laws.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by samjam · 2012-03-07 09:24 · Score: 5, Informative

They do exist; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales
The only caveat is that if you rely on some innocent defence in court that you might reasonably have given during questioning but did not, the judge or jury /might/ assume that you made up the defence.

--
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Scragglykat · 2012-03-07 09:42 · Score: 1

I thought COPS always opened with BP Vess opening his shirt to show off his metal chest... Fighting crime in a future time!!! Or was that not what you meant?
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by jedidiah · 2012-03-07 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't matter where you are and how much about how they might whine "it will hurt your defense later", you still probably should not go out of your way to incriminate yourself.
This issue goes far beyond American notions of Miranda.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Don't try to dl illegal material, period. by Tyr07 · 2012-03-07 10:04 · Score: 1

Here's the problem.
He tried to download an MP3. If it was from a legit legal service, he would have to pay for it.
That company would be sued, and under investigation, not him.
What he did was used something free like limewire etc to download potentially illegal content. This was a poor decision.
It's like as if you decided to purchase 'medicine' from a dealer in a back ally, never know what you'll get, likely not advil.'
Third house... by Firethorn · 2012-03-07 10:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Personally, I think we have enough laws on the books at this point that we could use a dedicated house of legislature to remove laws - call them the 'House of Repeals'. They're only allowed to repeal law, reduce spending, etc...
I'd have it be 100 members, like the Senate, but be via proportional voting for electing candidates. Simple majority for passing a repeal bill, then both the house and the senate need vote on it - but only ONE needs to pass it for it to be effective, then to the president, like a normal bill.
If that doesn't work well enough, we can tweak it later.

--
I don't read AC A human right
1. Re:Third house... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Some laws exist to limit other laws, so that might make things worse if you repeal the wrong ones.
  Having every law have an expiration date might work better.
  Only important laws would have time to get renewed and no one would have to repeal a bad law, just let it lapse.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
2. Re:Third house... by Firethorn · 2012-03-07 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Same argument could be made about failing to renew the good ones, and I'd be afraid that they'd simply repass EVERYTHING as part of a billion page omnibill evern expiration period.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
3. Re:Third house... by FairAndHateful · 2012-03-07 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  I would support a law that required that every law that is passed comes with an automatic expiration date. Whole heartedly. Possible modification would be a two tiered system, where it will require a 2/3 majority for the longer lasting laws.
4. Re:Third house... by Firethorn · 2012-03-09 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  As I mentioned to Frank, my concern with this is that they might simply repass everything as necessary using a 'billion page omnibill'.
  I'd rather have somebody actively seeking out bad laws to repeal as part of their job, while hopefully figuring out some system to encourage the legislature that's still dedicated to passing laws to pay more attention to them(to prevent the repeals congress from immediately killing it).
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
Typical gestapo by PortHaven · 2012-03-07 10:44 · Score: 1

Typical gestapo government. It's like the security guard who found a bomb, incompetent police are unable to find a suspect so they make the security guard the suspect. The guy who traced the anthrax scare to his own lab, they also turned into the suspect. And harassed him and his family until he killed himself. It's typical.
And every time they miss the real perpetrators.
This is why you never talk to cops. by EmagGeek · 2012-03-07 10:54 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Made up by RIAA by metalmonkey · 2012-03-07 10:56 · Score: 1

Another attack on music piracy. This is an attempt to put the fear of a ruined life into peoples minds when they are downloading music. Designed to increase the perceived risks involved, they have tried mass and high profile litigation to make people fear being fined. This approach seems a lot cheaper a few made up stories with some publicity would have a similar or greater effect. And the beauty of the link to child porn is that everyone is guilty no questions asked, and the associated stigma is much worse than a fine.
If this is not the case I hope I haven't given them any new ideas...
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by jd · 2012-03-07 11:12 · Score: 1

improperly weeded gardens leading to revocation of driver's licences, or lawyers disbarred for insufficient knowledge of breakfast cereal jingles
It can't hurt to try these. It might well reduce accidents - it would certainly reduce stupid court cases.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
British justice, LOL by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 11:15 · Score: 1

"I feel like I am guilty until proven innocent. That is not the way I understood the British justice system to work.
That is exactly how it works over there!
That is the same country where you can get ordered to pay damages for libel for making TRUE statements. The same country where if you trespass in a subway, you can be ordered (via an Anti Social Behavior Order) to not even talk to the people you were with or GET 5 YEARS IN PRISON! Yes, 5 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE LOCKED AWAY! For talking to people - for activity that would otherwise be legal except for the fact that the gov't for an order than amounts to a "bill of attainder" (a law restricting only you). The same country that has cameras on every street corner to use against you and controllers who will shout at you with loudspeakers if they even THINK you are THINKING of doing something illegal or that they don't like, such as being in a group of more than 10 people. The country that will revoke your drivers license if anyone tells the licensing authorities you might not be in perfect health. The country that is as close to George Orwell's 1984 in the civilized world.
Yes, the US has its problems, but the UK is plain scary!

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
1. Re:British justice, LOL by Hognoxious · 2012-03-07 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  That is the same country where you can get ordered to pay damages for libel for making TRUE statements.
  Well you're pretty safe with that one, then.
  http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defTrueLibel.shtml
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Justification
  I don't know where this retarded rumour started (probably Faux News), but stop spreading it.
  
  The same country where if you trespass in a subway, you can be ordered (via an Anti Social Behavior Order) to not even talk to the people you were with or GET 5 YEARS IN PRISON! Yes, 5 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE LOCKED AWAY!
  Bullshit. That's been requested, but has no force until a court passes it, which is pretty unlikely.
  Of course in the good old USA they'd have been tasered and shot for being tehrrusts.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
2. Re:British justice, LOL by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-08 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well I heard that if it is malicious, even a true statement means you have to pay damages? May not actually be called libel or defamation, I'm not sure, but you still lose.
  Even your sources say guilty until proven innocent. If the court ends up not sure if the statement is true or false, defendant loses. In the US, the plaintiff loses.
  And how often are ASBOs rejected. About as often as the USA FISA court rejects a wiretap request, i.e. almost never!
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by jd · 2012-03-07 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then the cops are doing the wrong job. The CORRECT job description for a cop is to ensure that society (and, by extension, the individuals within it) suffer least harm on aggregate. Clearly, it is impossible to follow a least-harm doctrine if a cop is only trying to maximize their "clean-up" rate by arresting the innocent and allowing the guilty to go free.
ANY police force, doesn't matter where, doesn't matter when, that follows a doctrine of "look good" rather than "DO good" is a police force society is better off without. The problem is never with authority or government, the problem is with ILLUSION of authority and ILLUSION of government. The failure to tell reality from illusion is why corruption exists at all.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Reverand+Dave · 2012-03-07 11:23 · Score: 1

You are instantly and forever my most favorite person ever.

--
I got here through a series of tubes
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Ocker3 · 2012-03-07 11:30 · Score: 1

It seemed like the cop Wanted to disagree with what the lawyer had said, but couldn't find any actual factual evidence for his position. I used to think my friend (who drove a gold-coloured Holden Commodore, a car often favoured by hoons) was paranoid about the police paying attention to him, until we were driving home one day, doing exactly the speed limit, and a cop car pulled a u-turn after passing us, and tailed us for a number of kilometers, obviously just to see if we'd do anything.
Snitching on yourself example by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 11:30 · Score: 1

So he reported his own child pornography to the police?
Well here is a case of a guy calling the cops about her crack being fake. (it was real btw)
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/61555-woman-calls-cops-over-fake-drugs
It's a UK website, but the case was in the USA.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Ocker3 · 2012-03-07 11:33 · Score: 4, Informative

On the other hand, here in Australia, it's quite different. When I was on a Sys Admins list, every person who piped up with "wtf, I've just found kiddie porn on this computer I'm supposed to fix" was told by people with past experience to go to the cops and just hand it over wholesale (without doing Anything else to it). They all came back to the list with "well, that was easy, the cops just sighed and took my statement."
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by xevioso · 2012-03-07 11:47 · Score: 1

Are you a criminal?
Destroying evidence is illegal by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 11:54 · Score: 1

And if the customer was under investigation for it, you just destroyed evidence!
Expect a sentence of multiple YEARS in prison!
And if it is Federal, there is no parole, you are required to serve your entire sentence (minus a couple of weeks for "good time" if the prison staff likes you)

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
1. Re:Destroying evidence is illegal by Grishnakh · 2012-03-07 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, this sounds like a tricky situation. A) The customer is under investigation, so you're destroying evidence. B) The customer is not under investigation, so if you report it, you can get blamed for it.
  I think the only really safe option is C) Don't ever get a job where you have to handle private individuals' computers.
  Maybe this is one of those places where you need to work for a big corporation that has pre-existing agreements with law enforcement agencies to promptly rat out any customers that have possibly illegal data on their computers, so that as an employee of that organization, who is basically a hired informer, and with with those agreements in writing, it would be very hard for you personally to get into trouble.
  What you really have to wonder is: why on earth would a CP fan take his computer to any third party, knowing this highly illegal material is on it? How dumb can you get? It's like being a murderer with a corpse in your car's trunk, and taking your car to a mechanic.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by cpu6502 · 2012-03-07 11:55 · Score: 1

Sorry I watch lots of old cop shows like Dragnet and Adam-12 where they say "policeman" a lot. Besides: The guy in the video is a policeman!

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
In the system long enough - automatic TPR/adoption by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 12:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

And if they keep the kids in foster care long enough, that is enough alone to have a termination of parental rights (*) granted (the judge is REQUIRED to grant it unless there are extreme justifications not to) and the children put up for adoption.
(*) This declares the parents to legally not be parents in any way whatsoever, no rights to visit or even contest the adoption, since they are no longer parents and thus not allowable "parties to an action" involving the children.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by penix1 · 2012-03-07 12:28 · Score: 1

...obviously just to see if we'd do anything.
No, it was preventative maintenance. If it was that obvious to you then it worked. It kept you from doing something.

--
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by bratwiz · 2012-03-07 12:32 · Score: 2

And they should have because apparently-- she *bought* it. Not found it, not given to her-- but *sold* to her. That means she participated.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-07 13:07 · Score: 1

I am honoured, and I realise you have a psychotic ex, but studies suggest forever is at least 20% longer than most people expect. (p < 0.005)

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
1%er by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 13:11 · Score: 1

Spoken like a true member of the 1% that own 90% of America and won't be happy until they own it all!

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:bad guys by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2012-03-07 13:17 · Score: 1

Then get laid off since there is no need for IT maintenance.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Pharmboy · 2012-03-07 13:21 · Score: 1

Then doesn't that change it from a "right to remain silent" to "an option to remain silent"?
Seriously, if you can be outright doubted or accused based on solely on your decision to remain silent, it isn't really a right. You have the "option to remain silent" in any country, although the Brits are not likely to torture you for it.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by spazzmo · 2012-03-07 14:04 · Score: 1

Whoosh

--
The cheese stands alone...
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by uberskullz · 2012-03-07 14:27 · Score: 2

Just say a lawyer told you not to volunteer anything, they will respect that, cause its what they would tell you if they were your counsel.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Computershack · 2012-03-07 14:35 · Score: 1

I am actually from the East Riding. This was Hull Social Services, not the East Ridings. Hull is a separate local authority.

--
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-07 14:47 · Score: 1

You'd think the Beeb would get that right. o_O

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Livius · 2012-03-07 14:49 · Score: 1

The English (including Wales) court system is where right to not say anything actually started.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by xevioso · 2012-03-07 15:30 · Score: 1

You do realize that refusing to divulge your name when asked by a cop is grounds for being charged with obstruction of justice?
You do realize that when someone has stolen your car, you must contact the police if you want government assistance in finding your car?
These posts about never talking to the police are stupid; there are very good times when it is appropriate and indeed, mandatory, to respond when a police asks you a question.
Exactly what is wise for you to say is part of the discussion, but telling people to be silent at all times around cops is stupid and wrong.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by gottspeed · 2012-03-07 17:27 · Score: 1

People are taught from kindergarten to put themselves in dishonour in the midst of a verbal transaction, so when people run across a cop who initiates a binding commercial transaction, they will invariably put themselves in dishonour with grave consequences. Its the words you choose, not weather you speak or not. Protip: The government has IP rights to your first and last name used together. (Remember that form your mom filled out? Probably not... ;) Saying that the title is 'you' creates a controversy, and makes you the loser by default. Its not that government hates us, its that were collectively so wilfully ignorant that we don't deserve to be respected. Stop acting like property! Duh...
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by bryan1945 · 2012-03-07 17:32 · Score: 1

I wonder why my cuckoo clock just went off?

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Dr+Damage+I · 2012-03-07 19:25 · Score: 1

If the case is already made, the prosecutor has absolutely zero incentive to cut any deals. And (s)he wont.

--
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by beowulfcluster · 2012-03-07 19:53 · Score: 1

Well if (and that's if) she bought it in order to get it off the streets and give it to the police, shouldn't she be commended instead of arrested? There was a case in Sweden lately where some reporters investigating street gang crimes bought a gun from someone to see how easy it was to get hold of weapons and then went straight to a police station to hand it in. Most people would see getting a gun out of the hands of criminals as a good thing but a prosecutor there thought it was a better idea to charge them for it.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by EnempE · 2012-03-07 20:25 · Score: 1

Good to see someone takes International Womens Day seriously.
Yes but by shiftless · 2012-03-07 20:27 · Score: 1

In which case talking STILL won't help you.
Mod parent up by shiftless · 2012-03-07 20:33 · Score: 1

Informative
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 21:59 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter where you are and how much about how they might whine "it will hurt your defense later", you still probably should not go out of your way to incriminate yourself.
This issue goes far beyond American notions of Miranda.
If I were on the jury, I would most certainly take a defendant's refusal to answer questions as a very, very strong indicator of guilt.

You only incriminate yourself if you provide evidence of your guilt, in which case I have no sympathy.

The question of whether some laws should not exist to be broken in the first place is a diferent matter altogether.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Custard+Horse · 2012-03-07 22:01 · Score: 1

Perhaps she bought it to prevent the dealer from selling it to a child and to obtain evidence for the police to use against the dealer? Why else would she have called the police?
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 22:04 · Score: 1

Clearly, there is a moral lesson here: if you don't know enough about your computers to keep child porn off them, you will probably not be an effective parent.
Who said anything about child porn? Where did you get that from?
I think you've set a new slashdot record as you haven't even read the first line of the fucking summary.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by tehcyder · 2012-03-07 22:08 · Score: 1

It's disparaging that a man who hasn't even been charged is basically being treated like a criminal. I guess when it comes to kids, it's guilty until proven innocent to everyone's satisfaction.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-07 22:17 · Score: 1

and if I were on a jury I'd take the defendant's refusal to answer questions as an indicator that they don't really trust the police and they thought the best thing to do was to keep quiet. When you're in a car accident you're not even supposed to apologise for it having happened as it's seen as an admission of guilt so it makes sense to keep quiet when dealing with the police.
Don't say that! by The+Creator · 2012-03-07 22:57 · Score: 2

Don't paint a target on your forehead.
The police are just going start arresting everyone without a target on their forehead.

--

FRA: STFU GTFO
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by arth1 · 2012-03-08 00:07 · Score: 1

I think you've set a new slashdot record as you haven't even read the first line of the fucking summary.

"Child abuse" does not imply or equate to "child porn". Really, you need a broader imagination.
Advice for reading any news: skip the blurb and read the article. The header is only going to be a journalists interpretation, not the reported facts.
If you read TFA, you'd see that the entire article only talks about him finding porn, and "child abuse images" is only used by the journalist in the opening line, unsubstantiated by the article following it.
You set no new records, though - jumping to conclusions is on par for slashdot.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by AmiMoJo · 2012-03-08 00:38 · Score: 1

No, it's worse than that. If you need to rely on something in court that you could have mentioned you have to explain (convincingly) why you didn't. Not wanting to talk to the police is not a very convincing reason.
Most people seem to think that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear, so refusing to talk means you must be hiding something. You will be judged by these same people.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by TheGratefulNet · 2012-03-08 01:24 · Score: 1

isn't 'po-po' the correct name, these days?
btw, avoid talking to po-po. just say no to po-po.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by TheGratefulNet · 2012-03-08 01:28 · Score: 1

we are all criminals.
seriously. its by design.
they can pick a fight with any of us. each day we all break dozens of laws. it keeps us in fear. it works, too!
again, by design. all societies have this 'bug'.
think about it.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Thugthrasher · 2012-03-08 03:23 · Score: 2

On the other hand, here in Australia, it's quite different. When I was on a Sys Admins list, every person who piped up with "wtf, I've just found kiddie porn on this computer I'm supposed to fix" was told by people with past experience to go to the cops and just hand it over wholesale (without doing Anything else to it). They all came back to the list with "well, that was easy, the cops just sighed and took my statement."
That's actually different than this situation. Of course the cops aren't going to charge you if you are fixing a computer you don't own and find child porn on it and report it. That would be like the cops arresting you because you were in someone else's house fixing the sink and noticed some obviously illegal dealings going on.

While this issue is not MUCH better than if the cops arrested you in the situations I mentioned above, in this situation it was HIS computer, so it's not QUITE as bad.
Wrong questions, sometimes by Catbeller · 2012-03-08 03:42 · Score: 2

I read with interest the stories about prosecutors and cops trying to force people to hand over passwords to their confiscated machines.
Many here and elsewhere believe that those accused should just hand over the password. That the cops will open the folders and find nothing, and then they are free to go.
The question is really: what is to stop the IT team searching your now helpless, decrypted box from simply copying in a few kiddy porn files into the hard drive? Instant guilt.
They have the ability to change file dates and such - it's just software - and they probably have toys from Microsoft and others that give them such abilities.
And who else HAS kiddy porn casually strewn around but the kiddy porn IT team at a prosecutor's office?
The question to ask is, again, now that we've given them prosecutorial nukes to destroy people, why on earth would you trust them? They can pick off people at will. Political dissidents, harassment complainants, people at border crossings - all they need is your password and a few minutes with a USB flash drive, and you are public enemy number one.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by julesh · 2012-03-08 04:00 · Score: 1

The problem is that retaining a lawyer can be expensive whereas reporting a crime to a police officer is relatively free.
In the UK (where this incident occurred) there are quite a few lawyers who are willing to provide an initial consultation on most matters completely free. If you can't find one of those, a lot of home insurance policies come with access to a free legal helpline, and those helplines can be very informative on most matters.
Legal advice is easy and cheap to come by. Don't let anything put you off getting some.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by RussellSHarris · 2012-03-08 05:07 · Score: 1

Is it really that hard to put 2 and 2 together?
The opening line said "child abuse images". The rest of the article described them as "pornographic images".
Did it ever occur to you that the headline might - just might - have been correct? And then, as the relevant fact had already been stated, it wasn't repeated later in the article?
Heck, you could even do some due diligence and look up a few other sources, mr. "skip the blurb and get to the source". Here's a couple:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110921/Council-bans-daughter-contact-Nigel-Robinson-child-porn-images.html
"A father has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter after telling police he accidentally accessed child porn while attempting to download music from the internet."
http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=170852
"a British man has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter for up to a year after he accidentally downloaded images of child pornography while attempting to download an album from former GUNS N' ROSES guitarist Slash"
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by lokispundit · 2012-03-08 05:47 · Score: 1

public defenders are NOT working for the same entity as the cops. In many locales the PD assigned to you is either a private attorney who is ON RETAINER to assist the public defenders office when needed OR the in some cases the PD office is a private firm that contracts with the city to provide legal services to the indigent.
PDs are very real attorney's who in many cases have a lot of more training than that DA assigned to prosecute you.

--
"Don't be so humble - you are not that great." - Golda Meir
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by doccus · 2012-03-08 06:05 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure, from what I've seen, that you have no rights of any kind in the UK.. oh they may exist on paper, like here in Canada, but the exercise thereof implicates your guilt...
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by bratwiz · 2012-03-08 06:14 · Score: 1

Sure, and by the same token, if you buy a gun and shoot the cop, that's one less gun that can wind up back on the streets at the hands of the cop-- that cop, anyway. But how do you know that was her intention and not merely what she stated when she was caught. Even if she had a prepared statement in her purse saying "I'm buying rocks to help the children.", how do you know it isn't just an elaborate ruse she can play in the event that she gets caught buying crack? I mean, all this is simple-minded stuff. You're going out of your way to find silly "what ifs" to try and justify a weak position. If-- perhaps-- she was a journalist, with a hidden camera crew in-tow, and a written assignment plan, approval from her superiors, etc-- and doing an expose on just how easy it is to buy crack-- that *might* be different, and debatable... in front of the judge, assuming she were caught. But, if it were me, I'd still run her in just to make sure, since it's unusual behavior and something that probably warrants getting checked-out further.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by doccus · 2012-03-08 06:41 · Score: 1

What an excellent video! Thank you for finding it.. !
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by ender89 · 2012-03-08 07:10 · Score: 1

The term you want to use is "police officer" or "law enforcement officer", or even "pig" if you hate them, but not "policeman"!
It's 2012 for crying out loud!
and women, no wait.... females - damn- .... ladies? shall hereby be known only as "ladies" or "persons with the aesthetically pleasing reproductive organs (thanks House!)" because clearly "woMEN" is sexist, and not a deeply ingrained part of our language that we can honestly admit doesn't really matter because its 2012 and the last time a woman was running for president hardly anyone actually laughed at her; and there are more important issues for feminists today, like the fact that the US legislature is trying to write laws on female reproductive health rights without actually understanding, to any significant degree, what female reproductive needs are past the point of sticking their dingle-dangle in a lady's hoo-haa. once congress figures out that birth control is something taken daily regardless of how much sex a given college coed is having, I think you can safely mobilize the troops to address the continued proliferation of "man/men" as a suffix.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by monktus · 2012-03-08 07:49 · Score: 1

England != UK. You still have a right to silence in Scotland.

--
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by krischik · 2012-03-08 07:52 · Score: 1

spot on!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by AlienIntelligence · 2012-03-08 08:04 · Score: 1

Clearly, there is a moral lesson here: if you don't know enough about your computers to keep child porn off them, you will probably not be an effective parent.

And yet, I hope you realize... there is a kernel of truth in there.
-AI

--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by AlienIntelligence · 2012-03-08 08:09 · Score: 1

And remember, some states require that if you invoke the right to a speedy trial they have X number of days to comply or drop the charges (the docket is SO full of killers and rapists, that unless some prosecutor has a hard dick for you, they'll drop).
States... which do not exist in the UK, where this story is from.
Moot, I know.. cause it's /. but still germaine.
-AI

--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by MacGyver2210 · 2012-03-08 09:56 · Score: 1

I think it's easier just to say "Fuck the police".

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Paracelcus · 2012-03-08 11:08 · Score: 1

Why do you think that people with a JD who NEVER passed the bar are used as PDs in many large urban centers!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:In the system long enough - automatic TPR/adopt by graphius · 2012-03-08 11:32 · Score: 1

Anecdotal story: I had a single-mother friend whose daughter broke her arm in a playground accident. The next day at school a teacher asked what happened, and the child joked that her mom broke it. Social services all but broke down the mothers door, and my friend was a hair's breadth from losing her daughter completely. The worst part is that they (mother and daughter) had a great relationship up to that point, but that event pushed a wedge between them that never fully healed.
Way to "think of the children"....
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Pharmboy · 2012-03-08 13:33 · Score: 1

In the US, you can remain silent and not incriminate yourself but still present evidence that exonerates yourself, as long as you aren't the person doing the testifying. Be it video tape, witnesses, data logs, etc.
The basis for this is "It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be convicted.", which is (or used to be) the foundation of western jurisprudence.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by roman_mir · 2012-03-08 23:57 · Score: 1

When in jury duty on cases involving an individual vs government, always nullify the law.
In all cases where gov't is on one side and individual is on the other, government is always wrong and individual is always right.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Variations on government by Firethorn · 2012-03-09 07:06 · Score: 1

I view it a bit like tuning an engine - there are many options that affect many things. It depends on what your goal is.
Unfortuantly, at this point the USG is equivalent to an old naturally aspirated V-8 with serious carbon buildup problems.

--
I don't read AC A human right
One Law, Two Laws, ah ah ah by Firethorn · 2012-03-09 07:11 · Score: 1

The problem I have with this 'rule' is the question of 'what's a law'? I mean, how do you decide what's a single law?
I mean, take the law against rape. You can have forcible rape, date rape, statutory rape, aggreviated rape, etc... Does the law against rape, with all those subclauses, count as a law, or does each subclause count as one?
Do we say 'the heck with it' and go by word count - in which case laws end up reading like poetry(fewest words possible), and possibly being vague?

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by KingBenny · 2012-03-09 15:36 · Score: 1

mh, the laptop has been sent away for investigation ? are they gonna interrogate it until it tells them where it got the prOn or something? Monty Python was great but lately the UK takes absurdity to new levels.

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by hairyfeet · 2012-03-12 18:18 · Score: 1

Sadly this is true and even the ones that actually have to do the work would tell you so if they weren't in fear of their jobs.
A friend works in the state crime lab finding CP on suspected computers (he keeps trying to recruit me but fuuuuck that noise) and he says a good 80%-90% of those they bust frankly shouldn't ever be in jail at all but simply get mental help as they are "social retards" as he calls them. he says they are as easy to spot as can be because it ALWAYS follows the same pattern, first they collect regular porn, then the basic fetishes, then trannys and S&M and finally beastiality and CP. He said you look into their backgrounds and most avoid as much human contacts as possible and frankly aren't a threat to anybody, one hadn't even left his home since 1997 and had to be tranquilizer darted like an animal because of the way he shrieked and freaked the fuck out if you touched him in any way. he said if you locked one of them up in a room with a kid they'd go hide in the corner rocking, as they don't want to be touched by anyone.
He said in a sane world those types would be given treatment which would free he and his colleagues from months worth of court time so they could actually be trying to track down real predators but sadly prosecutors don't want to go after those as they nearly always cross state lines and then they don't get the big headlines that help their political career. Just another case where as long as they are "doing something" even if that something is stupid, pointless, counterproductive, or even takes away our rights like the guy thrown in prison for writing his thoughts on a page or the one in jail for comic books, well as long as it looks like they are doing "something" that is all that matters, just like in TFA. Oh and in case anyone is wondering "the shrieker" as they named him will be sitting in a 6x9 for the next 65 years, so since he was in his 30s when they put him in and it costs over $100,000 to house an inmate (they usually can't place them in general pop, so stick another $50k on top of that for special protection) so if he lives to 80 you are looking at $7.5 million. for just the one. Wow...I can see why they want to privatize prisons, there's money to be made!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
vultures await the carcass by thesquire · 2012-03-13 12:11 · Score: 1

I have not read the many comments posted on this issue. Why? I don't want to. However, as a lawyer, judge, civil libertarian and humanist, it appalls me that this person can be persecuted and denigrated by the legion of politically correct idiots, who, like vultures hovering over roadkill, are more than happy to victimize him in celebration of their hatred of men. That is all that it is. Is this a society worth saving?
Premature adjudication by Occams · 2012-03-13 12:17 · Score: 1

I think this is a very good example of premature reaction to a headline, with insufficient information being offered for an understanding of the action by authorities.. Social services simply do not place a restriction like that without having good reason. No reasons are given here. The porno pictures are not the reason if he reported them. When the police and social services went to the house they discovered something else, either on the computer or in discussions with the family. They cannot reval what that something was because the investigation is continuing. The case is interesting on a salacious level, but is not particularly unusual. The plain facts are worthy of reporting, but the analysis is entirely premature and poor journalism. Time will reveal the truth but it is most likely not worth waiting for

--
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Nehmo · 2012-03-13 19:23 · Score: 1

It's disparaging that a man who hasn't even been charged is basically being treated like a criminal. I guess when it comes to kids, it's guilty until proven innocent to everyone's satisfaction.
In any state in the US the social services (which have different names depending on the state) child protection services (often called CPS) can take a kid into custody without either the parent or kid even being accused of a crime. The kid goes into foster custody which may be a home-like setting or an institution like a jail. When a kid is removed, unless it's a high profile case, the parents and kids are usually separated forever. The process is fueled by federal money the state agencies get. It has nothing to do with genuine protection. This is sometimes hard for inexperienced people to believe, but it's quite true. Put in plain language: The state governments kidnap kids. I don't read much on the subject anymore, but if you're interested you can begin at Ric Werme's site: http://wermenh.com/dcyf.html

--
(||) Nehmo (||)
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Nehmo · 2012-03-13 20:55 · Score: 1

I am indigent, I will only speak to a court appointed public defender, do NOT do what the first one tells you is in you own best interest! Remember the cops and the public defender work for the same entity, you have the right to fire one after the other with the mantra He does not represent my interests, keep doing this until they are forced either to drop the charges or retain a private attorney for you. And remember, some states require that if you invoke the right to a speedy trial they have X number of days to comply or drop the charges (the docket is SO full of killers and rapists, that unless some prosecutor has a hard dick for you, they'll drop).
It's not that simple.That won't work. For starters, the judge can simply deny you the change of attorneys after the first one (or more). Theoretically, you could appeal on the grounds that the judge should have granted you new attorney, but you'd already be in prison or jail. And there are other holes in your stratagy.

--
(||) Nehmo (||)
Re:American War Crimes by MLease · 2012-03-13 22:16 · Score: 1

Um, what??? I mean, I don't agree with barring a father from being alone with his own daughter unless there's a lot of evidence of wrongdoing on his part, but how the hell do you turn that into genocide?!?
Do you even know what genocide means?

--
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Re:American War Crimes by MLease · 2012-03-13 22:19 · Score: 1

Oh, and another thing - what does America even have to do with this? The incident happened in the UK.

--
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Transaction7 · 2012-03-17 09:17 · Score: 1

As a retired Texas lawyer with criminal law experience, including a lot of court-appointed defense experience, who has also been a crime victim, I suspect that the author of this comment does not live in Texas. You say you are indigent, thus can't afford to pay for legal representation yourself. Any lawyer the state pays for is going to be in exactly the same position, but any who are any good is not going to sell you out. Where I practiced, in any given case, court-appointed counsel made more money the more work he did defending you, and, of course, he has the same motives to build a string of wins, but, if you, the client, lose, you may have to pay it back in any event (so win). In better economic times, I have known lawyers who were less than welcoming of court appointments, which pay less than direct private retainers, but the current Second Great Depression has made a lot of lawyers who used to try to avoid appointments now sing jup for all they can get.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-19 04:56 · Score: 1

That wooshing noise going past your head isn't the air conditioning. Next time, look at the moderation. :)

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!