Slashdot Mirror

← 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.'"

46 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 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
3. 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.
4. 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!
5. 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.
6. 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?
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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!
13. 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.
14. 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?
15. 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.
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 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.
2. 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
3. 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!!!
4. 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.
5. 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
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...
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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!
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.'
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
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 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: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
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 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
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: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)