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.'"

148 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 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished.
2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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?
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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!
9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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?
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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).
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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!
25. 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?
26. 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.
27. 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...
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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?
31. 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"
32. 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
33. 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)-
34. 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".'
35. 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?
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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!
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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........
42. 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 ----
43. 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!
44. 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.
45. 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."
46. 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
47. 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.
48. 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."
49. 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.
50. 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
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 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Probably. They might run out of leads and try to pin it on you.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. Re:I've said it before... by Johann+Lau · 2012-03-07 07:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah. No Valhalla for you.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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!!!
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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!
20. 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...
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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
24. 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.
25. 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
26. 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.
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.
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
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 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.
4. 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!
5. 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
6. 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. . . .
7. 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.
8. 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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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 cdrudge · 2012-03-07 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  Or divorce papers because he had the child porn on his computer.
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 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...
2. 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.
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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!
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 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.
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
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/
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 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."
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 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 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.
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 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.