Slashdot Mirror


Typo In IP Address Led To an Innocent Father's Arrest For Paedophilia (buzzfeed.com)

An anonymous reader has shared a shocking story about the arrest of Nigel Lang by the British police for a crime he didn't commit. It all happened because of a typo, according to a report. From the report: On a Saturday morning in July 2011, Nigel Lang, then aged 44, was at home in Sheffield with his partner and their 2-year-old son when there was a knock at the door. He opened it to find a man and two women standing there, one of whom asked if he lived at the address. When he said he did, the three strangers pushed past him and one of the women, who identified herself as a police officer, told Lang and his partner he was going to be arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children. [...] He was told that when police requested details about an IP address connected to the sharing of indecent images of children, one extra keystroke was made by mistake, sending police to entirely the wrong physical location. But it would take years, and drawn-out legal processes, to get answers about why this had happened to him, to force police to admit their mistake, and even longer to begin to get his and his family's lives back on track. Police paid Lang 60,000 British Pound ($73,500) in compensation last autumn after settling out of court, two years after they finally said sorry and removed the wrongful arrest from his record.

227 comments

  1. Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Brazil, come to life.

    1. Re:Brazil by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking! I was waiting for that to eventually happen - Buttle > Tuttle?

  2. A simple idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Slashdot,

    We get that you're never going to add in proper UTF support. Fine. Whatever. How about this:

    When an editor submits a story to go on the front page, add a filter that checks for common UTF copy and paste errors like Ã(TM). If one is found, redirect to a preview screen along with an error message saying "Improper characters detected" and force the editor to look at it again.

    That page can have a button that says "I've verified this is what I really want to post" just in case it is, but couple that with a penalty for any editor who uses it as a rubber stamp. Any editor who makes that mistake more than twice in one day gets written up. Any editor written up more than three times is fired.

  3. Zero tolerance has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It started as a noble ideal: "never, ever."

    Then people started having their lives ruined by being framed or making a mistake or simply being under 18 and in control of a camera. The law has no leeway.

    1. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Noble? It doesn't take much imagination to see how zero tolerance does more harm than good. A half-baked measure based more on emotion and fear than reasoning? Sure, but punishing the innocent 'just in case' is in no way noble.

    2. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The intersection of the set of people who call for zero tolerance and the set of people who understand real analysis and binary classifiers is empty.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, yes, that's how all totalitarian states start. After all the Nazis started with noble ideals: economic equality and fairness, free public education, universal healthcare, government retirement benefits, an end to unearned income (capital gains etc.), and nationalization of important industries. It inevitably led to corruption, theft, violence, war, and eventually genocide.

      You forgot their desire to be strong, to avenge their defeats, to crush the threats to their safety, to purify their identity, and other motivations that were actually what lead towards corruption, theft, violence, war, and most importantly, genocide.

      If the Nazi's had stuck with their other ideas, the world would have been better off, but you see, it was their pride, their anger, their resentment, that drove them, not their more positive ideals.

      It's ok though, I understand you have to justify your own weaknesses and faults, after all, if people inevitably turn to the negative in life, you can't be blamed for your choices to enrich yourself and disadvantage others, it's entirely natural.

    4. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness. Here I was beginning to think that Trump was Literal Hitler after all. Seeing as how none of that is on the Republican agenda, I feel much safer now.

    5. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wild guess: roman_mir?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Zero tolerance" is the authoritarian idea that every deviation from what they find acceptable has to be crushed with extreme force. Of course, in the case at hand, the accusation was extreme, but the same shit does happen for things that are nowhere near as bad. And you would think that before destroying a person's life they would double-check they have the right person. But not so, because the authoritarians behind this believe everybody to be guilty and giving people a chance to prove they are innocent is optional.

      No, there is nothing at all "noble" with zero tolerance. It is a purely fascist idea. (And yes, I do know the actual definition for "fascism". It fits.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by DonaId+Trump · · Score: 2

      But they all know how to vote! Now who wants a slice of pizza?

    8. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The worst part seems to be something that nobody here noticed:

      3 people lived in the home the IP address was "assigned" to. Only the man was arrested and had his life ruined.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a worthy goal nonetheless. If it ruins the lives of a few people but saves more, we should all support the system. Even if we're to suffer, it will eventually lead to a better society. We must think of society as a whole, not as individuals.

    10. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Sique · · Score: 1

      The worst part is that you didn't even read till the last paragraph and still try to educate others about what they seemingly didn't notice. Otherwise you would have noticed that a) him the man in the house being accused despite the the internet access being on the name of his partner is a big part of the story b) his partner being out of a job too in connection with the case and having developed ME in the meantime is especially mentioned. c) His child now having mental issues with being able to trust someone because of is father suddenly being away without any good explanation given. Thus the life of all three people living at the address at the time is ruined. But you only focus on the male. Why?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Thus the life of all three people living at the address at the time is ruined. But you only focus on the male. Why?

      Because the State only went after the man. Duh.

      You dont seem to have an issue with this and thats your right. You have a right to be a complete statist dick to all men.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone with the username "gweihir" most certainly DOES know some things about fascism. Seig heil, furher!

    13. Re:Zero tolerance has failed by gweihir · · Score: 1

      What is a "furher" supposed to be? And what is "Seig" supposed to mean? Incidentally, your capitalization is wrong.

      I love it when the trolls are to dumb to spell even simple things! :-)==)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. familyâ(TM)s by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fuck how long has Slashdot been around and they still can't fix this shit? familyâ(TM)s familyâ(TM)sfamilyâ(TM)s This is seriously the only time in my many years on the internet I have not seen a website unable to render text correctly.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Still can't edit posts either. Slashdot is a fucking relic.

    2. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could fix it, sure. On the other hand, they already know that the low ID lusers like you will keep coming back filling their pockets with ad revenue whether they fix it or not, because you're too stupid to do otherwise. Why bother changing something when leaving it there results in little more than a grumpy old fuck complaining in the comments? They haven't cared about you from the start.

    3. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1, Funny

      Agreed, and not being able to edit a post (for even a 1-minute grace period) is fucking embarrassing, not to mention infuriating.

      It's even more embarrassing when you consider that this is a forum where discussions of programming and technology take place.

      1991 called and wants its text-file forum back.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:familyâ(TM)s by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      1991 called and wants its text-file forum back.

      Did you warn them? Did you? All those people are going to die just because you didn't tell 1991 when they called and it's all your fault.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Khyber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " they already know that the low ID lusers like you will keep coming back filling their pockets with ad revenue "

      Yea, right. Pretty much all of us low-UID "lusers' are smart enough to use adblockers and script blockers so they don't get shit from us.

      Leave it to an AC to be wrong as always.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Agreed, and not being able to edit a post (for even a 1-minute grace period) is fucking embarrassing"

      What's more embarrassing is your inability to proof-read before submitting off the fucking handle like the majority of you tend to do.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:familyâ(TM)s by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not being able to edit a post

      That's what the Preview button is for.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:familyâ(TM)s by tepples · · Score: 1

      Yes, we did warn 1991 about 2/26. The net effect was to delay the destruction of the World Trade Center to 2001.

    9. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      Did you warn them? Did you?

      I tried but I got an error when I tried to open the file for writing.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    10. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      What's more embarrassing is your inability to proof-read before submitting off the fucking handle like the majority of you tend to do.

      It's an honor to speak with such an ascended being like you, who has obviously never made a mistake in your entire life. Let us all bask in your wisdom.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      not being able to edit a post

      That's what the Preview button is for.

      Newsflash- even forums with preview buttons allow you to edit your post for at least a short time. Welcome to the 90s!

      For proof, please see any forum written in the last 20 years or so: SMF, VBulletin, Agora, phpBB, myBB, FluxBB, PunBB, Vanilla Forums, Invision, Phorum, FudForum, Beehive, BBPress, UBB.threads, XenForo, Ikonboard.....

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:familyâ(TM)s by 91degrees · · Score: 0

      Slashdot does have a naÃve implementation of text. While there is a whole smÃrgÃ¥sbord of options UTF-8 is a pretty well established standard. It's embarrassing for a site whose raison d'Ãtre is technology. Maybe a bounty of say £100 would encourage someone to fix it.

      Seriously though, what does prevent Slashdot from handling it properly? Surely the text gets entered and stored in the DB as UTF-8. A fix can't be too difficult to implement.

    13. Re:familyâ(TM)s by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I'd be okay wish such a feature as long as the grace period ended as soon as the first reply to your post was made.
      This isn't facebook, where you can edit your post to make repliers look stupid after they point out your errors.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    14. Re:familyâ(TM)s by mwvdlee · · Score: 0

      Heck, even if it's NOT stored as UTF-8, it should still be trivial to fix. You could probably write a browser extension to detect and fix als the ñ's, ß's and ä's.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    15. Re:familyâ(TM)s by slinches · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I recall, not having the option to edit was an intentional decision. Since this site is about the users having technical threaded discussions, it makes sense to make the posts fixed as it preserves the integrity of the discussion (i.e. no going back to edit out the part where you were wrong)

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    16. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I'd be okay wish such a feature as long as the grace period ended as soon as the first reply to your post was made.

      I agree, but such a feature is far too complex to ever be added to slashdot. And the weiner-dicks would moan about it endlessly.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    17. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      "I'd be okay wish such a feature..."

      O The Irony

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    18. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      If I recall, not having the option to edit was an intentional decision. Since this site is about the users having technical threaded discussions, it makes sense to make the posts fixed as it preserves the integrity of the discussion (i.e. no going back to edit out the part where you were wrong)

      Oh please, a grace-period of one minute would solve all this shit, including the pantywaists who moan about retroactively editing posts to make them look dumb. Chances are they already look dumb and no editing would be required to show that.

      Are these chicken-shit fuckers SO SCARED that someone would edit their post within one minute to make them look foolish? If so, then I'd say the problem is with them and not the content of the discussion.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    19. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Frederic54 · · Score: 2

      Better than this, low id/good karma have an option to disable ads in /. so no need to filter?

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    20. Re:familyâ(TM)s by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd subscript if the option existed. Please fix so I can give you money.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't actually prove anything to make any assertion wrong. You just stated more hyperbole.

    22. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      My login name was Frédéric, in 1999, during various /. update it became Fr%E9d%E9ric or Fr#d#ric or something, at one point I was even not able to log in, I had to message an administrator so he could rename my username... 2017 and still no proper support for accentated characters.

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    23. Re:familyâ(TM)s by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

      Totally agree. Re-editing posts could totally mess discussion threads. If you can't review before posting, then woosh.

    24. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave it to an AC to be wrong as always.

      You're 100% right.

    25. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I recall, not having the option to edit was an intentional decision. Since this site is about the users having technical threaded discussions, it makes sense to make the posts fixed as it preserves the integrity of the discussion (i.e. no going back to edit out the part where you were wrong)

      Oh please, a grace-period of one minute would solve all this shit, including the pantywaists who moan about retroactively editing posts to make them look dumb. Chances are they already look dumb and no editing would be required to show that.

      Are these chicken-shit fuckers SO SCARED that someone would edit their post within one minute to make them look foolish? If so, then I'd say the problem is with them and not the content of the discussion.

      Or maybe you're not a nerd. Pay attention to what you do before pressing submit twice. If you're mistake prone then proofread your shit instead of blaming the editing system which has worked for 10+ years.

    26. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HN allows editing and that doesn't "totally mess" anything.

    27. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A grace period of one minute, with the message not actually being published before it ends, would solve the integrity problem.

    28. Re:familyâ(TM)s by mrbester · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen that checkbox in months. My karma has been good for years.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    29. Re:familyâ(TM)s by fisted · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep, same here.
      Karma: Excellent, 15 moderator points expire 2017-03-16, and all notwithstanding. The checkbox has gone. Before it only occasionally unchecked itself.

    30. Re: familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't they keep the original and the new post to show what the person edited? So we have both copies retained for records.

    31. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Or we could even go radical and allow edit until the first reply or moderation, like most of the other sites.

    32. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Oqnet · · Score: 2

      There used to be editors that would look over the content before it was on the front. They would fix glaring mistakes and sometimes grammatical issues. I had it done to one of my posts and I was ever grateful. If the system isn't going to allow a time frame for editing after the fact they should go back to reading over things that have high impact on the front page.

    33. Re:familyâ(TM)s by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Just wait 1 minute before clicking "Submit" after you hit "Preview".
      It will do exactly as you said.

    34. Re:familyâ(TM)s by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain, Fr%E9d%E9ric.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    35. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      This isn't facebook, where you can edit your post to make repliers look stupid

      Well yes, but when it's done in Facebook the post gets an "Edited" label. So if you come across a disjointed sequence of posts and spy an "Edited" flag among them, then it doesn't take much intelligence to infer that one comment originally said something different... oh, wait. Yeah, I see the problem now.

    36. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Leave it to an AC to be wrong as always."

      Either an AC is always wrong, or you are an idiot. Leave it to Khyber to be always wrong.

    37. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      Same here

    38. Re: familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice burn. I didn't see Khyber's comment, likely due to banality, but I recognize the name as an ass hat.

    39. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. One would think that one among the dozens of people employed by Slashdot over the years would take it upon themselves to fix a stupid büg.

    40. Re:familyâ(TM)s by tlhIngan · · Score: 1, Troll

      Slashdot does have a naÃfve implementation of text. While there is a whole smÃfrgÃfÂ¥sbord of options UTF-8 is a pretty well established standard. It's embarrassing for a site whose raison d'Ãftre is technology. Maybe a bounty of say ã100 would encourage someone to fix it.

      Seriously though, what does prevent Slashdot from handling it properly? Surely the text gets entered and stored in the DB as UTF-8. A fix can't be too difficult to implement.

      Slashdot is fully unicode compatible. (It was the work of slashdot.jp a long, long, long time ago that did it).

      I can't tell you if they use UTF-8 internally or what, but it doesn't matter.

      The reason it appears to not work is because of unicode abuse by commenters. And if you go into many forums that naively implement Unicode support, you will see trolls that create posts that are miles long by simply abusing Unicode adornments. Or ones that reverse the text layout (RTL/LTR override), which was very popular on Slashdot in the early days.

      So what happened? They implemented both an input and output filter - every character is scanned against an input white list, and when displaying, every character is scanned against an output whitelist (those LTR/RTL overrides are still in the comments in the database, so they now get stripped before display).

      Google "site:slashdot.org erocS" if you want to see some examples of Unicode abuse. The strange word is "Score", if you didn't figure it out, and putting "Score:5" with RTL override was a popular way of "upvoting" your posts.

      Unicode is complex, and you cannot blindly support it without restricting usage, especially in today's day and age.

    41. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a proper name, francofaggotish shitkid.

    42. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Not being able to edit posts is a feature. Being able to rewrite the history of a conversation is Orwellian.

    43. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much all of us low-UID "lusers' are smart enough to use adblockers and script blockers so they don't get shit from us.

      Uncle Joe told me that using interweb without adblocker makes you go blind. Also, every time you break NAT and uncle Joe needs to fix it by setting up proper port forwarding, Baby Jesus chokes a kitten.

    44. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that on the poster's computer, it will have rendered correctly.
      Sorry I meant the posterâ(TM)s computer.

      AHHHAHHHAA Mr. Critical just ease up already...

    45. Re:familyâ(TM)s by PPH · · Score: 1

      I can make mistakes that will take a lot longer than one minute to clean up.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    46. Re:familyâ(TM)s by PPH · · Score: 1

      Oh please, a grace-period of one minute

      At least 90 ohnoseconds

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    47. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Ask how many writers and artists find mistakes in their work the next day.

    48. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Dahan · · Score: 1

      The reason it appears to not work is because of unicode abuse by commenters.

      Yeah, I remember when Unicode worked, and the abuse that came along with it. If /. wants to filter out non-ASCII characters (or non Latin-1 characters), that's fine, but whatever it's currently doing is broken. There's no case where turning a curly quote into â(TM) is the correct thing to do.

      It even seems like the code is trying to do something sensible, but just has a simple bug where it's using the wrong character encoding on its input. The Unicode character "RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK" is encoded as the bytes E2 80 99 in UTF-8. If you interpret those bytes as if they were Windows codepage 1252 characters, you get â, the Euro sign, then the Trademark symbol. Of those, only â is in Latin-1. It looks like Slashdot is trying to convert non-Latin-1 characters to a Latin-1 equivalent, or remove the character if there's no equivalent. So â makes it through, Euro sign is dropped, and the TM symbol gets turned into "(TM)", and you end up with the curly quote turning into "â(TM)". This is basically what GNU iconv does if you use the "//TRANSLIT" suffix on the the destination encoding, except converting to iso-8859-1//TRANSLIT turns the Euro sign into "EUR".

      The code just needs to interpret the input as being UTF-8 instead of CP1252, and it should work a lot better. But it's been broken for years, and nobody there wants to fix it.

    49. Re:familyâ(TM)s by piojo · · Score: 1

      Not being able to edit posts is a feature. Being able to rewrite the history of a conversation is Orwellian.

      Not only that, but if people can go back and rewrite their words to sound more prefect, it encourages bad mental habits. Slashdot seems mostly free of the "social media is making you depressed" phenomena that have hit the news lately, and I suspect the inability to try to be perfect is a positive factor.

      Not to mention how much nastier arguments can be when both people are constantly revising their comments to be more biting. Or am I projecting here? ;)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    50. Re:familyâ(TM)s by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      They must be using ISO-8859-1 somewhere. My £ (C2A3 in UTF-8) symbol gets converted to £ (same bytes in ISO-8859-1). So what happened with the slashdot.jp patches? Are they in the main slashcode database or is .jp using their own fork?

    51. Re:familyâ(TM)s by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but if people can go back and rewrite their words to sound more prefect,

      I prefer to go back and rewrite my words to sound more dent.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    52. Re:familyâ(TM)s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, get over yourself. Not being able to edit posts has been a design decision on Slashdot from day one. That is how its always been and there is no reason to change it simply because whiny little shits like you demand it. Get over it and spend that extra minute you're so fond of on previewing your posts.

  5. Only $73,500? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe this is the lawsuit happy American in me talking, but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.

    1. Re:Only $73,500? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd start off with a $10M asking. I'd settle for about half of that.

      first, punishment that is EXPENSIVE will tend to teach the authorities their lessons.

      second, you may be unemployable for the rest of your life by this mistake; I'd need about 2-5million to be able to retire and live on.

      not my mistake; I should not have to pay a dime for THEIR stupidity.

      ip address does not equal a person. even more so when they don't even bother to check their work BEFORE A LIFE IS RUINED.

      what would fix this: remove the safety net for public 'authority figures' and when they screw up, let their own insurance cover the costs. if they had to pay, directly, they'd surely think twice before going off half-assed on a witch hunt.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Only $73,500? by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      £60,000 is a joke amount of money. It's not just the hurt and devastation it has caused but there has to be some kind of deterrence in the future.

    3. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      first, punishment that is EXPENSIVE will tend to teach the authorities their lessons.

      I'm not sure that is true. The police officers and officials pay nothing. It's the tax payers. I agree with the compensation, but it should come out of the police officials' personal pockets. Otherwise, there is no lesson for them to learn. It's not their money.

    4. Re:Only $73,500? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is the lawsuit happy American in me talking, but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.

      Exactly. The hardest part about damages to ones reputation or career after something like this happens is proving it, so your only other option is to assume it will damage you for life, and settle for a life-altering amount up-front. And $73K sure as shit ain't it.

      This also hopefully sends a message that police fuck-ups will ultimately cost a lot, and it should, since a typo can change someones life forever.

    5. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't do "punitive damages" in the UK. A court will only order compensation for actual damages suffered, which must be properly justified, not just a big made-up number. Of course, $10M might be a reasonable claim in some situations, if you were a high-earner and your career really had been destroyed.

    6. Re:Only $73,500? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.

      That was my first reaction too.

      $73K is nothing for what this poor guy went through. $7.3 million would be more along the lines of what I'd consider fair.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    7. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand where the money comes from. Every police department in the world is paid for by TAXES. TAXES paid by the people.

      So, sue 'the police' for $10 million and guess what? It comes from taxes of the community. Sue individual officers and (mostly) the department has a policy wherein they protect their individual officers from lawsuits.

      So, in no way does the 'police department' feel any pain or have any pressure to start being more careful and do their police work correctly.

      Factor in that many people who choose to be police tend to (in my experience) be the schoolyard bullies in grammar school and viola, a recipe for (non) success.

      Some police departments are also on the take and take bribes, but that is never the official policy.

    8. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd start off with a $10M asking.

      Good luck with that; you might as well say I'd ask for ownership of the universe if you're going to ignore the context of what is realistic. The UK courts tend towards using evidenced losses rather than theoretical maximums, and in this case the bloke and his lawyer clearly thought £60k was close enough to the maximum they could hope for to accept it.

      Take a look at the American system which encourages massively inflated claims and tell me that's effective at stopping issues like this, because if you can't I don't see why you think that's a likely solution for other countries.

      If they had awarded £10 million then it's not like it comes from the people responsible for the mistake, it comes from the budget of the police force; why on earth you think doing this or not would somehow "remove the safety net" I have no idea.

    9. Re:Only $73,500? by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, in no way does the 'police department' feel any pain

      It does at the level of elected officials. The community will remember that this sheriff or mayor cost them million$ in extra taxes thanks to their police department's incompetence. They will get voted out and their replacement will clean the fuckups out of the department.

      Oh, sorry. I forgot about the police unions.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the UK. Only in America do you get a billion dollars if someone inconveniences you.

    11. Re:Only $73,500? by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      £60,000 is a joke amount of money. It's not just the hurt and devastation it has caused but there has to be some kind of deterrence in the future.

      I would assume most slashdotters earn more than that per year. At a minimum, take salary multiplied by number of years he was wrongfully incarcerated (include trial time, too). Then fudge that number for inflation and possible interest (based on DOW Jones, or some other index). It's impossible to prove a dollar amount for loss of reputation. It's also impossible to know how many companies in the future will pass him up because he was incarcerated without taking the time to find out he was innocent.

    12. Re:Only $73,500? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I've seen where a cop had to quit after a big lawsuit he caused. They didn't fire him, they just shit all over him for 8 months until he couldn't take it and quit. Then he couldn't get a job anywhere as a cop. I saw his stupid ass working in the lumber department at Home Depot and he didn't last long there.

    13. Re:Only $73,500? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I don't usually like big monetary awards for distress but there are exceptions. Getting labeled a pedo is one of them. It can literally get you killed in some places. Houses have been known to catch on fire when someone labeled a pedo moves in a neighborhood.

    14. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that may work in your location, in the one in the story (I live in Sheffield), there aren't really any elected officials that would have oversight of this. The mayor is (currently) mostly a figurehead and honorary position and the high-level police chiefs are career officers and so unelected. There has recently been a civilian role created in the UK of county Police and Crime Commissioner (bad name, doesn't commission crimes) who is supposed to represent the populace in overseeing police issues. The one for Sheffield, Dr. Alan Billings (http://www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/Home.aspx), seems to be one of the better ones, but I don't think he has the power to make any root and branch changes to the local force or impose penalties on them. The main part of his role would probably be to sit on a board of inquiry and to independently monitor the implementation of any process changes identified.

      tl;dr Different places, different systems.

    15. Re:Only $73,500? by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      It makes sense in the US, where many police budgets are at a local level, and controlled by local government, but we do things differently in the UK. The police force is regional but largely the responsibility of the national government.

      This sort of thing is still a factor for some people, but much less significant compared with matters such as health care, defence and the economy.

    16. Re:Only $73,500? by houghi · · Score: 1

      The fact that it could does not mean that it did. To me it sounds like a fair amount of the grievance what was done to him. Could have been a bit higher, perhaps, but that depends on a lot of circumstances.

      If I where in the same situation and would not have lost my job or anything else, but pushing back, I would be happy with it.

      Obviously I would be happier if it were 10 Brazillian, but that would be, I think, not reasonable. As it was settled outside court, it means he was compensated for his loss in time and not their fault in it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money doesn't come out of the pockets of the people who caused the problem, and they learn nothing as a consequence. For example: http://www.firehouse.com/news/12294934/petaluma-awards-125m-settlement-for-former-female-firefighter-firefighter-news - the female firefighter they didn't want it out of their house, and nothing has changed.

    18. Re:Only $73,500? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I'd start off with a $10M asking. I'd settle for about half of that.

      People who end up on disability for life don't get those kinds of amounts here in Europe, they'd just laugh at you. Unless something is done with malice you'll recoup little more than actual financial losses (now or in the future), like if I hit you with my car and broke your leg you'd be compensated for time on sick leave. But the pain and suffering, walking around with a cast and the inability to participate in dancing or running or swimming will net you almost nothing. Even if it is done with malice I'd say it errs heavily on the side of awarding you so little that it won't encourage you to taunt or provoke an illegal action or put yourself in harm's way. We've had a few Americans come here, have minor accidents and try to sue for crazy amounts thinking they've struck gold. They end up very disappointed.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    19. Re: Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $73,500 is not going to cover 2 years salary. Let alone help me get my job and life back. It's a ridiculous low sum.

    20. Re:Only $73,500? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They don't do "punitive damages" in the UK.

      Some scouse git got a huge amount because he wasn't allowed to vote while he was in prison for hacking a woman to bits with an axe. What financial loss was that covering?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will tend to teach the authorities their lessons.

      Not really. It's not their money.

    22. Re:Only $73,500? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK compensation is not punitive, it's purely to restore any loss. So the $X million suits you get in the US won't happen here, unless someone actually lost millions.

      In this case he may have lost some employment of business opportunities. He may have argued that future earnings are affected. He could also claim for mental anguish and harm, especially if it resulted in mental illness (stress, depression) and the breakdown of relationships (friends, family, lovers).

      Without reading the judgement I can only speculate how it was calculated, but I'd imagine that the lawyers got far more for their fees on top.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've seen where a cop had to quit after a big lawsuit he caused. They didn't fire him, they just shit all over him for 8 months until he couldn't take it and quit. Then he couldn't get a job anywhere as a cop. I saw his stupid ass working in the lumber department at Home Depot and he didn't last long there.

      If we shit on every person like this that made a mistake this entire world would be in chaos. People have such a hard on for blaming someone for eternity.

    24. Re:Only $73,500? by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 2

      So you think destroying the life of a grocery store worker is worth less than that of a Wall St banker?

      Sorry, but the hassle of getting out of this is probably 10x worse for the low wage crowd. They often can't afford paying for an attorney, so they have a hard time even getting a proper defense.

      Getting only 73,500$ for all this trouble caused here is like putting a band-aid on an open fracture.

    25. Re:Only $73,500? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      > They don't do "punitive damages" in the UK. A court will only order compensation for actual damages suffered, which must be properly justified, not just a big made-up number. Of course, $10M might be a reasonable claim in some situations, if you were a high-earner and your career really had been destroyed.

      In this case a couple million would be the MINIMUM appropriate compensation because dismissal of wrongful charges that were pressed due to gross negligence does not remove the mindshare and all the incorrect news articles which will come up during employment vetting processes; he may encounter problems seeking employment in the future and not even get called for interviews when he submits his CV. At minimum 2-3mil would be just compensation so that he does not suffer poverty resulting from government malfeasance.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    26. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article it's £60000 plus legal costs. It took more than 3 years to sort out. I'd wager the legal costs are an order of magnitude higher. And yes it's still a disgracefully small amount of money for what he and his family have had to go through. And they probably haven't felt its last effects yet.

    27. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The taxpayers bear responsibility. This is happening in a country where people are allowed to vote, and basically all of them know they have unjust policies. UK's problems with handling kiddie porn are legendary at this point, and there isn't a single living human being who thinks it might possibly be sane, or really intended to stop kiddie porn. We all know it's a joke, but It continues anyway.

      Having unjust policies should be expensive; if you want injustice, you are advocating for higher taxes,

      So tax the shit out of them, until they either rewrite the laws or fire the cops who are doing it wrong. If they tire of it, they can fucking vote to stop provoking the payouts.

      If they keep the laws, then they obviously don't have a problem with the taxes. Maybe they just have so much money that they can't think what to do with it all, so they "waste" it on the sport of hunting The Most Dangerous Game, made even more dangerous (less boring) by giving it a weapon (courts).

    28. Re: Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea because this was only an inconvenience. Arresting the guy for a crime he didn't commit is a minor inconvenience. Arresting him in front of his family(wife and child) and neighbors is just a minor inconvenience. Making him miss work, or get fired, get a lawyer, fight for his name. All just minor inconveniences. Amiright?

      You fucking twat lol. if this happen to you I bet your tone would be different.

    29. Re:Only $73,500? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is the lawsuit happy American in me talking, but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.

      Britain does not award large legal settlements, except for the near-capital crime of insulting a famous person.

    30. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can literally get you killed in some places. Houses have been known to catch on fire when someone labeled a pedo moves in a neighborhood.

      Like in the UK. Here's a story about a paediatrician targetted by some illiterates in England.

    31. Re:Only $73,500? by flink · · Score: 2

      If I where in the same situation and would not have lost my job or anything else, but pushing back, I would be happy with it.

      Obviously I would be happier if it were 10 Brazillian, but that would be, I think, not reasonable. As it was settled outside court, it means he was compensated for his loss in time and not their fault in it.

      What about when you are looking for you next job (assuming you didn't lose your current one that is), and no one calls you back because the top hit on Google is an article about you being arrested for pedophilia. What about losing your home because you are now essentially unemployable? Will you have the resources to be able to "push back" each time you are discriminated against due to this false black mark that will follow you around forever and be compensated each time?

    32. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and viola, a recipe for (non) success

      I got one of the world's larger violins, and I'm playing it just for you.

    33. Re:Only $73,500? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Looking at the actual figures, that Wall-Street banker has negative productivity and harms society. The grocery shop worker very likely has positive productivity.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    34. Re:Only $73,500? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      The sad part about this whole Court Case is that it takes and unimaginable amount of American Tax Dollars to pay for that "mistake".

    35. Re: Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and how long do you think child porn charges follow you, even if struck from the record? That is how long they should pay.

    36. Re: Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would count as constructive dismissal and the cop could sue, so it doesn't really address the issue

    37. Re: Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is to raid pensions for the money. Your fuckoff buddy ruining your retirement would motivate them.

    38. Re:Only $73,500? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      At a minimum, take salary multiplied by number of years he was wrongfully incarcerated

      erm. Approximately 0 then.

    39. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the local police department is funded through taxes, however, the police pension fund is not funded by the tax payer and it is the bank that should be taxed. It was not the department or it its policies that caused the problem, but rather the armed, armoured, schoolyard bullies that caused the problem. The local city police pension fund has a $600m balance (2016) taking half of the $600m regardless of how bad it hurt the people currently on retirement would result in a shitstorm descending on the clowns who deliberately and with malice of forethought destroyed someones life. Maybe if current retirees found out they lost their entire pension and current officers found out they would be required by law to work for free to restore the balance in the pension fund the "Thing Blue Line" would clean up their act. I doubt it as the bullies would whine and complain about being a "protected class"

    40. Re: Only $73,500? by Sique · · Score: 1

      There are no pension funds like in the U.S. in the UK, so this doesn't work either. Also the pensions are paid by tax money.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    41. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we shit on every person like this that made a mistake this entire world would be in chaos. People have such a hard on for blaming someone for eternity.

      No. If people own up to a mistake and try to correct it, that's fine, but that's not what happened here. Taking years to correct this mistake is what should be punished just as severely. Not the initial mistake.

    42. Re:Only $73,500? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      In the US most doctors live in upscale and "gated" communities. The mentally challenged have a harder time getting to them.

    43. Re:Only $73,500? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's what happens when you do something stupid that causes your company a 7 figure lawsuit. If they can't just outright fire you they'll make it so you quit and then no one wants you. Best thing is to move to another state.

    44. Re:Only $73,500? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      That's really the thing for me too. Once they knew they screwed up it should have been fixed immediately and a public apology from the head of the police. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how you handle it that sets you apart.

    45. Re: Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If provable*

      Demonstrating malicious intent is hard. Harder against an entity that has people dedicated to keeping it "clean". Harder yet when a team of expensive lawyers says you're hunting a payout and your claims are storytelling.

      So sign this paper saying you've retired and we can end this without fighting in the mud.

    46. Re:Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cares if you're useful to society, only what's in your bank account. /s. Kinda.

    47. Re: Only $73,500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So you think destroying the life of a grocery store worker is worth less than that of a Wall St banker?" Yes. People are worth according to their earnings and possessions and hence their value to society. If I asked you to choose who should live among two people, one a truck driver and the other a physicist, you wouldn't hesitate to save the physicist: a smarter, better educated, therefore better person whose skills are in short supply. The "all are created equals" old story is just that: an old story and a fantasy, just like the entity that is supposed to have "created" us. Grow up.

    48. Re:Only $73,500? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Except all those that care whether a society survives. I guess you are not one of them.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    49. Re:Only $73,500? by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      >> I'd start off with a $10M asking.

      > Good luck with that; you might as well say I'd ask for ownership of the universe if you're going
      > to ignore the context of what is realistic. The UK courts tend towards using evidenced
      > losses rather than theoretical maximums, and in this case the bloke and his lawyer
      > clearly thought £60k was close enough to the maximum they could hope for to accept it.

      The 44-year-old guy, and his partner, will probably be umemployable for the rest of their lives in the trades they used to work. From the article https://www.buzzfeed.com/matth...

      > Lang described the situation he was in before his arrest as the happiest he had been in life.
      > He and his partner were in well-paid jobs - she was a chartered accountant - raising their
      > young son together and paying off the mortgage on the house they had recently bought.

      > Today, neither he nor his partner is working. Lang is effectively a full-time carer for his
      > disabled mother, and in the years since his arrest his partner developed ME,
      > something they blame on the stress caused by the whole ordeal.
      >
      > "I'm not hopeful of getting the same standard of job. I'm mentally and
      > physically exhausted... this is one of the worst things that can happen to you."

      Put it this way... you're 44. You and your wife have well-paying jobs and are raising a son. Then both of you become unemployable. Now imagine two adults living the rest of their lives, plus putting a kid through college on a $73,500 one-time payout. I don't think so.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    50. Re:Only $73,500? by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Agreed!

      Government (officials), i.e. law enforcement, NEEDS to be held COMPLETELY accountable for their actions.
      It is UNFORGIVABLE to do this to anyone!
      And, a simple 'slap on the wrist' is WAY NOT enough!

      Way too many innocents are being hurt by careless IDIOTS in the Law Enforcement industry!

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  6. fix your utf by slashdice · · Score: 2

    seriously, if you can't fix it (protip: you probably won't), at least remove them from summaries.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  7. Chump change for years of a ruined life by James+Carnley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Say what you will about lawsuits in America but they sure do work great for cases like this. This poor guy has years of his life completely ruined and will possibly have people hate him for the rest of his life because of the implication. Also this kind of stuff still shows up on background checks even if it's removed from your record. I would bet good money that he will have a harder time finding work in the future.

    Does 1 year's salary make up for that? It sure wouldn't for me.

    1. Re: Chump change for years of a ruined life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Poor black people are lucky to get fifteen thousand a year. Not for legal hassle, but for actual imprisonment. Last week there was a guy who got 135k settlement in exchange for fourteen year of his life, or some other abyssmal amount. Shut like that is why nutters focus on killing cops instead of the tax dodging company executive that are on the other end of the levers of power.

  8. Re: fake news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nice try. Partner could be male or female, married or unmarried. It's a neutral term.

  9. It was a fly in the movie Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/

    Terry Gilliam, you genius.

  10. IPv6 is the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IPv6 is only 32 hexadecimal chars long, and you can omit a few zeros, no room for mistakes there!

    1. Re:IPv6 is the solution by green1 · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, with so many addresses, the chance of an accidental IP collision with a different customer is decreased rather significantly, so you're less likely to screw over the wrong person if you do.

    2. Re:IPv6 is the solution by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Depends on where your typo is. It's not like IP addresses are picked at random out of the entire address space.

    3. Re:IPv6 is the solution by green1 · · Score: 2

      You are correct, but the difference is that it DOES depend where your typo is, whereas with IPv4 it almost doesn't depend where your typo is as it's still pretty much guaranteed to point the finger at someone.

      Additionally, if your typo is near the end of the IP in IPv6, the odds are good that you'll be pointing at the same customer, something not true in IPv4

  11. IP Addresses Again by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's quite scary how sure people are of what an IP address will tell them. There are any number of reasons why it doesn't provide much, if any evidence. You need a lot more than that, especially in a criminal case.

    1. Re:IP Addresses Again by houghi · · Score: 1

      For all we know, they had a lot of other information. I have seen cases where all the info was correct, but evidence was dropped, because they had not changed their PC to winter/summer time.
      The information was on a fixed line with a fixed IP and everything of the information was correct. That was fun to se going down. It was not about childporn, but about copyright infringement, so not that bad when they had to drop the case because of that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  12. Tuttle or Buttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You want Tuttle not Buttle
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWbIxFKtTmE

    1. Re:Tuttle or Buttle by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well that's bloody typical. They've gone back to metric without telling us.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Re:Buzzfeed is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your Google-Fu is pathetic - http://www.hertfordshiremercur...

  14. and it can work the other way as well. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where you miss type and end up in a pop up loop.

    http://gizmodo.com/5099383/pop...

  15. Racism and sexism by operagost · · Score: 1, Troll

    With no real inkling about what had led police to his door, he lodged a complaint that the force was institutionally racist and sexist, because the home internet account was registered in the name of his partner, who is white, but she was never asked about the images. Her smartphone â" Lang did not have a smartphone at the time â" was also not seized.

    This is insane. Everyone knows that racism and sexism only exist in the USA.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sex crimes are horrible - but not worse than murder.

    Western culture has demonized it by spreading lies and falsehoods. The truth is:

    1) People convicted of sex crimes are LESS likely to commit more crimes than other criminals (this includes pedophiles).

    2) Most people convicted of 'sex crimes' are normal, healthy people, not strange perverts.

    3) Sex crimes are incredibly subjectively prosecuted. Homosexuals are likely to be arrested, tried and convicted for the exact same behavior that straight men or women would be ignored at (for example, asking someone out for a date => soliciting prostitution) Teenagers routinely create 'child pornography' and usually (but not if the prosecutor dislikes you), have it swept under the rug.

    4) Sex, being something people are ashamed of, is often used by the police to legally extort people into confessing to crimes they did not do in order to avoid sex crime charges.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The amount of wrong surrounding this issue is truly terrifying.

      Any one of us can wrongly be punished because of a type-o, and have life-long punishments as a result.

      Our own laws are making our countries unsafe for the innocent.

    2. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      The only thing legit on there is number 4. Number 1 is wrong in that they are just as likely, not less to commit crimes and 3 is that they are "somewhat" subjectively prosecuted, not incredibly so. All crimes are subjectively prosecuted. 2 is just outright wrong. Sex crime by definition means you're a pervert.

    3. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Most people convicted of 'sex crimes' are normal, healthy people, not strange perverts.

      Some sex offenders are pedophiles, but not all.

      3) Sex crimes are incredibly subjectively prosecuted. Homosexuals are likely to be arrested, tried and convicted for the exact same behavior that straight men or women would be ignored at (for example, asking someone out for a date => soliciting prostitution) Teenagers routinely create 'child pornography' and usually (but not if the prosecutor dislikes you), have it swept under the rug.

      Homosexuals used to be routinely arrested an prosecuted, but [citation needed] as to current state of affairs.

      4) Sex, being something people are ashamed of, is often used by the police to legally extort people into confessing to crimes they did not do in order to avoid sex crime charges.

      No sure I understand. Are you saying that people will confess to murder to avoid a soliciting charge? and, [citation needed]

    4. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex crimes are horrible - but not worse than murder.

      Western culture has demonized it by spreading lies and falsehoods. The truth is:

      1) People convicted of sex crimes are LESS likely to commit more crimes than other criminals (this includes pedophiles).

      2) Most people convicted of 'sex crimes' are normal, healthy people, not strange perverts.

      3) Sex crimes are incredibly subjectively prosecuted. Homosexuals are likely to be arrested, tried and convicted for the exact same behavior that straight men or women would be ignored at (for example, asking someone out for a date => soliciting prostitution) Teenagers routinely create 'child pornography' and usually (but not if the prosecutor dislikes you), have it swept under the rug.

      4) Sex, being something people are ashamed of, is often used by the police to legally extort people into confessing to crimes they did not do in order to avoid sex crime charges.

      Is this your opinion because none of these are facts? Not a single one. Especially the teenagers part. They are being prosecuted more and more now as the laws continue to ramp up towards cell phones. At the same time children are using a bit better judgement in the Facebook century.

    5. Re: Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH people who have sex with children are committing physical and psychological abuse. It's assault plus so much more.

      If someone goes around assaulting people, they deserve some prison time.
      I

    6. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2 is just outright wrong. Sex crime by definition means you're a pervert.

      You should look at some of the things that get classified as a "sex crime" such as "public urination" and "indecent exposure" when you don't do much more than try to avoid pissing your pants. Or posting a naked picture of your own baby.

    7. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sex crime by definition means you're a pervert.

      A few decades ago, simply being homosexual made you a sex criminal. Laws change as do individual ethics. I'm sure here on Slashdot we could point out a few things in current legislation that shouldn't be there.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re: Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by green1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That depends. If you're talking the 45 year old who has sex with a 6 year old, then yes. You're absolutely correct. But that's not where the definitions end, and there's a lot more grey area involved. For example, an 18 year old having consensual sex with their 17 year old partner is committing a sex crime in several jurisdictions (adjust for the cut-off ages in various areas). Is that "physical and psychological abuse"?

      The issue with "sex crimes" is that they are treated on an emotional level before a practical one, with no consideration for circumstances, and they WILL ruin your life if you're even accused, no trial or conviction necessary.

    9. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      5) Getting caught pissing behind the bushes can get you on the Sex Registry.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    10. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most US states have two different registries because of the public outcry over exactly this. There's the "sex offender registry" that you fall off of once your sentence is over, then there's the "violent sex offender registry" that you only get onto because you did much more than piss publicly, and you only get off of because you die.

      It's not uncommon to see state-level politicians on the "i pissed on the lawn of a frat house" registry, which is why they made the distinction.

    11. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea- I'm disgusted by 'sex' laws in general for a variety of reasons- not only because the majority of those caught up and negatively impacted are themselves young people whom are not in any way predatory or violent, but for other reasons as well. 2/3rds of those on the sex offender registries never even committed a sex act, but because the list entails other non-sexual crimes there are a lot more people on it. For instance 2/3 of those on it fall into people in one of two categories. One is college kids pissing in garbage cans at 2AM after having gotten out of a bar that happens to be next to a playground or school. The other category consists of voluntary sexual acts among people of similar ages, but because "children" can't legally consent one party or another get charged with a sex crime. Often the person charged is a victim of deceit on top of this (fully developed 13 year old girls tricking honey 17 year old boys into having sex with them and lying about their age).

      What else is disturbing is sex in and of itself is entirely a moral issue created by immoral established religious entities. It's not generally painful or violent and the majority who voluntarily participate enjoy it (ie not threatened or kidnapped). It this social stigma that causes the real damage (people losing jobs, having their homes set on fire, murdered, kicked from their homes, wrongly arrested, etc) and it's not always been this way. Near every adult human enjoys sex and many if not most "children" beyond a certain undefinable point, male "children" in particular, ie starting 8-13, ie masturbation, and as time moves on most find a relationship or fling that involves sex- by both male and female "children" by the laws definition. So I can not in my mind wrap my head around there being a good justification for the existence of sex crimes. It's only once violence or coercion (threat of violence) is used that a crime should have been committed- and it should be the violence, not the sex- that is criminalized. Otherwise we're talking about a purely moral subject- of which I don't believe should be regulated. Otherwise we end up with laws banning women from exposing their faces and similar. Is that what you want? Because that is where things lead as if what we have isn't bad enough.

      As disgusting as a variety forms of pornography and other violent content are none of it should be illegal. Violent acts are what should be prosecuted, not mere possession of such content. You don't support the ban video game content that is violent do you? Some do as crazy as that sounds to rational people. The argument for banning content (violent or sexual) is irrational. The argument is banning violent/sexual content decreases violence/sexual abuse. This is entirely false and all the real evidence suggests otherwise. In places where pornographic content was legalized rapes have fallen and where its been criminalized (again) its gone up. And we've seen one country go back and fourth three times so there is pretty good evidence this logic falls flat on its head. Making sure pornography of every type is readily available and used is probably the best way to reduce sexual abuse of children and rape of women (and maybe men too? it's a rarely reported crime though).

      And that applies to all sorts of stuff other than pornography. Like possession of illegal drugs (although I do generally think we should eliminate the criminalization of drug distribution altogether.. as long as what is being sold is reasonably well advertised.. and those making the purchase are aware of the dangers, etc).

      The other issue is the government use it against innocent people with the intent of attacking activists and even more commonly than that divorcing parents, fired employees, and similar get wrapped up in it child porn investigations through no fault of their own. Lives get ruined by the media regularly merely because the FBI/police raid homes knowingly full well in many cases no child pornography is likely to be found. Take the case of Ian Freeman of Free Talk Live. I

    12. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well homosexuality is legal now but it's still perversion. Pretty much anything between two consenting adults is legal now. Or three or four or more. We don't have legalized polygamy but that is probably on the way.

    13. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Getting caught taking a leak in public is pretty much a misdemeanor now. Exposing yourself given what's acceptable on TV now should be going away soon too.

    14. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew a guy who spent some time chatting to some girl, and she ended up with his dick inside her pussy! Ewwwww....!!!! And they ended up doing it all the time and had a big ceremony about it and paraded it around like it wasn't something to be ashamed of. And then they got their just desserts when a small person emerged from her and wailed at them for days. Serve 'em right, perverts.

    15. Re: Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone goes around assaulting people, they deserve some prison time.

      Except perhaps for the fact it is people with your mindset that result in exactly that - assault of the innocent, ruining lives, even resulting in torture and death.

      If you really believed in what you say, you would turn yourself in for your life long prison sentence, get tortured for a few months and finally get beaten to death by other inmates who were told you rape children.

      Of course you don't actually believe what you said, because you're a hypocrite and a liar, so you won't be doing that.

      Which is why the rest of us will not do the sort of evil things you do in the first place.

    16. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Do your research, don't simply tell other people that I am wrong without CHECKING. You want proof? Here:

      1) Sex criminals less likely (do a simple google search):
      http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
      https://www.scientificamerican...
      And many others.

      2) If you do any of the following, it is a sex crime and most people will not consider you a 'pervert'.
      a) Get caught peeing in public (arrested for exposure)
      b) Being 21 and have sex with a woman that SAID she was 18, but was 15, (we all know how women never lie about their age).,
      c) Get drunk and have sex with a woman that is asleep. Congratulations, you are now a date rapist. But almost no one I know would consider you a pervert. If you are one, so is half the college students.

      3) Sex crimes are INCREDIBALY subjectively prosecuted. Much more so than regular crime. Mainly because sex crimes are all about motive and mentality. It's a crime that occures in the mind, where everything is subjective.

      Have naked pictures of your 5 year old child a bath tub? If you convince the prosecutor they are 'innocent' you have no trouble. If the prosecutor believes the pictures are 'lascivious', you go to jail.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    17. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by beastofburdon · · Score: 0

      It will still get you on a sex offender list for the rest of your life in most states.

    18. Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering about the fascination some ppl, male and female, have with anal sex. I can't stand it when I have to get a fucking prostate exam. I fail to see how getting pounded there for 20 minutes or so can be all that fun.

  17. Score:0, Offtopic ? by jerome · · Score: 1, Informative

    Really ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)

  18. "Brazil" is not a work of fiction any more... by darkob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Brazil" starts with a typo. Buttle is being (violently) arrested, processed and in the end executed. Instead of Tuttle.

    1. Re:"Brazil" is not a work of fiction any more... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Spoiler Alert

  19. The fix is in by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    They could fix it, sure.

    The number of member/AC posts per story on slashdot has been dropping rapidly, while posting systems with decent post editing, modern character representation, and 90's-era amenities like decent code blocks, lists, images and democratic up-modding proliferate around us.

    The only question is, will the slashdot owners address this before the site becomes a completely forgotten backwater?

    Okay, there is one more question: Do they even have anyone who could fix it?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:The fix is in by Oqnet · · Score: 1

      I hate that I have to login in order to make the comment section readable. It's my biggest gripe of anything. I used to love this site but with other communities out there this ones has been a solid meh. If it weren't for content more targeted to my interests I'm not sure I would even come by. I really hope they fix some of the problem that I feel that have been around for years.

    2. Re:The fix is in by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just port the fix from Soylent News

      It's been fixed there for months. And it's open source! Take it!

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:The fix is in by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      Parent should probably be modded up to +87 or so. Sigh.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:The fix is in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I post less because of the rise in AC hate. I have been here since 1999 and it's really frustrating to see more and more moderation points go towards who says a thing instead of what was said.

      Relevant discussion here is rare. For years now it's a popularity contest between registered users that post on every damn story. Whomever is most popular and caters to the people that like them get the mod points, no matter what they post.

    5. Re:The fix is in by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, moderation here is completely dysfunctional.

      I'm a fan of mod-up-only systems, where the only mod-down-analog is "I personally don't want to see this post" and "I personally don't want to see this poster's posts."

      It's much more meaningful to me to see post A with 50 up votes and post B with 5, than it is to see post A with 5, and (not) see post B because it's hidden by one down vote. Also, when everyone can vote, then you're not at the mercy of the fact that some asshole like me has mod points today. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:The fix is in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, its soylentnews.org, not .com

  20. Archibald Buttle by laing · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm surprised the parent was moderated down. This incident bears a striking similarity to the plot of Brazil. I guess this means that Great Britain (and the rest of the western world) have become "bureaucratic, totalitarian government is reminiscent of the government depicted in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four".

    1. Re:Archibald Buttle by tmjva · · Score: 1

      All they had to do was fill out form 27b-6!

      --
      Tracy Johnson
      Old fashioned text games hosted below:
      http://empire.openmpe.com/
      BT
  21. Lawsuits = new Porsches for lawyers by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Say what you will about lawsuits in America but they sure do work great for cases like this.

    US lawsuits sort of one-third-work, when they work. Lawyers benefit, and complainants benefit of the remainder after the lawyer's take their cut if they manage to defeat the system, which certainly isn't a given. There's also no guarantee that any images awarded or recompense offered will be in the range of appropriate, as this US case shows.

    Even if a large award (or any award) is given, it rarely affects the agency at fault in any way. All such awards come out of the taxpayer's pocket. The policeman's salary is not affected in the slightest, nor the judges, nor the prosecutor's.

    Because of this, there's little to no corrective value to a lawsuit.

    Same thing for the next level up, legislation. When legislators write laws that break things and/or are wrongful, they aren't held to account for it. Whereas if you break a law, the gears of (in)justice are quite capable of, and very likely will, grind you into unrecognizable mush. Job, family, friends, savings, reputation... everything.

    It's nice to hold power; it's even nicer when you're above consequences for your actions. Welcome to America, land of the oligarchy.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  22. Re:Buzzfeed is fake news by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

    Guess who can't do research?

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/arti...

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  23. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Addresses need checksums, or built-in redundancy. Same with phone numbers. And social security numbers. And zip codes. Especially phone numbers.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we go. Another clueless geek who thinks that a tech solution is the answer to every problem caused by what is basically human filth.

      The problem here wasn't the original typo. It is the following years of dishonesty, ass-covering, attempted covering-up of the original mistake, and obvious deliberate attempt to convict a man known to be innocent just to save face and someone's carreer.

  24. Reminds me of 'Brazil' by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those who haven't seen the movie 'Brazil,' this event is so close to the premise of that movie that it's eerie.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:Reminds me of 'Brazil' by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      For those who haven't seen the movie 'Brazil,' this event is so close to the premise of that movie that it's eerie.

      Well, I suppose that might be a bit up for debate in that Brazil has nothing to do with a man falsely accused of being a pedophile. But both involve a bureaucracy making mistakes that innocent people pay for.

      For those who haven't seen Brazil, thank your lucky stars. This is going to get my comment 1 point, but it's truly awful. I love Monty Python, but I'll be very blunt and say that I think that Terry Gilliam's movies are very hit and miss and this is a miss for sure. Years ago on another job a colleague loaned me a DVD of the Criterion Collection version after raving about it how great it was. So I watched the uncut director's version. It's awful. If you don't cringe when you see what they predicted computers in the future will look like, I really don't know what to say. Gilliam's preferred ending is terrible and the studio was quite right in my opinion to demand the film be cut and the ending changed. I didn't even bother to watch the theatrical version or the supplements. I read about the differences between Gilliam's cut and the theatrical version and I'm content to never watch any version of it again. It's not the worst movie I've seen or even close to it, but it is without a doubt the most overrated so called "classic" movie I've ever seen. It's one of those films where the people who love it really really love it and they'll defend it to death, but the vast majority of people who see it won't like it very much. For what it's worth, famed movie critic Roger Ebert didn't like it very much either, although he did think it was simply hard to understand and a bit pointless rather than "terrible" as I stated. If you want to be more depressed, watch Gilliam's version. If you want to be somewhat less depressed, watch the edited theatrical version.

    2. Re:Reminds me of 'Brazil' by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose that might be a bit up for debate in that Brazil has nothing to do with a man falsely accused of being a pedophile. But both involve a bureaucracy making mistakes that innocent people pay for.

      In Brazil, a fly landed on a typewriter and an innocent man was imprisoned as an accused terrorist and later killed. A government functionary was assigned to correct the error, and the bureaucracy led to a lot more trouble and more people getting harassed. Hence the comparison, someone in the bureaucracy makes a typo and the full-force of the government comes in, ruins a life, and takes years to correct.

      Whether you liked the movie or not, that's your opinion and I'm fine with your interpretation. I complained that it was made when '1984' was in production and seemed like a cash grab on the theme. I know some people who say the movie is the best they ever seen, I liked it well enough, others hated it. I guess the right term is polarizing.

      I preferred Gilliam's ending.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    3. Re:Reminds me of 'Brazil' by CanarDuck · · Score: 1

      If you don't cringe when you see what they predicted computers in the future will look like, I really don't know what to say.

      The whole movie has a deliberate, half faux-retro, half totally incongruous sci-fi aesthetic (yes, that was the case even for the 80s). You can love it or hate it, but if you don't realize it's deliberate and that no one back then was seriously envisioning that computers would remotely look like in the movie, ever, then you're off by a large margin in your criticism. It is possible that this point can be lost to some modern viewers. When I saw it back then when it first came out (I am a big fan), this weird and provocative aesthetic choice was actually one of the most charming aspects of the movie, and I believe this is still the case (though I admit I haven't seen it again recently)

    4. Re:Reminds me of 'Brazil' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, I disagree. Fantastic computers! Those awful fresnel lenses! Wonderful! Turns out YMV'ed.

    5. Re:Reminds me of 'Brazil' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget movies, this plot line has been around since COMPUTERS DON'T ARGUE by Gordon R. Dickson.

    6. Re:Reminds me of 'Brazil' by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      The other point of the movie was that there were no terrorists. Everything was disintegrating due to lack of or poor maintenance coupled with bureaucratic incompetence and terrorists were being blamed as a convenient scapegoat

  25. 127.0.0.1 Can Still Get you into Trouble by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even the loopback address can get you into trouble. When I was a grad student we had a technician who got into severe trouble because of it. It turns out that he was using the university computers to look at ordinary porn sites but, unbeknowst to him, the university had tried to block access by fixing the local DNS records of some sites to point to the loopback address. This was in the days of FTP rather than the web and so while hunting for files on his "porn site" he found the local /etc/passwd file with all our encrypted passwords in it (/etc/shadow was not around then either!). Thinking he had found evidence that our machines had been hacked he reported this without thinking about what his FTP command history plus the DNS name he used for the site would give away. Of course it was not helped by a group of us grad students who'd been initially trying to figure it what was going on while he fetched the sysadmin bursting out laughing when we figured it out while the sysadmin stormed off angrily to tell the group's leader!

  26. Wrecking Ball Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but the Web was never designed for such accidental abuse: And intentional abuse - spoofing, and such large groups of "people" are out to poison the Web or make it sick. It's time to tear it all down and start all over again. This time you keep the villains and potential innocent mistakes in mind - every step you take! Sandbox the hell out of it! And put virtual hidden guards around every corner. Sit back and relax.. and one day you will get a knock at your door! Guilty until proven innocent. The Web today is impossible to disprove.

  27. Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    your inability to proof-read before submitting

    The problem with proof-reading is that it's hard to mentally divorce what one intends to say versus what they are reading back. Others have complained about their own "intention bias" before, not just me, so I know I'm not alone.

    There's a point of diminishing returns on repeat re-reads to proof the copy. Time is often the best solution to clearing one's mind of intention bias. (A second opinion is also good, but hard to come by.)

    If you by chance have a special brain that is immune to this, I congratulate you, but us muggles want a muggle-friendly edit system.

    1. Re:Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The problem is once you allow editing, you open a can of worms. I'd rather live with mistakes then not being able to trust the integrity of the written record. Forums are conversations.

    2. Re:Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Supply a link that shows old versions.

      Or at least allow say 500 characters of a correction notice at the bottom. If you discover a typo and entered a notice, then the bottom of your original entry would have a section titled "Correction Notice" with the text of the your correction notice, along with a time-stamp.

    3. Re:Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you by chance have a special brain that is immune to this, I congratulate you, but us muggles want a muggle-friendly edit system.

      My brain is not immune to this, and I still don't want post editing. There is a preview function. Sit with it longer before you post if not having errors is so very important to you. As Slashdot has grown older, I suspect the median age has also increased, and I have noticed far more tolerance on the part of the readership for errors. Why, it is not uncommon in this day and age for apostrophes to be misused without a single comment, and last week I actually read a comment in which the author reversed the intent of a statement and the person who replied simply addressed their obvious intent rather than stopping to snark about it! Why, in another decade or two, we might make it up to thank you, if not please. The need for a comment editing function is actually decreasing over time, and Slashdot has done fine without it so far.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And those solutions are the can of worms that come with their own downsides. I prefer comments the way they are.

    5. Re:Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Slashdot can try it. If it fails after trying a few adjustments, then yank it. Sometimes you don't really know until you try it. Human prediction ability is not very good. If it were, we'd all be rich like Warren Buffett.

    6. Re:Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I AM THE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE BOWLING GREEN MASSACRE!!

      Correction Notice; The bowling green near my house, I rigged the game by sabotaging the field causing my opponent's team to lose by a landslide.

      Yeah I fail to see how a correction notice would cause problems.

  28. The U.K. Pedophile suspicion fad by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    It's one of those unexplainable oddities of British culture, like hating redheads. No one seems to know how it got started.

    1. Re:The U.K. Pedophile suspicion fad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Started in the late 80s with Pedogeddon spread by religious nutjobs because they couldn't ban sex before marriage.
      Now porn is being blamed and universally blocked by default on most internet connections by these awful prudes like Claire Perry and her kind.

      Sexual demonization has brought up a country of socially inept retards.
      Not just here, but in many Christian nations.
      No wonder the "white race is dying" is a thing, it literally is. They've been brought up in to hating their own bodies by absolute nutjobs of the highest order.
      Even in Britain which is becoming less religious with time, it is still a huge taboo.

      Teen sex is now so demonized that parents have disowned their children over it. It's fucking ridiculous.
      I knew plenty of people in my teens that had had sex around 12-15 age range, none of them grew up in to complete fuck-ups or psychos, or murders and rapists.
      Very little of them had children in their teens either, most waited till mid or late 20s.

      In the case of child porn, it is such a double taboo that even accidentally coming across it can get you arrested if someone hates you.
      Even being a moderator can get you arrested, a person that actively seeks to remove dodgy content!
      Look at that Internet Watch Foundation bullshit years back where they blocked the Virgin Killer stuff from Wikipedia, all because some nutjob reported it to them. But the MAIN reason it got blocked? IWF never verified SHIT. They legally weren't allowed to, they could get arrested for it. THAT'S how fucking retarded the UK laws are right now.
      Then just recently there, Facebook reporting BBC to police because FB had CP on their site and refused to remove it for a significant period of time. They sent the links to them and they tried to claim that was distributing child porn. Fucking. Retarded.

  29. Wrong nationality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Had Lang been Pakistani they'd have thought twice, and then a third and forth time before interfering with him. Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford... what's the latest town that's been 'grooming' girls for years while the 'council' and all the authorities look the other way?

  30. Dangerous World by transami · · Score: 2

    The ultimate sabotage tactic. Hack someone's computer and download child porn. Then turn them in.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
    1. Re:Dangerous World by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Has already happened several times, I believe. And that are only the people that could prove their innocence. There will be a lot more that could not and also some that could but decided not to advertise what happened anyways.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  31. When will people learn to copy and paste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, why do people still hand type IP addresses? I know of two excuses... 1. You're transferring it over an audio medium like a phone conversation... you don't have much choice. 2. Someone sends you a screenshot containing their IP address. The point is, IPv4 IP addresses are hard enough to duplicate 100% correct every time... wait til we have to do more IPv6 addresses... maybe that will teach even England's finest to copy and paste their 'evidence'.

  32. Just like in the movie BRAZIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you haven't seen Brazil, watch it.

    A fly falling inside a printer caused a typo, and a swat team is sent to the wrong home.

  33. And government isn't "Too big" by jediborg · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is how I constantly read articles like this on slashdot and yet there are still thousands of people that don't think 'Government is too big' or "Police have too much power" or "our Justice system has become corrupt" or "We have too many laws on the books" or "Decades of 'Tough on Crime' politicians have destroyed peaceful society"

    Is it just my own confirmation bias at work, or do the "Pro-Big Government" People see something I don't?

    1. Re:And government isn't "Too big" by Sique · · Score: 2
      It's because people who complain about "big government" are mostly people having no clue about what a government really does. The only reason why the bottle you get at the supermarket with the label "milk" actually contains milk and only milk (and some air in the remaining volume) is big government with big regulations strangulating supermarkets, manufacturers of bottles for food and producers of milk to strictly adhere to the rules, not putting melamine into it, make sure the bottles are hygienically without any (known) problems, don't leak dangerous compounds in the milk and actually contain milk, not just som whiteish fluid.

      There never was a peaceful society without a big government. There are only legends invented by people never living in societies with a weak or non-existant government about some utopia they just pulled out of their ass.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:And government isn't "Too big" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there's something we see you don't. You cannot draw general conclusions from anecdotes. Sorry.

  34. Innocent until...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies).
    Yeah, Great Britain has that whole innocent until PROVEN guilty thing, too. Who knew? I heard it's really neat if you can afford a good lawyer.
    Apparently it's part of this one weird trick that a group called Un (?) has, too? I think they call it Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11 or something.
    Sounds like it would be a great thing, if we could just get the Powers That Be to go along with it. That would take a lot of work. Maybe even a r-e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n, but you didn't read that here.
    Nope. I say we all just go along with the status quo and keep our heads down. After all, you only need to be worried about the police if you've done something wrong, right?

  35. Some things are worse than death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like being deeply traumatized and living your entire life in fear unable to trust

    1. Re:Some things are worse than death by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If that's worse than death, then surely the humane thing to do would be to kill those people?

  36. I don't Speak German by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    A dozen years ago i was just searching the web at random and up popped a picture of a young boy that was clearly intended to be pornographic. I have no interest in nude boys at all but it shocks me that an image on a drive could be taken to mean that you desired to see it or have it in your possession. The panty raid hunters have gone over the edge. We need laws to protect innocent people from being harmed, put to trial etc. over this and many other things as well. Police must have proof before they make an arrest or even investigate a situation in my opinion. this is the oldest game in the world and bad people misuse such laws. In the past it was put a bag of dope under a car seat and call the cops and tell them the driver has dope in the car and sells drugs. The idea that someone possesses drugs simply because they are in his car or home should not justify an arrest.

  37. Really bad police work by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Without bothering RTFA, this sounds like horrendously bad police work and he should get a much bigger settlement. Hitting that IP address warrants surveillance, not arrest. After some nominal period of time looking at his traffic, they would have realized it was an anomaly and nobody outside the precinct would have known about it.

    In real cases of pedo that get a conviction, there are usually whole hard-drives full of disgusting stuff that gives agents PTSD. You can't get that with a typo.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Really bad police work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more likely some neighbour who did not like him framed the guy.

    2. Re:Really bad police work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you know, it's for the children. They had to make the arrest because of the minors in da pedobear house, tonight!

  38. Re: fake news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faggot is also a meat rissole or another name for a bassoon (the musical instrument not the part of the brain).

  39. What I learned from the comments by Bratch · · Score: 1

    Slashdot needs UTF support, as pointed out by people who didn't see how many other people already pointed it out.

    We need to watch the movie, "Brazil" as also pointed out by people who didn't see all the other posts about needing to watch Brazil.

    --
    Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
  40. Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the three strangers pushed past him ...

    So no badges and no search warrant: Now we have the real reason that UK civilians were disarmed.

    ... he was going to be arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

    Of course, the (alleged) crime couldn't be committed by a woman or a visitor.

    ... their 2-year-old son ...

    The police were lucky there were no other adults around to arrest them (or worse) for trespass or child kidnapping.

  41. Not rtbl'd? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Try being excellent for years and getting nothing due to being rtbl'd.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Not rtbl'd? by fisted · · Score: 1

      Now why would I want to do that?

    2. Re:Not rtbl'd? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Nobody desires to be rtbl'd, you just get rtbl'd. I've had Excellent for years but no modpoints for close to a decade.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  42. Re: fake news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just picturing you goosestepping round your bedroom.

  43. British vs American Justice by aberglas · · Score: 1

    In the USA, they would have given him a plea bargain. Plea guilty to a minor porno offense with a few week jail time already served on remand. Or we throw the book at you and you'll go down for 21 years. And we have all the evidence. IP addresses. Images found on your computers that we have in our possession.

    Not because all police are evil. But just because nobody wants to admit to a mistake. It would open up the entire system to scrutiny. Do the bargain, he's already been in jail so no more harm done, and the problem goes away.

    Of course he will plead guilty. Any non-multi-milionare would. And then there will be no article in Slash Dot. Just an article in the local paper about what a good job the police are doing in tracking down evil pedophiles. Planting images on a computer is even easier than planting drugs.

  44. "Typo In IP Address" by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

    Typo In IP Address Led To an Innocent Father's Arrest For Paedophilia

    What an odd misspelling of "Hysterical Witch Hunt".

  45. execute every pig involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    problem solved

  46. 60000$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    60000$, can you make this mistake at my home next time ?

  47. Too little, too late by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    The settlement is too little too late.

    The apology is too little, too late.

    Those who made the arrest haven't apologised.

    It'd be interesting to doorstop them with a BBC news team and see how they like it.

    1. Re:Too little, too late by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Putting this in context - British police have paid out _millions_ apiece in the case of bogus arrests for non-existent terrorism offences

      He needs a decent lawyer and publicist.