Slashdot Mirror


How The FBI Used Geek Squad To Increase Secret Public Surveillance (ocweekly.com)

In 2011 a gynecology doctor took his computer for repairs at Best Buy's Geek Squad. But the repair technician was a paid FBI informant -- one of several working at Geek Squad -- and the doctor was ultimately charged with possessing child pornography, according to OC Weekly. An anonymous reader quotes their new report: Recently unsealed records reveal a much more extensive secret relationship than previously known between the FBI and Best Buy's Geek Squad, including evidence the agency trained company technicians on law-enforcement operational tactics, shared lists of targeted citizens and, to covertly increase surveillance of the public, encouraged searches of computers even when unrelated to a customer's request for repairs. Assistant United States Attorney M. Anthony Brown last year labeled allegations of a hidden partnership as "wild speculation." But more than a dozen summaries of FBI memoranda filed inside Orange County's Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse this month in USA v. Mark Rettenmaier contradict the official line...

Other records show how [Geek Squad supervisor Justin] Meade's job gave him "excellent and frequent" access for "several years" to computers belonging to unwitting Best Buy customers, though agents considered him "underutilized" and wanted him "tasked" to search devices "on a more consistent basis"... evidence demonstrates company employees routinely snooped for the agency, contemplated "writing a software program" specifically to aid the FBI in rifling through its customers' computers without probable cause for any crime that had been committed, and were "under the direction and control of the FBI."
The doctor's lawyer argues Best Buy became an unofficial wing of the FBI by offering $500 for every time they found evidence leading to criminal charges.

164 comments

  1. Is this news going to bring them more business by opus_magnum · · Score: 1

    or less?

    1. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      Actually, it will likely not impact them at all because anyone who gives a fuck and knows about this likely wouldn't be taking their computers to the geek squad in the first place.

      More interesting though might be a labor claim that Best Buy might have against these employees if they pocketed the cash and where working on the clock while doing the FBI's bidding. I don't know how it would be different than a company claiming ownership of a program you wrote on their resources while on the clock at their job.

    2. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu (supposedly)

      More to the point, if you're taking your machine to be fixed because it was compromised, doesn't that make it just ever so slightly more likely that the child porn on it wasn't your doing?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by burni2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Question is: How do you handle the data on a customers computer?

      Here is how I handle it:

      When I need to reinstall a computer:

      1.) Before I do the installation or data gathering I generate a 1:1 hard drive image and I store that on an encrypted drive.
      (checksumming of origin and copy included)

      This is why I take the computers mostly to my lab to return with a fully prepared, clean and backed up computer.

      2.) The backup is then bzip2-ed for space saving.

      3.) Then the target hard drive is zero-ed out.

      4.) Prior to this backup I gathered the data that needs saving - together with the customer.

      5.) Only operate on a need to know basis, before I open a folder I ask the customer, and I only ask and do when it is really neccessary.

      6.) I do only copy "blindly" and let the customer know beforehand what I'm going to do next and why - on a non-technical level.

      7.) The encypted backup is afterwards stored on a lended hard drive I give over to the customer and I get that drive back after two months and tell the customer - when he remembers anything that needs to be looked up, to call me, and I let them have the drive for longer time when they aren't sure.

      The first thing I do when getting a drive back - sure zero-ing it out.

      I have a sufficient collection of smaller and larger checked hard drives that my former customers donate to me for deletion and for keeping.

      Prior to the hard drive solution I longterm stored the data on LTO-5 tapes and gave these to the customer - I got a bunch cheap for 3-5 EUR per 1.5Tbyte tape - but the prices grew to much.

      Yes, I have nice customers and I let them exactly know what I do with this donated drives. The compression from 2. comes in handy there.

      8.) The encryption passphrase is later changed to be known to the customer only or directly when I do "on-site" work.
      - yes I do train my customers to remember the phrase and I let them test it several times.

      Why:
      - I do only know what I need to know (when I don't know I'm not required to act - like I would need to do, if get to know about the presence of anything criminal on the computer)

      - I have generated a backup and can revert data to that state
      but at the earliest possible point in time I surrender that data and the knowledge about the encryption key to the customer

      - the amount of unencrypted or "only-deleted" data is minimized, by zero-ing out the hard drive prior to reuse or even disposal

      - the customer is aware and in control of all my actions because I'm laying them out transparently before I act

      - My customers are satisfied and I get recommended to their family members and friends - and yes its still a hobby I do not do advertisement

    4. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      I see you didn't read the summary. They are paying people $500 to plant child porn on your computer.

    5. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by jpaine619 · · Score: 0

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      Fuck you, you statist traitor.

    6. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      An honestly-chosen username - how refreshing.

    7. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Straight into your face, NSA, CIA, FBI, TLA!

      If you have nothing to hide, why do you hate whistleblowers?

    8. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by DaveAtWorkAnnoyingly · · Score: 1

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      There is so much wrong with this statement. The easiest way I use to explain to friends and family about the importance of privacy is the fact that every day, all of us does a totally legal act, which you wouldn't like broadcast to anyone. When someone publishes a video of you taking a dump, or having sex, please revisit your quote.

    9. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm actually a little surprised that ransomware hasn't started dumping illegal images in victim's hard drives, just to discourage them from taking the machine to be fixed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with "Innocent people have nothing to hide" is that it isn't you who will determine what's "innocent".

    11. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know that it hasn't?

    12. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me guess

      they just plant pizza porn into innocent peoples computers and extract actual kiddie porn from guilty people and add the new files to podestas collection of pizza porn? isnt it something like that what geek squad and the fbi are doing?

      nor surprising at all if it would be exactly that what they are doing

    13. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by orlanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have shit to hide. Legal or illegal that is NOT any of your's or anyone else's concern.

      You want to check, get probably cause, a warrant, and have judicial oversight. Just because they are lazy doesn't give them the right to invade innocent people's privacy.

    14. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm actually a little surprised that ransomware hasn't started dumping illegal images in victim's hard drives, just to discourage them from taking the machine to be fixed.

      In addition, when there is money to be made and you've been told X is a target an unscrupulous person might "find" the desired evidence to collect a reward.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    15. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu (supposedly)

      Ray Donovan's (Reagan's Secretary of Labor) quote "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" seems appropriate as well.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    16. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the naivete of someone who's never been falsely accused of anything in his or her life, and then gone through hell to escape a mess not of your making.

      It must be nice to wrap yourself in such purity and make simplistic statements about the judgments and conditions of others.

    17. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what would you do if you found child porn, say inadvertently popped up in recent docs with you both there?

    18. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by kilodelta · · Score: 2

      In my case no kiddie porn but some rather hot information on my system. It will NEVER see Geek Squad. I've been around computers long enough to encrypt and to know how to image drives etc.

      And I've always distrusted Geek Squad - I've seen their handiwork and made a tidy sum cleaning up their messes.

    19. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Zemran · · Score: 2

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way? Note that the article is about someone that had nothing to hide and nothing was found but he has gone through a long protracted court case with no end in sight....

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    20. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is what personal integrity and discretion looks like. Geek Squad very likely does not even understand these concepts and is happy to sell out their customers. Might have something to do with why they are not doing so well...

      And yes, defending civil liberties often means defending scumbags, because the (usually utterly despicable and repulsive) "authorities" try to abrade these liberties first with test-cases of that nature. Later, if not stopped, they will universally do it to everybody.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You seem to be implying that Windows needs outside help to mess itself up.

      Just sit back for a moment, relax, imbibe you favorite adult beverage and maybe reconsider that concept.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm actually a little surprised that ransomware hasn't started dumping illegal images in victim's hard drives, just to discourage them from taking the machine to be fixed.

      Why? The computer tech will tell them that the machine can't be "fixed", all the important data is encrypted. And I would think most users understand that if you do pay the ransom the data has to be rescued and the computer fixed so it doesn't happen again which many people will need help to. The ransomware only wins if you pay the ransom, if it's threatening to destroy your life many people will take a hammer to it and put it in the nearest dumpster, regardless of the lost data. And if you do pay the ransom but can't take your machine to the shop because you fear the kiddie porn is still there you'll need a new machine to transfer the data to instead of a data backup / wipe / reinstall / data restore, which will discourage many to no benefit for the ransomware author.

      Let's try a delta analysis, forget all those who'd always pay or never pay anyway. The only situation where the ransomware maker is better off is if you wouldn't pay the ransom if you could take it to the shop for a wipe/reinstall, which is the only thing they could do - but you would pay the ransom to rescue the data yourself. But if you're capable of doing that, why would you take it to the shop in the first place? It means you're more than capable of doing a wipe/reinstall yourself. So my business analysis is that this would bring in exactly zero new business and cause them to lose a lot of the business they have. They could of course do it to be bigger asshats and cause people to lose more data, money or end up in jail but it wouldn't make any business sense at all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    23. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by multisync · · Score: 1

      More interesting though might be a labor claim that Best Buy might have against these employees

      I read about this a couple of months ago but in the context of employees suing Best Buy because they were suffering PTSD due to the nature of the images they were being compelled to view on their customers' computers and their medical plan didn't cover it.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    24. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already are, actually. With FBI warnings and all.

    25. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with child porn possession is that it is what's known as a "strict liability offense." Mere existence can be used to assert possession and therefore guilt and you must literally be able to prove your innocence. If you find child porn on a customer's computer and report it, you're getting yourself pulled into a likely multi-year court case in which you'll be a star witness and the defense will possibly suggest that you placed the porn for some reason. Now think about what happens if this argument sticks: instead of the porn being a thing on the computer that you reported on sight, YOU become the target of investigation and possible felony prosecution. It's also a mandatory reporting crime, so it is discovered that you did not report it in a timely fashion, you'll be charged with a crime. You could even be investigated and have your property seized just because you could potentially have copied it for yourself. Doesn't matter if you did, only that you could have.

      It is probably a crime legal to do this, but the best answer to this is to wipe the hard drive with 'dd' in Linux and say that some sort of virus nuked the customer's data. If the customer has a problem with that, ask them what they had on there and if they had anything illegal. The problem will solve itself. Illegal or not, if there is no evidence, there is nothing to prosecute. Problem solved. Fortunately I haven't ever been in that situation and haven't had to deal with it.

      Sticking to your moral beliefs for a victimless crime (yes, possessing photos is a victimless crime) is never EVER worth getting yourself dragged into the legal system. The system doesn't give a fuck. It will chew you up and spit you out a broken man to live a life of social exile. You are low-grade meat to the legal machine.

      It's super fucking retarded that you can go to prison for decades just by having a photograph. You don't have to fuck a kid in the ass, you don't have to even take the photo of the kid getting fucked in the ass, you just have to knowingly have the photograph in your possession and you're instant evil. Japan was doing it right: possession wasn't a crime, lolicon drawings weren't a crime, kiddie rapists could masturbate to it instead of seeking out real kids to pound on, but the USA pushed 'em into making possession illegal in 2014/2015. Guess what? The rates of child abuse in Japan exploded in 2016. It could just be coincidental, but I doubt it.

    26. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your government needs the flimsiest excuse to turn you into an indentured servant of the state in a cosy federal prison. Once there you'll make them money for free and you get to live like a battery hen in a steel cage getting gang raped and crying yourself to sleep every night.

      If they need more slaves they can just tweak the "illegal dial" so more people fall into the net. With all the recording and data collection going on they can do it retroactively - just throw all the data through the revised law-o-matic and see how many more slaves you can get today.

      Not everyone in the system thinks like this but some do, and I've learned that the most profitable applications are the ones that succeed in any organization. The most profitable abuse is the accepted one (see: civil asset forfeiture) and all things follow the law of unintended consequences.

    27. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because some ransomware has been cracked so that you can recover the data without paying. They might want to discourage further attempts.

    28. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by omkhar · · Score: 1

      Privacy is really about informed consent. If you decide to disclose everything about yourself, freely it is certainly your right to do so. The danger is assuming everyone else thinks the same as you. Unless they explicitly consent, their privacy has been violated.

    29. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually a little surprised that ransomware hasn't started dumping illegal images in victim's hard drives, just to discourage them from taking the machine to be fixed.

      In addition, when there is money to be made and you've been told X is a target an unscrupulous person might "find" the desired evidence to collect a reward.

      *GASP* Are you suggesting Geek Squad and its employees might be less than scrupulous?

    30. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Not only did I read the summery, I read the article. But thanks for not reading the parent post who asked if this would hurt or help Geek Squad's business.

      The answer to this as I stated is that a lot of people do not think they have anything to worry about because "if you have nothing to hide" and they will be oblivious about this article and its implications when they take their computers into best buy to get them fixed..The people in the know, are people who already would go somewhere else or do it themselves so it wouldn't likely affect their business at all.

    31. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think I was clear, people actually think that if you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to worry about. In response to the parent, it won't bring the Geek Squad more or less business because anyone in the know will already be in a habit of avoiding them in the first place (whether they have something to hide or not). Those who don't will not care because they "have nothing to hide" and don't believe evidence can or would be planted onto a computer for a $500 bounty so some FBI agents can look like they are doing something to justify their pay as they sit in the mall food court checking out the tween girls spending daddy's money and acting all grown up.

    32. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so some FBI agents can look like they are doing something to justify their pay as they sit in the mall food court checking out the tween girls spending daddy's money and acting all grown up.

      Those are the "young women" the sexual perverts should be targeting. Clearly daddy can pay the ransom request to have his preciously pernicious princess returned safely home.

    33. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > They are paying people $500 to plant child porn on your computer.

      Only to find it, they'd arrest anyone they knew of who planted it. That said, the reward gives a troubling incentive for dishonesty. I'd be happier if it were just a tip line for anyone who stumbled across it.

      That said, if you expected any privacy at those places, from what I've heard, you're crazy. Even without the FBI, enough of them are more than happy to paw through your stuff.

    34. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to bed, Donald, you're drunk.

    35. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warrants exist for a reason. Very scary people like you are buying into the propaganda of "nothing to hide".

    36. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing illegal on my computers, but I just hate nosey, spying assholes! Geek Squad will never get within 100 feet of my computers! Neither Will Windows 10!

      I am a very private person and will do whatever I can to maintain as much privacy as I can, including not letting anyone I don't trust into my home, much less near my computers! Also, I have two degrees in Computer Science. I can fix my own computers, and have backups, some of which are stored offsite.

      Also, if the FBI is paying Geek Squad employees to find evidence on computers brought in for repair, whats to keep said Geek Squad employees from carrying a flash drive full of "evidence" that they can plant on innocent people's computers?

    37. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You seem to be implying that Windows needs outside help to mess itself up.

      Windows can do many things by itself, but not download child pornography.

      Yet.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    38. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More to the point, if you're taking your machine to be fixed because it was compromised, doesn't that make it just ever so slightly more likely that the child porn on it wasn't your doing?

      CP is a possession crime in the US. It's existence on your harddrive is enough for conviction regardless as to how it got there.

      All the more reason why the GP's "If you've got nothing to hide..." statement is bullshit. You don't have to intentionally commit a crime, or even be aware of a crime commited, to be arrested and convicted of it. Anyone saying that bullshit at this point is really saying: "I don't give a fuck about anyone else but me. So long as there is an accusation, I'm completely fine with all freedoms and rights being surrendered by other people." E.g. Those assholes are just as bad as the ones making the accusation(s).

      sarcasm "Welcome to the USA." /sarcasm.

    39. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by godel_56 · · Score: 2

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu (supposedly)

      More to the point, if you're taking your machine to be fixed because it was compromised, doesn't that make it just ever so slightly more likely that the child porn on it wasn't your doing?

      And if they get $500 for every instance of kiddie porn they claim to find, that sounds like an incentive to me.

    40. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Because some ransomware has been cracked so that you can recover the data without paying. They might want to discourage further attempts.

      It hardly matters, all ransomware use a countdown so in 24-96 hours everyone who can't afford to lose their data have paid. It could be a "lucky save" for people who refused to pay and have kept a copy of the encrypted files, but it doesn't matter one bit to the blackmailers. Besides that was only because some of the early ransomware was flawed, if the encryption key has been transferred off your computer and the local copy properly cleared there's nothing to find. Same goes for the key server, now the keys expire there as well so there'll be no mass decryption in the future. At best you can get the keys for those being blackmailed right now and that's it, lost keys are lost and you're not going to break AES so they can study it all they want but it won't help.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    41. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by grcumb · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      Because the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States explicitly makes this kind of fishing expedition illegal for Federal agencies, and the FBI is arguably breaking the very laws it's sworn to uphold and enforce.

      But... aside from deliberate and willful lawlessness which circumvents legal protections the Founders saw fit to write into the foundational law of country... yeah, what's the problem?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    42. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Have 2 computers. One for browsing and email. and one to keep important data on that is not connected to the web.

    43. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      I've seen scareware do that with tiny thumbnails of CP images.

    44. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not true. there has to be what's known as mens rea- a guilty mind (intent). If you are browsing images on some photo site and someone has insert illegal porn onto that page, it's "on" your computer in some sense but your are not guilty of anything. You can't place illegal porn where its not expected and turn everyone who surfs to that page into a criminal . They must have thought this guy was specifically seeking cp, downloading it and saving it- that's mens rea

    45. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sad!

    46. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Criticizing the NSA? Oh look we found CP on your computer."

    47. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by michael_wojcik · · Score: 2

      Only to find it, they'd arrest anyone they knew of who planted it.

      Oh, that's just adorable.

    48. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      aside from deliberate and willful lawlessness which circumvents legal protections the Founders saw fit to write into the foundational law of [the] country

      I agree, but skip the appeal to authority. It doesn't matter whether the prohibition is in the Bill of Rights or we added it to the Constitution last Tuesday; whether it was proposed by James Madison or Madison McKinley or a group of undergrads at U Wisconsin, Madison; whether it's a concise articulation of a right guaranteeing freedom from unreasonable search and seizure or just says "yo, dudes, the Feds are totally forbidden from encouraging commercial computer-repair services to snoop in your stuff". Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

      The Founders put some crap into the Constitution, too, which we've had to amend out. There's no profit in holding them up as political exemplars - that just leads us into the trap of intentionality. We should be capable of looking at the plain language of the Fourth Amendment and saying, nope, the FBI can't get away with this.

    49. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when it's an actual photo of an actual kid in a sexual situation? There's a victim. When it's a drawing, not actually sexual (in intent anyway), or somebody who looks like a minor? No.

      So. Let's get to the nastier parts. First off, there's no exceptions for people doing research or education--meaning that, for example, you can't legally put together a handy guide for law enforcement & judges on, say, what actually is (and isn't) child pornography because, amazingly enough, for anything of this sort you absolutely do need examples of 'is,' not just 'is not.'

      Why does this matter? To put it bluntly, the definition enshrined in law in the US is...broad. If there is a picture of you (or one of your kids) naked in the tub? That meets it! There's a few famous news photos that got naked kids. Also meets it!

      And, well, pretty much any medical reference dealing with pre-adult groins is going to meet the qualifications, since good-quality ones will have images, and yep, meets the legal definition.

      Meanwhile, there's a good large body of evidence that people sexually inclined towards children can and will masturbate to such things as children's clothing catalogs...

    50. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      Because customers who delivered their computers to Best Buy in good faith, might be visited by the FBI for material that only looked like evidence of wrongdoing but was in fact nothing of the kind. Also, $500 for each conviction might be enough of an incentive to manufacture evidence and place it on the computer - and even some Geek Squad members probably know enough to do so and successfully cover their tracks. When law enforcement pays outsiders for evidence, such evidence is automatically tainted as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    51. Re: Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually, when it's an actual photo of an actual kid in a sexual situation? There's a victim." There is a victim of the crime shown in the photograph, but the possession and viewing of that photograph is an act that has no victim. In fact, unless the person engaging in sex acts with the underage person is also the photographer, the act of photographing or recording the sex act is victimless as well. The only actions that injure the underage participant are the ones that directly harm them. Production, distribution, possession, and viewing are all objectively victimless "crimes" and there is simply no room for discussion.

      The reasoning used to attach victimization to photography and possessing photographs requires illogically broadening the scope of something to make the "fit" the desired victimhood status. The most cited by far (and the one every variant derives from) is that "the victim is re-victimized every time someone sees the picture." This reasoning is blatantly false because looking at a photo cannot injure anyone. The same thing goes for photography; capturing an image is not an act that can possibly injure anyone. The "victim is re-victimized" mantra even implicitly admits that there is not actually a victim without bolting one on.

      To get around this "inconvenience" the concept of injury and sometimes even the specificity of the "victim" must be broadened. Instead of the subject in the image being victimized by the photography (since by a strict definition that is an impossibility) the victim must be stretched out to cover "children" or "society" as a broad, vague, generalized group. Society or some significant portion of it is supposedly injured by these acts. It should be obvious that "a specific person is harmed" is very different from "everyone is harmed" but these concepts are aggressively conflated anyway.

      The thing is this: "society" doesn't matter. The issue is whether or not a specific act taken by a person harms a specific other person. That is the reason for making an action taken by a person a criminal offense. If we choose to consider anything that causes "societal harm" as a crime instead of relying on the existence of a specific victim at the hands of a specific action, literally every action you take can be considered criminal. Any action taken by a person is a few degrees of separation away from being considered harmful to society in some way.

      As an example, let's say that a male masturbates in the shower and his semen washes down the drain and into the sewer system. This act doesn't injure anyone, right? If it was made a crime, it would obviously be a victimless crime. However, semen sticks to drains and sewer pipes in a way similar to grease. Semen build-up will clog drains and sewers and cause backed up drains and septic or sewer system overflows. A sewer system clog can easily cost thousands of dollars to fix and mitigate the resulting harmful effects. That money comes out of taxpayer dollars, often at the municipal level, possibly bolstered with federal funds in some cases. In this way, we can easily see that masturbating in the shower and letting the semen go down the drain harms society, with the cost of the actions absorbed by taxpayers. This is just one example. If it sounds like tortured reasoning, that's because it is. One must never underestimate the amount of effort lawmakers and moralistic authoritarians will travel around their asshole to reach their armpit. "Reaches" far more ridiculous than this have held up even at the Supreme Court level. One need only examine the history of racist laws and judgments in the United States to see such "logic" being considered acceptable and the harm it brings.

      Victimless crime is not crime. Sex acts on an underage person may be criminal due to the harm they may cause, but shooting and possessing photographs are always victimless acts and therefore never criminal. The laws on the books that say otherwise are wrong. The only way they can ever be "right" is to selectively discard the fundamental principles

    52. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

      Society requires you to hide things. It's illegal to walk around naked, well, except in Oregon. Having any type of fetish exposed is generally social suicide and career suicide if you're in a public position at work. More than searching for child porn, since they're scanning through your computer they can copy whatever they want and use it for blackmail or just to get off (not that big a deal if no one you know finds out about it). We already knew Best Buy keeps porn stashes of whatever porn they find, the articles and proof on that are decades old. From then, they've gotten worse not better, so we can safely assume they'll be even worse in the future.

    53. Re:Is this news going to bring them more business by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I'm actually a little surprised that ransomware hasn't started dumping illegal images in victim's hard drives, just to discourage them from taking the machine to be fixed.

      It has happened. However, the ransomware criminals usually don't resort to this. Extorting money from clueless users gets you one kind of attention; distributing illegal images in the process gets you much, much more attention from law enforcement.

  2. Reviews of Geek Squad by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Top 976 Complaints and Reviews about Geek Squad Quote: "I feel that they're a scam. They get people to buy their support and anytime they help it costs more money."

    9 Confessions Of A Former Geek Squad Geek Quote: "A high percentage of Geek Squad employees lack basic troubleshooting skills such as correctly identifying malfunctioning components."

    Geek Squad Complaints and Reviews Quote: "$430 Average loss"

    Yelp Reviews for Geek Squad in San Francisco Quote: "Dealing with Geek Squad has been an absolute nightmare!! And judging by the hundreds of other reviews here, im guessing most of you feel the same way."

    Geek Squad Consumer Reviews Quote: ""Cheat Squad," Not Geek Squad"

  3. Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's disconcerting but in the end there is no 'right' against having your files searched for illegal material. Unless you're the President, then you've got a whole 1/3 of government to fuck around with.

    1. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I guess the Right given in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights must have gone right over your head.

      .

    2. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by tburkhol · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, the 4th Amendment only restricts the government. There's nothing restricting your neighbor, a private company, or the employees of a private company from collecting a reward if they happen to notice you doing something illegal.

    3. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is the same problem with saying that it's only censorship if the government does it, not if private companies do it.

      The end-run around the Constitution can be summed up in one terrifying word: Outsourcing.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by jpaine619 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, the 4th Amendment only restricts the government. There's nothing restricting your neighbor, a private company, or the employees of a private company from collecting a reward if they happen to notice you doing something illegal.

      Ah spoken by someone who hasn't a clue and instead starts playing the role of statist apologist. When the government trains, directs, and pays a "private citizen", that person becomes an agent of the government. This makes those persons subject to the same rules; probable cause, warrants, oath or affirmation.. This bit I dug up on nolo.com The admissibility of evidence found by a private citizen usually turns on the government’s “share” of the search. In other words, how involved was the government? While cases where the government ordered or paid a citizen to conduct the search are fairly straightforward, others aren’t. In determining whether to admit the evidence in question, courts consider questions like: whether the government initiated the search how much control the government had over the private citizen who conducted the search, and what the private citizen’s purpose was in conducting the search. And what was the FBI doing? Oh yeah... paying them..training them...giving them lists of people to search extra carefully. You clueless, statist, cocksucking fuck. Now please go back to blowing your J. Edgar Hoover love doll.

    5. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It isn't censorship if a private entity does it. If they do it at the behest of the government then the line gets blurred and you could reasonably make the argument that they were acting as agents of the state in that instance.

    6. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ver understand where 'Peeping Tom' came from?
      But not if you rummage about in their house / back yard. A nocause fishing expedition.
      Now back to the AG weasel words 'no partnership' Wrong wording, but Best Buy were 'An Agent' of the Govt hence caught.
      Call it trespass of property
      Taking this lame argument - if they were not agents of sorts, then Wikileaks and journalists have/are doing/done nothing wrong.

    7. Re: Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Which isn't what is happening here it all, so why would you say it?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government can't pay private citizens to do those searches either. This is like a little kid trying to argue that it's fine for him to have eaten all the cookies out of the cookie jar because he had his friend steal them. He still gets a spanking all the same.

    9. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is the same problem with saying that it's only censorship if the government does it, not if private companies do it./quote?

      No, the problem with saying that is that it would be factually and provably incorrect.

      Anyone can censor anyone else just by preventing them from speaking their opinions. It's the definition of the term censor.

      What would be a true statement is that it is only a constitutional violation if the government censors and not if private companies censor.

      It sounds like your problem is that you don't realize, don't care, or don't wish for censorship to be legal.
      Censorship as it currently stands in US law is pretty much legal in nearly all cases.
      The constitution defines one particular case of censorship that is not legal, and that is when the government censors a citizen.
      There are other cases where censorship is illegal, but very few of them.

      This is the same thing as people who intentionally confuse the terms "killing" and "murder"
      Those two words have different definitions and mean different things.
      And by definition, "murder" is when one "kills" in an illegal manor. "Killing" is not illegal.

      I can kill a spider and that is not a crime.
      If I kill another human being however, so long as that person is dead in the end, it is always "killing", but that doesn't automatically make it "murder", that would be for a court to decide.
      If I just went about killing someone for no reason other than they annoyed me, then yea, that is pretty much going to be "murder" also.
      But if the killing was in self defense, and a judge agrees that was the case, that killing is not murder and not illegal.

      Similarly "censorship" is not illegal in and of itself. Government censorship is illegal due to the constitution.

      You may wish that all censorship was illegal, and that would be your opinion that you have every right to hold. (I do disagree with that opinion, but that disagreement is just my opinion, and doesn't matter here)

      You can claim what you wish to be all day long.
      But as it currently stands, censorship is not illegal, and it very much is a problem when you claim reality is different than it is just due to your desire for it to be different.

    10. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Zemran · · Score: 1

      The employees of a company are on the clock and working for someone else at the same time. That may be actionable.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    11. Re: Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by oobayly · · Score: 4, Informative

      My understanding - from a talk at DefCon by a lawyer - was that once the FBI is aware of what Geek Squad staff are doing, those staff have become agents of the state and therefore require a warrant.

      It's "fine" for somebody to look at your drive and inform the authorities if they find something illegal - the government was not aware of what was happening so it's admissable. This changes the moment the government says "thanks for that, let us know if this happens again, by the way here's some cash". They've instructed someone to access private information without a warrant.

      Source: https://youtu.be/ibQGWXfWc7c - DEFCON 17: Search And Seizure Explained - They Took My Laptop!

    12. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the government has asked them to do it (for example by offering a reward), then they become agents of the government and the 4th amendment applies.

    13. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is the definition of censorship suddenly different if you change the actor that is doing it?

    14. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the government has asked them to do it (for example by offering a reward), then they become agents of the government and the 4th amendment applies.

      If the government has asked them to do it (for example by offering a reward), then they become agents of the government and Fourth Amendment protections attach to any act undertaken by the Agent of the Government at the behest of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in this example.

    15. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would only require "a warrant" if you hadn't opted-in to their geek squad services which include presumably looking at your computer on some level.

      "How exactly" they come across those child porn files is important, because if they're NOT exposed as a result of basic computer repair work then it could be an excluded search. Proving either way by technical means is the legal trick.

    16. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Zxern · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would think they methods they use are really unimportant here, given the level of direct involvement by the FBI here. This is akin to giving a PI a list of names, what to look for, and then paying them if he finds anything.

      Geek squad is clearly acting as agent of the FBI here. All evidence should be disallowed due to lack of warrant.

    17. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when a third party is paid by law enforcement to act as a(n) agent or informant, this can lead to mistrials, as judges may few such individuals as "suspect" when called as witnesses in court at a trial. This is more evidence that the private sector is being bought off by law enforcement to spy on people (also makes a good case for encrypting everything which has the potential to be used against you in a court of law)...

      Pathetic (and people wonder why Law Enforcement is hated so much in America)

    18. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4th Amendment _does_ generally prohibit outsourcing or contracting the work, though. In this case, Geek Squad should rightly be considered an agent of the government, and bound by the same rules, since the FBI is paying them to do the snooping.

      It's already mandatory to report certain classes of illegal file if you stumble upon them... absolutely no need for the FBI to pay them for fishing.

    19. Re:Well Geek Squad didn't plant the child porn by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1
      I think you're looking for this:

      https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1

      Richard Nixon: "Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

      Or maybe this:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html

      ".. the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest."

  4. Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've long heard the horror stories about Geek Squad's obsession with searching through customer files. Didn't realize they weren't at arm's length from the FBI, though.

    Once, I did come across a couple of videos portraying what appeared to be child pornography on a client's system. They were in with a mish-mash collection of porn that could be most kindly referred to as "eclectic". Didn't do anything about it; that client was somewhat old, and died a few years later, anyway.

    I don't go looking through stuff that's none of my goddamn business when I'm working on a system.

  5. Good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is OK. And far better than remote surveillance and hacking.

  6. Thought crime by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find these prosecutions rather disturbing, as they amount to victimless thought crime.
    Yes, there is a child victim, and the story is terrible, but there is no causal connection, and no need to demonstrate one. The child is the victim of a very different crime, by a different person, possibly long ago. In other cases, there may not even be a single child who has suffered, ever. And that makes no difference to the law.
          Whats the point of treating it as a criminal problem? It makes about as much sens as the war on drugs.
    What does all this achieve? Is there the slightest bit of evidence that our children are any safer for all these destroyed lives from the War on Porn ?

    And if it helps you consider the question more objectively, the images themselves were not particularly shocking. Nothing compared to the sex and violence on an average night's TV.

    Agent Tracey Riley admitted to U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney the so-called "Jenny" image found by a Best Buy Geek Squad technician, who doubled as a paid agency informant, "wasn't child pornography by itself."
    Riley tried to recover by explaining that the picture, which contains no sex or genital angles, originated from a "well-known" child-pornography video.

    1. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "What does all this achieve?"

      It makes viewing child pron more exciting.

    2. Re:Thought crime by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      What does all this achieve?

      It helps keep the Gulag full, and makes it easy to frame anyone at any time.

    3. Re: Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a vested interest in having pedophiles not treated as the scum they are? Perhaps the authorities should investigate. Who knows what you might be hiding...

    4. Re:Thought crime by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it disturbing that I have to explain this but here goes.

      I find these prosecutions rather disturbing, as they amount to victimless thought crime.
      Yes, there is a child victim, and the story is terrible, but there is no causal connection,

      You are correct in that there is no causal connection however what you have failed to realize is that this is specifically because possessing it is a crime. Let's say you change the laws and make possessing it a non-criminal offense. The first thing that will happen is that people will monetize it (selling/subscriptions/advertising/etc) and when there is a demand for additional/higher quality content, it will be purchased from the abusers.

      Behavior is all about feedback loops and keeping it illegal prevents there from being an incentive to abuse children.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the prohibition drastically reduced the alcohol consumption, crimes and made a big dent in mob's revenue.

    6. Re: Thought crime by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      I have no interest in protecting pedophiles but, if you're on the FBI's payroll, a person's name is on a FBI list, the computer comes in with malware and shows up with malware and child porn they claim they have no idea how it go there are you going to be just a little concerned that the evidence could have been planted? Even if it wasn't, the evidence was obtained without a proper warrant and the fact that it was collected by a Best Buy employee just makes it worse as it just means that the evidence has been hasn't had a proper chain of custody on top of improper collection.

      I'm all for pedophiles going to jail. But, do your fucking job properly so they actually stay there!

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    7. Re: Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you sugesting children are chosing to do this or that one they could and second psychologically or physically forced. as for porn in general if it goes into forced then thats increadibly wrong too. there is no situation were it would be ok for a child to be in this situation. you go after the providers and consumers to a lesser extent but still do. this is not a war on porn(at least my definition of it) but child abuse.

    8. Re: Thought crime by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      We do not know whether quenda is hiding anything or not, but one thing is sure: you've got something to hide: your name, you anonymous coward!

    9. Re:Thought crime by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Let's say you change the laws and make possessing it a non-criminal offense. The first thing that will happen is that people will monetize it (selling/subscriptions/advertising/etc) and when there is a demand for additional/higher quality content, it will be purchased from the abusers.

      They could start by only criminalizing commerce in such pictures. This would remove the incentive to plant it, or to simply mislabel innocent pictures as something nasty (who's gonna contradict law enforcement, when mere viewing of such pictures is a crime?)

    10. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gyno HAS to take pictures to protect him/herself in case he misses something. It is now an insurance thing.
      Same for surgeons and other medicos including a few dentists.
      I suppose the gyno could say, sorry, you daughter is underage - go somewhere else.
      I hope the medical insurance co blacklists those involved in the prosecution and their families. Then sanity may prevail.

    11. Re:Thought crime by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, victims have a right to privacy. The subjects of child porn are not consenting to distribution of images/videos of their abuse. If you were raped, would you think it should be legal for the internet to share and proliferate the video of your rape for the personal pleasure of millions? Or might you think there should be a law against sharing that video?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no law against spreading videos of other crimes being commited.
        * murder
        * mutilation
        * beating
        * torture
      Why should rape be different?
      Would I like a video of me being spread around? No. But that's regardless even of me being raped.
      But me not wanting something is not a good reason for there being a law against it.

    13. Re: Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that term means what you think it does. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to children â" that's not their fault, and they don't belong in prison. It's the people that *act* on those urges, i.e. the child molesters, that belong in prison.

    14. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making it hard to find is what makes it valuable, not the other way around. Unless you make child sex and child porn production legal there won't be any copyright holders to curb piracy so it will be copied like crazy. Maybe you'd find it as "one more thing" on RedTube or The Pirate Bay but if you tried to offer a premium service it'd get ripped and reposted for free in no time. Never mind that you could still put restriction on distribution and commerce.

      Of course there will always be a market for exclusive, custom productions but that market already exists today. Good kiddie porn sells for hundreds to thousands of dollars per movie with individually tagged copies. That market will continue to exist as long as the free offers are crap. They don't want the free alternatives to get better.

      Then again if you talk about feedback loops it'd let a lot more people get the actual facts instead of all the fear-mongering and vilifying that all kiddie porn is crying kids forced and raped. There's no such thing as horny kids that like it, keep telling yourself that...

    15. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your brain seems to work completely backwards to reality.

      Making possession no longer a crime means that A. you can't be subjected to a frame job by law enforcement or an angry ex (yes, this happens, and its horrifying that they don't all get caught when they do this), and B. when people come across it accidentally, or when pedos see videos of children being harmed terribly (torture and snuff films), they will be free to take them to the police. A case a while back had someone turn in some kiddie porn they claimed they found in the desert. The police arrested the guy, claiming he had held onto it for too long. You want to talk about chilling effects!

      Criminalizing possession makes everyone who so much as sees the stuff into a fucking accomplice. It would be hard to set up a system more harmful to children, outside of outright legalization and mandatory administration of violent child rape.

    16. Re:Thought crime by guises · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that porn creates perverts. This is, at best, only part of the reason why child pornography is banned. I would question whether it was reasoned through even as carefully as you have done here - most laws like this one are grounded in moral outrage, rather than any consideration of the societal impact of the crime in question or how these laws may shape behavior. Your explanation sounds more like an excuse than a motivator: "Pedophilia? Ew. I have enough trouble imagining my daughter with someone her own age, and the whole thing grosses me out anyway. Also, that Rupert Murdoch fellow has been making boatloads of money getting the public good and scared about their children, even though those children are safer than ever. (Not making this part up - before Murdoch got all political, this was how he sold newspapers.) There must be some reason we can come up with to ban this."

      For evidence, let me point out the fact that it is not just the abusers and their products which are banned - drawings, cartoons, and other victimless depictions of child pornography also carry exactly the same penalty as pornography in which actual children were involved. The excuse for this ban is the same reason you give above: porn creates perverts. Never mind that this claim is dubious at best, that's not the important part of this. The real reason is: "Ew."

    17. Re: Thought crime by Bruinwar · · Score: 2

      Do you have a vested interest in having pedophiles not treated as the scum they are? Perhaps the authorities should investigate. Who knows what you might be hiding...

      There it is... always someone has to toss out a "why are defending....?" "what are YOU hiding!?" Anyone that is interested in protecting the innocent from overzealous LOA/Prosecutors, must be guilty also. The Bill of Rights means nothing to these people. For all anyone knows, this doctor could very well be completely innocent. Yep, so a few innocent people's lives are ruined, they go to prison. That's OK, tough luck, it's for the children. Most are guilty of something, right?

      The shit scares me. There are 6 computers in my home. 2 solid gaming desktops, 2 gaming laptops. My son has LAN parties in our basement every few weeks. God knows what they do with those computers when everyone else is sleeping. Later today I will scan them all for malware but pics/vids could be left behind. These punks are starting to wake up now, time for me to go out.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    18. Re: Thought crime by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Bad example. Prohibition didn't address consumption. It only made trade, and production illegal. Still consumption dropped quite a bit. But the overall drastic increase in crime, deaths, and cost were not worth it.

      Demand based controls are more difficult but far more effective than supply based controls. Imagine if drinking was made illegal? You would have riots. But if accepted, would have destroyed the producers.

      Same with the War on Drugs, it leans heavily on the transporters, a little less on the producers, and far less on the consumers.

    19. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait a second. If the following is true:

      Agent Tracey Riley admitted to U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney the so-called "Jenny" image found by a Best Buy Geek Squad technician, who doubled as a paid agency informant, "wasn't child pornography by itself."
      Riley tried to recover by explaining that the picture, which contains no sex or genital angles, originated from a "well-known" child-pornography video.

      Is it possible that the image in question was part of an advertisement that was served to the computer while the gynecologist was consuming other (possible legal porn) content? Keep in mind that it would be a still image, which does not magically separate itself from a video.

      Also, if the video was "well known", is it possible that the advertisement was posted by the government as a way to entrap or entice those who would click on the image and follow the ad? Similar government behavior has been well documented.

      Given the argument of Agent Riley, one must assume that no other incriminating images or videos were found on the gynecologist's computer. Otherwise the image in question would be a non-starter for discussion. This makes for a very shaky prosecution as is suggests that the gynecologist was not intentionally consuming child pornography.

      IANAL, but if I had to defend the gynecologist, I would be very curious to know if the image was found in the browser history, where the image originated from, and what other activity occurred around the time stamp of the image. I would also initiate a search for matching images on the Internet to determine the origin of the file. Context means everything.

    20. Re:Thought crime by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Please read the article. No child porn was found yet they have not dropped the case.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    21. Re:Thought crime by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      You make an interesting argument, but I think back to a study done on the effects of legalizing prostitution on sex trafficking. The study found that legalizing prostitution, while it may have made things better for the women working legally, caused an increase in demand for prostitutes. This caused an increase in sex trafficking.
      (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453)

      People have desires they want to act on. Perverts don't have to be created, they already exist (and perhaps we are all perverts on some level or another). When you lower the effort required for them to consume whatever it is they desire, you will truly see how many people also desire that thing. As others become aware of that thing, they may decide they want that thing for themself, having not thought of it themselves previously (You mean I can have THAT? Well, don't mind if I do!). And maybe that last bit is an argument that porn creates perverts, or at the very least, reveals perverts.

      When 50 Shades of Grey came out, Pornhub searches for BDSM shot up. You could argue that these were all people already well aware and into BDSM, and the movie just raised a desire in them. I seriously doubt that, however.
      (http://www.chron.com/life/health/article/Pornhub-study-shows-search-for-BDSM-porn-on-the-6096907.php)

      Humans are curious, and we wonder what various things are like. Some things are naturally, instinctively repulsive to us. Some things neutral. And some things we find appealing, often times not until we are exposed to them. It is true naivete to think that increased availability to such materials won't cause an increase in consumers.

    22. Re: Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this experiment : have a child. Someone takes pornographic pics of that child, sells them. Keeps selling them. Still cool with that? I'm really not OK with either. Are you so principled you'd be OK with it?

    23. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it disturbing that I have to explain this but here goes.

      I find these prosecutions rather disturbing, as they amount to victimless thought crime.
      Yes, there is a child victim, and the story is terrible, but there is no causal connection,

      You are correct in that there is no causal connection however what you have failed to realize is that this is specifically because possessing it is a crime. Let's say you change the laws and make possessing it a non-criminal offense. The first thing that will happen is that people will monetize it (selling/subscriptions/advertising/etc) and when there is a demand for additional/higher quality content, it will be purchased from the abusers.

      Behavior is all about feedback loops and keeping it illegal prevents there from being an incentive to abuse children.

      How about making distribution illegal, but not possession. And, it doesn't have to be a high crime to be illegal. There are tons of examples of this. One example off the top of my head is food standards (which, I admit are out of control, but the point stands). You're not going to go on a sex offenders registry for selling food that isn't legal to sell, but there's some penalty involved. It's enough deterrent to make the problem essentially solved. If you want raw milk, you have to seek it out, but it's not everywhere, and you're not going to buy it by accident. Overzealous crackdowns are a problem sure, but I think for child pornography, this would probably be a more sensible way to handle it.

    24. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it disturbing that I have to explain this but here goes.

      You are correct in that there is no causal connection however what you have failed to realize is that this is specifically because possessing it is a crime.

      Yet the person in possession might be a security researcher using those images and videos as part of their work.

      When I provided desk-side technical support on contract and someone received a new computer in the workplace and requested their data files be transferred to the new computer, I did not examine the file contents; I merely copied the files or subdirectories to say a CD-ROM before copying the CD-ROM to the new computer. This was before every workplace started using file servers for users content. Afterward I handed the employee the CD-ROM. Over the years I had access to highly sensitive files but not once did I have reason to open those files unless the end-user explicitly granted permission.

      Best Buy is clearly acting as an agent of the state.

    25. Re: Thought crime by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Bad example. Prohibition didn't address consumption. It only made trade, and production illegal.

      The Feds did address consumption. They intentionally poisoned large amounts of alcohol in an effort to deter consumption which caused thousands of deaths (estimated to be as high as 10,000 deaths) and blinded/maimed many more.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/...

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    26. Re: Thought crime by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Before you piss people off, you should remember that they can get paid $500 for telling the cops you have kiddy porn.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    27. Re: Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it depends on how it was found. when a data transfer is done, the program displays filenames. if it had an obvious name they would have to view it. moreover it's the policy of geeksquad to report any child porn.

    28. Re: Thought crime by orlanz · · Score: 1

      The government poisoned industrial alcohols and other similar alcohol substitutes that were not meant for non-human consumption. This was to deter producers from using alcohol substitutes to jack up the proof of products or shorten production time.

      Producers either switched to other alternatives or learned to depoision some. Unfortunately, since the production was already illegal, there were producers who didn't care enough about quality or traded it for cost.

      The government could have actually addressed consumption by making it illegal to possess and consume. But they didn't. Some states kind of did this but had many many exceptions in terms of wine, religious, and medical reasons.

    29. Re: Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My software does not display file names. It displays a progress counter only because that's what is safest for everyone. The less I know, the better. If I find something possibly illegal, I'm nuking their hard drive and claiming a virus killed it, full stop. I'm not getting between the state and some person's masturbatory material because I'm not keen on being flattened by a legal bulldozer.

    30. Re:Thought crime by quenda · · Score: 1

      I think back to a study done on the effects of legalizing prostitution on sex trafficking.

      A very interesting topic in itself, but so different from the above. Those sort of studies are usually worthless, as they are structured in a way that will always find correlations, but can never succeed in controlling for related factors.

      It sounds like you are suggesting that decriminalising CP possession will increase consumption, and therefore somehow increase child abuse.

      There is a similar old argument against mainstream pornography, but the evidence against it is strong. Porn does not cause rape.

  7. Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm quite sure people give their computers to be fixed with some form of agreement, whether written or implied, that the contents of their computers is not passed on to third parties. Doesn't look great for the company involved...

    1. Re: Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or other computer fixing companies that consumers may trust less now.

  8. Warrantless search? by burni2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because those geek-squad FBI moles were trained by the FBI and could be considered a direct part of the operation.

    If so the evidence could be obtained illegally.

    And this is different than narcotic informats - except the geek-squad-moles are considered criminals ;)

    1. Re:Warrantless search? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      A training program is generally not enough, teaching say school staff to recognize signs of say child abuse or drug use doesn't make them agents. I don't think a general rewards program does either. These two though seem dubious:

      shared lists of targeted citizens and (...) encouraged searches of computers even when unrelated to a customer's request for repairs

      There's a long deliberation here, but I think instigating a search of particular targets and encouraging activity that doesn't have any other function than to help the police crosses the line. A private citizen might "snoop" but if the police tell you on who and where to snoop it's a police search.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Warrantless search? by Zxern · · Score: 1

      Also the fact that they pay when evidence is provided changes things greatly. Teachers aren't paid when they report signs of abuse, and those reports are not the sole evidence in abuse cases either.

  9. Repeat Story? by sheramil · · Score: 3, Informative

    Didn't this story run a few months ago? Has it happened again? Has anything changed, or is EditorDavid new?

  10. Must be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This crap has to be illegal.

    It's like giving a plumber access to your house to fix a plumbing problem, but then he also goes through the underwear drawer in your little girls bedroom as well as through all of your mail on your desk etc etc. I cannot believe that would be considered legal and I can't believe that what Best Buy is doing should be either..

    1. Re:Must be illegal by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's like giving a plumber access to your house to fix a plumbing problem, but then he also goes through the underwear drawer in your little girls bedroom as well as through all of your mail on your desk etc etc

      That would be harmless! Keeping with the plumber analogy, it's like the plumber planting drugs in your toilet tank and calling the cops on you.

    2. Re:Must be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad fact is we've gotten to a point where nothing's illegal if the FBI does it. Remember a couple years ago they took over a child porn site on TOR, then did some server upgrades and kept it running for a few weeks. They're using stingrays all over the country, including from aircraft over highly populated cities, in clear violation of the 4th amendment. The FBI operates totally unchecked these days because hey, what's anyone going to do about it?

    3. Re:Must be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheap bait-and-switch horse trading, the bedrock of American society, continues to find its niche in the modern day.

      What's more surprising is how willing people are to trust these incompetents. Sadly, I've never heard of an auto mechanic going to jail for their unscrupulousness. I expect Geek Squad-like operations will persist in a similar way.

    4. Re:Must be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off the top of my head, that is kind of the point: YOU gave the plumber access to your house. Just as these people gave Geek Squad access to their computers. People give their mechanics access to their cars. There is a lot of things each person COULD do, but ultimately, it comes down to trusting another person with your equipment.
      I'm fairly sure that you can sue them, provided you can prove you were injured by their actions and said actions were outside the scope of their work.
      For example, My mechanic could take my car for "test drives" at night, and speed through red lights, as the fines will be sent to me, and I will need to prove that it wasn't me. My landlord could spraypaint the walls and kick me out of my house if I can't prove that he did it during a house inspection where I agreed for him to be there when I wasn't.
      We place a lot of trust in random people - which is needed for sociaty to work. It sucks that there are people that would sell their mother out for cash, but that is how it is. All you can do is try to cover your own ass.

    5. Re:Must be illegal by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Employees and agents of the US federal government are bound by the constitution of the USA, and it requires search warrants.

    6. Re:Must be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND getting $500 extra to do it.

    7. Re:Must be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like the plumber going thru the house and finding a bag of loot some thief dropped while he was casing the current house. RTFA and pay attention to the term "unallocated space."

  11. Glad by AndyKron · · Score: 0

    And this is why I'm so glad life is finite. I'm ready to die now

  12. Hollywood prepares us for the truth yet again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds straight out of the show Chuck where a Nerd Herder working at BuyMore is part of a joint CIA/NSA task force.

  13. So it is too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to dump Best Buy stock before the rumor has investors running away.
    Makes me wonder how many other computer repair businesses were corrupted. How far did the FBI go in their
    vampire-like grab for information and control?
    We know they distributed kiddie porn, infected, of course.
    So what else s the FBI interested in that they would take similar actions?

  14. This story happens all the time by GrandCow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sorry, but after all the tech support jobs I've been at, someone is going to search for *.jpg/gif/png/whatever.

    I never have myself, but at every job I've been at, a bored nerd is going to do a random search for pics/porn. It takes 30 seconds when they are spending hours on a computer.

    These days, I work for a company that has a long disclosure that people ignore while I read it to them, but the big thing is "if you have shit you don't want us seeing, make a second account with a password that we can use to fix your shit."

    Again, I have never done it myself, but I have seen so many colleagues do it that I can only assume it's common over all areas.

    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    1. Re:This story happens all the time by tomhath · · Score: 2

      My daughter worked Tech Support when she was in college. They were told that if they happened to find child porn they were supposed to report it, although they weren't tasked with actively searching for it. The reason being that if you are aware of a crime, you are supposed to report it; otherwise you risk being guilty of conspiracy.

    2. Re: This story happens all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im guessing thats what happened here too mostly.

    3. Re:This story happens all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting past password protection is trivial. Encryption with good security practices is a different ballpark.

    4. Re:This story happens all the time by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      My daughter worked Tech Support when she was in college. They were told that if they happened to find child porn they were supposed to report it, although they weren't tasked with actively searching for it. The reason being that if you are aware of a crime, you are supposed to report it; otherwise you risk being guilty of conspiracy.

      Whoever told her that was absolutely correct. If you find child porn (as a technician or in any other way) you need to report to avoid becoming a criminal yourself.

      On the other hand, you have no right as a technician to search someone's computer, whether they are an innocent citizen, or a pedophile. Assume you signed a contract that you won't search a computer, with a $10,000 penalty if you do. And you search it and find child porn. Now you are in a right mess, because the only legal thing you can do is report it to the police and pay the $10,000 penalty.

    5. Re:This story happens all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > or in any other way

      Good god no, what horrible advice.

      If you as a private person stumble over such stuff you would be a fool to report it because you just admitted to possession.

    6. Re:This story happens all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, you have no right as a technician to search someone's computer, whether they are an innocent citizen, or a pedophile. Assume you signed a contract that you won't search a computer, with a $10,000 penalty if you do. And you search it and find child porn. Now you are in a right mess, because the only legal thing you can do is report it to the police and pay the $10,000 penalty.

      That kind of contract would likely be void, as it would be contrary to the public interest, and as such, unenforceable.

      The law trumps such agreements.

    7. Re:This story happens all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good argument for regulation, and imprisoning the techs, instead of the clients; and the federal agents that subourn them.

    8. Re:This story happens all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubtful, Most contracts that are related to illegal things are often void.

      Similar if I got you to sign a contract that I won't show my ID until you agree not to turn me in to the FBI or pay 1 Trillion dollars. No judge will enforce that.

    9. Re:This story happens all the time by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      If you find child porn (as a technician or in any other way) you need to report to avoid becoming a criminal yourself.

      Citation, please.

      There are certainly positions which carry mandatory-reporting responsibility for particular crimes, but this is the first I've heard of this particular one. Can you provide the relevant law or precedent?

    10. Re:This story happens all the time by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      And following up on my own comment, I'm curious how the law or courts determine how a non-expert is required to evaluate an image or other artifact as "child porn". What's the legal test? Reasonable person? What degree of knowledge is the non-expert required to have about child-pornography statutes and their definitions of illegal material? Is the observer supposed to deduce the ages of subjects in the media, and how accurate are those evaluations supposed to be? What kinds of depicted acts are illegal? Does nudity have to be involved? What about physical contact?

      I am, shall we say, dubious.

  15. State Actors Need Warrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When someone receives training from Law Enforcement to act on Law Enforcement's behalf, they become State Actors, and State Actors need warrants. The Gynecologist should have his conviction overturned.

  16. Read the Privacy Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    http://www.bestbuy.com/site/he...

    Sometimes we may be required to share personal information for legal reasons, for example, if we are required to do so by a regulation, court order, subpoena or other legal process. We may also share information when we believe it's necessary to comply with the law or to respond to a government request, or when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to protect Best Buy, our customers, or others.

    The rest of the policy is immaterial. In other words - we can disclose whatever we want whenever we want if we believe it will "protect" somebody. I'm not arguing against the CP case disclosure - but the way this is written is wide open for interpretation.

    1. Re: Read the Privacy Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you can't waive Constitutional rights vis a vis the government by signing a contract with a private party. By training and paying Geek Squad techs, law enforcement is making them agents of the government and subject to the full force of the 4th amendment, regardless of what contract you made with the parent corporation.

  17. GEEK SQUAD HAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought "Geek Squad" was a meme? Did people really take their computers to Best Buy to be touched by "GEEK SQUAD"!? Haha

  18. FBI plant? by fergettabatit · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the show "Chuck"? I guess it was closer to the truth than anyone expected.

    1. Re:FBI plant? by marcroelofs · · Score: 1

      My first thought too

  19. Welcome to The Police State by IHTFISP · · Score: 1

    If only we had some protection against this sort of oppressive Police State intrusion... oh, like, say, the 4th, 5th & 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

    Wake up and smell the freedom, please, We the People. Please?

    --
    Error: NSE - No Signature Error
    1. Re: Welcome to The Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a 4th amendment objection certainly applies here, 4th and 14th amendment due process objections certainly don't. CP laws have repeatedly found to pass substantive due process muster, and the accused here is being afforded all the rights of procedural due process, which attach at the adjuticative phase, not at the investigative stage.

      And yes, he is very likely going to win his case because 1) therest very clearly was a 4th amendment violation in the initial search, and 2) the "evidence" from which formed the basis of the initial search warrant wasn't even legally CP.

  20. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story has already been done on Slashdot, though it doesn't hurt to remind people I guess.

  21. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This got modded down, but it's true. Child traffickers are being arrested in record numbers. Not a peep out of the media. Who are they protecting?

    Is it illegal to view kiddie porn because if you look close, you will see the abusers are all politicians and other rich and powerful people?

  22. Interesting Study Idea by Striikerr · · Score: 1

    What would be an interesting investigation would be to install surveillance software onto a computer and bring it in to these repair places such as Best Buy. The reason for bringing it in for repair can be various intentional problems. I would love to see what some of these techs do once they are working on the computer. Interesting observations would be to see if they unnecessarily access files and folders unrelated to the issue. Perhaps create a honeypot folder with apparent home made video or photographic content or with personal financial data etc. perhaps create a file somewhere with websites, usernames and passwords to see if the technicians decide to check them out. I suspect that the issue of unauthorized access to data is widespread.

  23. Who uses GeekSquad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't ever take any of my computers to Geek Squad for repair. But I have heard this before, that Geek Squad found some under age porn on someone's computer and turned them in. But the law in most states requires people to report this kind of crime to authorities or face charges of concealing evidence.
    If your a security agency your going to approach services like Geek Squad that interact with customers data. So nobody should be surprised by this. But I would also be surprised if any terrorists would take their hardware to a Geek Squad for repair risking exposure of data.

  24. Re: Is this news going to bring them more busines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have shit to hide, just flush the F**KING TOILET!

  25. Podesta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pizza...nuff said

  26. I can never do business with Best Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever again. Nazi's had citizen spys.

    1. Re:I can never do business with Best Buy by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      These are Geek Squad employees. That's a special subset of the Best Buy operation. Anybody can work at Best Buy, and shilling overpriced 'upgrades' and extended warranties is one thing.

      It takes a special sort of employee to drive around in a PT Cruiser with 'Geek Squad' printed on the side. There aren't that many people capable of doing this as a career choice, so unless you approach the Geek Squad countertop at a Best Buy Store (similar in many ways to the 'Genius Bar' at an Apple store) you are safe entering a Best Buy. It's no better or worse than a WalMart or Frys.

  27. Forget it Americans are insane by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I'm an American, I've seen how little reason there is and how public discourse has eroded into total pointlessness beginning with the 80, maybe before that...

    The psychological definitions which have been around for decades are not even remotely used in the law. The legal definitions are ignorant at best, every man is a pedophile according to US law. Since human sexuality is based upon fertility not age, as soon as a child passes puberty nature indicates adulthood has arrived; this clashes with cultural beliefs (which changed themselves over time... and we only think the last 50 years was "the way always has been.")

    Science has been showing and will only get closer to proving that pedophiles are BORN. It's a natural defect just like homosexuality. Furthermore, evidence shows that pedophiles simply have a lower threshold of attraction, they are still into adults. They do not go rape adults anymore than normal - but if they are going to one would assume that they would prefer an easier target. It is not P.C. these days but that is actual reality and eventually science will beat back the SJW. We can not even have a discussion of science in this country - it changes entirely how one views the problem and even if we could get people educated, the public discourse is idiotic just dealing with easy problems. Reality has a way of messing with your ignorant beliefs and people need to toughen up more.

    The inability to control one's impulses should be considered an illness (in the most extreme it is.) Rapists must be included. Not a crime; but insanity where "can do harm to themselves or others" is the reason we put them into hospitals in the civilized world (not the USA, we put them in jail with sane people.) If you can't cure a rapist (of adults or children or animals) then they can't be allowed out in society. It is that simple, no need to make distinctions between victims. Sure you lose the comfort of feeling righteous for punishing evil in god's name (which is a form of blasphemy, BTW) but you can feel safer knowing those sick people will not be released having learned better how to not get caught next time.

  28. Digital Rendition by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    Not exactly, but close enough, I'd call it digital rendition. Paying somebody else to collect evidence in a way you can't should be a crime.

  29. Cheetos. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Reward the sort of Geek Squad technician who would work as 'an informant for the FBI' with $500 worth of Cheetos. That would attract a better class of Geek Squad informant. The police cadet wannabe types presently being attracted are obsessed with keeping the greasy orange crumbs off their hands, and as junior martinets can only provide tainted evidence.

  30. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

    constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8=====D~)

    Unlike other fraternities you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors, as long as you're a white Christian male. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 8: "You don't have to be capable of critical thinking, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the Republican penis in your anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald are that you meet all of the following conditions:

    1. 1. Unwavering cult-like worship of Donald Trump, who does no wrong and speaks only truth

    To submit your official Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald membership application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD! Your membership kit* is on its way**.

    If you require a specific membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, or prestigious inclusion upon your VKontakte profile and coal-mining uniform, please take down this number: 69.

    Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

    GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)

    [ ] I am secretly gay, but hate gay people because Donald does
    [ ] I am a wigger, but hate non-white people because Donald does
    [ ] I have used BREITBART.COM to find a sex partner

    After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Admirers of Donald membership ID.

    *Sorry, GayWAD membership kit no longer includes Ivanka Trump brand panties.

    **Arrival not guaranteed due to cuts in Postal Service budget.

  31. admin = admin by Leslie43 · · Score: 1

    A second account won't help one bit as you need to be an admin to install or remove programs and execute repairs and all admins have access to everything.

    More importantly, if you have direct access to a system, nothing is safe from anyone capable of using Google.

  32. Re:Trump by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It seems that way after enough LDS LSD.

  33. suggestibiliy-sort synchronicity by epine · · Score: 1

    This entire debate is rife with just-so soup of the day.

    You could argue that these were all people already well aware and into BDSM, and the movie just raised a desire in them. I seriously doubt that, however.

    Doh! We're a hundred miles down the road into The One True Cause and most people can't even distinguish rate from order.

    Time is short. Right?

    List of shit I'd like to poke into.
    * item
    * another item
    * many more items

    Some item from laundry list comes up in everyday circumstance. That particular item becomes momentarily top of mind. Return home. Ten minutes to kill. What's top of mind? Bingo. That thing that came up around the water cooler that was on your shits and giggles list anyway.

    News headline the following day: in recent trends, the BDSM zeitgeist is hot, hot, hot.

    No, actually. It just went through a minor flush of suggestibility-sort synchronicity. No kittens were renamed.

  34. What if they actually planted the evidence?! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    What if they actually planted the evidence?!

    I am all for catching and stopping child porn.
    However, I am also all for catching and stopping illegal invasions of constitutional rights! GET A WARRANT FIRST!!!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.