Slashdot Mirror
Patrick Naughton Arrested
Pomme de Terre! writes "Patrick Naughton - Java-genius, Starwave CTO, & Infoseek VP - has been arrested for chasing 13 year old girls *and* having kiddie porn on his computer... and is probably going to be put away for a very long time. Very sad. " See also the Yahoo story. As executive vice president of products at Infoseek, was Naughton in charge of GoGuardian?
Child pornography is child pornography. The US deemed it unlawful to partake in actions which constitute or contribute to a child pornographic environment. A chat-room (or channel) is an environment. Fantasizing and role-playing a child pornographic scene is still child pornography even if you have two 45 year old people chatting to eachother.
That is one possible stance the prosecutor will try to take to defend the unlawful entrapment countercharges. Frankly, I think it'll be a strong argument. Not because of any virtue of it's own -- it clearly takes many liberties with the definition of the law concerning child pornography and how one defines pornographic material -- but simply because this topic involves protecting those who cannot protect themselves, the children. The prosecutor will play the sympathies of the jurors (if it ever gets to that) or to the judge. If any of these people are parents, the defendant will have a tough time of it.
The defendant will have a tough time with this one, regardless of his guilt or innocense. The way it's been presented to me, he seems pretty guilty, but I'm not the investigator or the judge.
assert(expired(knowledge));
The problem here is that he had the *intent* to have sex with a minor. That's all the law requires: to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he *intended* to have sex with a person he believed to be a minor. (Did you read the article? Did you notice the fact that he received pictures of a 13 year old who he was told was the person he was talking to? Or the fact that he flew down from Seattle to have sex with this 13 year old? He wasn't caught in his office masturbating to a chat room--he had taken the extra step to actually go out and screw a 13 year old. Big difference.)
The law requires only a demonstration of *intent* because the law recongises that having the police pimp out 13 year old minors in order to have sex with others is an unreasonable thing to do.
Don't worry; you can continue to chat about anything you want. Just don't drive out there and have sex with a minor, okay?
People who hang out in a "FATHER&DAUGHTER" sex channel have crossed a line. It isn't possible to nail them for that mere act. It's appropriate to nail them when they show they didn't just wander in, and begin actively engaging in predatory behavior.
You aren't gonna find many people who agree with your point of view on this one. I recommend you go out in street with a placard and face mothers and fathers who won't agree that you have the right to act on their childrens' wandering thoughts during adolescence. Hiding behind a "handle" online makes it possible to have all sorts of weasely opinions. Get out more, air out some of those ideas so their wrongness can become apparent. It's in your interest to do so.
What on earth are you talking about? Did you just pull this out of your ass? You're throwing your own opinions into what started as a purely legal explanation. You're using knee-jerk arguments, and trying to suggest that the legal matters have anything to do with the emotional ones. Fine, he's a loathsome individual, fine, pedophiles are disgusting, terrible people, but legal rights have nothing to do with how much you hate group a or group b.
Legal rights are afforded to EVERYONE. That's how they work.
Except...
Except that he *did* go out and meet his "victim." This, along with the chat room stuff, the pointers to web sites containing pictures of his genitals, and the suggestion that they were meeting to "make out", go a long way towards demonstrating his intention to have sex with a minor.
The law is rather explicit about this: it is illegal to act with the intention of having sex with a minor. Whether he actually intended to have sex, or if he was just being a non-sexual creep is something for a jury to sort out.
I wouldn't bet on him being found "not guilty."
Well, yes, entrapment and the power of the law can be scary, but let's think this through..
He actually thought that this girl was 13, and attempted to meet her to have sex with her.
If he had meet an actual 13yr old vulnerable to his 'charms', he would have possibly had sex with her.
Would you rather the law reacted to this, and let this girls life (and others?) possibly be ruined before they arrested him? Or should they try to stop it before he does it? If I had talked to this agent, who pretended to be a 13 yearold, I would have had a polite online conversation, and left her alone. (I have little in common with 13 yr old girls) They would not have arrested me, or searched my computer for kiddie porn. Why couldn't he do the same? The fact that he didn't do the same means he WOULD try it with any real girls he meets online.
If I tried to hire a hitman to kill you, wouldn't you rather that the first one I found was actually an agent undercover, instead? If so, should I be let go because he wasn't an _actual_ agent, but only a pretend one? So by your logic, the crime never happened, right?
I believe that the lawmakers go too far, and some law enforcers go too far. But in cases involving sex with minors (my sister is 13), I say, hang 'em all.
Okay, sharp guy, would you rather bust a guy for crossing state lines with intent to have sex with a minor and throw his ass in jail (which is the current plan), or wait til he actually HAS had sex with a minor and charge him for that? Personally, I prefer the former, which under federal law is a crime, and he performed an act which violated it.
If you try to shoot someone and they happen to be wearing a bulletproof vest, you're still guilty of attempted murder, which is a crime.
The point is that you have to have laws making it illegal to try to do something, because otherwise the only way you can possibly prosecute someone is to actually let them do harm, in this case, sexually abuse a 13 year old.
Specifically, Mr. Naughton is charged with "Interstate travel with intenet to have sex with a minor". Big time felony. This is a 34 year old man who's life is over.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Apparently the FBI provoked the crime. Such practice is highly illegal, AFAIK, in my country.
My question is: why haven't these people figured it out yet that the "13 year old kids" they talk to on IRC about sex are NOT 13 year old kids.
If you check the statistics, I think the number of cases involving kids under driving age getting involved with older people over the net for sexual reasons or the like can be counted on one hand.
If any of these guys even used a quick flash of common sense they'd know that the second someone starts talking to them telling them they're a little kid and such is either: a) another adult playing games, or b) a cop who's going to bust you.
Sure the guy was dumb, but last I knew that wasn't illegal. (If I were feeling really cynical, I'd say that in fact being dumb is ENCOURAGED by the government... but I'm not feeling that cynical today)
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Sorry... Conspiracy theorist on overdrive.
I apologise if I was being accusatory.
Sure, screwing little girls is not right but he's clearly in need of some help, not death.
While this is an unsavory act, what frightens me more is the sicko 'beauty pagents' that involve 8 year olds waving their rears in the air while sporting full adult make up (ever catch bits of documentaries on the JonBenet Ramsey fiasco? Yeah, those kind of pagents.).
Just let kids be kids for chrissakes.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I wish to be.)
The law enforcement agents' actions are not likely to be criminal, at least by US standards. In the criminal sense, solicitation implies an intent to engage in an illegal transaction: in this case, statutory rape. We can safely say that the FBI didn't actually intend to have sex with Naughton, so they can use that argument much more convincingly than Trixie from 12th and Vine streets can.
The exception here is in the case of entrapment, where law enforcement essentially forces a "suspect" into performing an illegal action. This doesn't appear to be such a case.
>You would have to be a pretty disturbed 37 year old to want to fuck a 13 year old
So what? I thought the whole idea of freedom was that you're allowed to be 'disturbed' if you want to.
So if he thought it WAS a roleplaying game, he should go free imho.
And even if he new it wasn't there's still the question of whether a 13-year-old can't give consent... I don't think any 13-year-old would actually go into a father&daughtersex chatroom, and certainly not stay there and chat for 4 hours... But if they did, I think it's their choice. But that's an ethical discussion, not a legal one.
Soooo... hanging out in '#father&daughtersex!!!!!!!' isn't an attempt to elicit some kind of sexual response from someone else in that channel?
It's not an attempt to elicit an illegal response from someone else. People go to swap meets to buy things, but if an agent at a swap meet is approached by someone who wants to purchase illegal drugs, the person can't use the excuse that the agent was at a place where people buy things and therefore the suspect's attempt to buy illegal drugs was elicited by the agent.
Well, I think "okay" in that context is a bit of a loaded word. ;-)
In one sense it wouldn't be "okay" to me, since I simply find it disgusting/unaesthetic/repulsive. (And the same goes for some other sexual devia--um, variations.) In other words, don't bother inviting me over to join in.
But in another sense, sure, it would "okay" with me; I don't think anyone should be legally restricted from doing it. (And the same goes for some other sexual devia-- um, variations.)
Not sure this is very much related to pedo, though. Young people have rights, other species less so. After all, we don't literally send human kids to a slaughterhouse to be killed and consumed.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Being a girl-lover ("pedophile" is fine too, it just has such negative connotations in today's society) myself, I'm not sure what to think of this case...Patrick was probably a pretty nice guy when it comes down to it, and if he is like any of the other girl-lovers I know (there are more then you folks may think!) he probably was just trying to get his jollys of virtually through fantasy. No matter how bad that may sound, just think, we have sexual frustration just like "normal" (hey, i think I pretty damn normal) people do. However, the fact that he actually was (or did) about to travel down to California to meet this 'girl' makes the case a bit harder to call...should be interesting to watch. Keep in mind people: most girl-lovers would never hurt a girl in anyway - our first concern is with the other persons happiness, just like in any normal relationship, not with personal pleasure.
And remember the tag line of American justice: innocent till proven guilty. Now I understand that the FBI has forgotten this motto, but he courts will hopefully remember.
We're normal folks too.... /. nick)
-The Courier (not my
I'm seeing a ton of articles that are making statements with incorrect assumptions, and unfortunately on the main page all the incorrect assumptions seem to be moderated up.
Patrick Naughton was NOT arrested for chatting with a purported 13 year old. The man arranged to meet with her and traveled from Seattle, WA to Santa Monica, CA, with the stated intent of having sex with her. He also did not appear surprised when he met up with a very young looking FBI agent posing as said 13 year old. Now I don't have any transcripts of the chat sessions, now know how convicingly 13 the agent was, nor do I know what happened at the pier where he was arrested, but in my book, this qualifies as "Interstate travel with intent to have sex with a minor" which is exactly what the man is charged with.
Additionally, he has been charged, not convicted. If he want's to plead that it was all role-playing and that he didn't believe that she was really 13, that's fine. I doubt its true personally, but I'm not going to be on the jury.
At any rate, before you start hollering about censorship and freedom, check your facts. If you think that "Interstate travel... etc etc etc" should not be a crime, write your congressman, or start a campaign to repeal the law here on slashdot, but in this case, the government caught a man who appeared to be trying to do something very bad.
Not every crime is a soapbox to talk about freedom and opression. Some crimes are genuine crimes.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
I will reserve judgement until I can better review the evidence. Just because Big Brother has accused this man, does not mean he is guilty. We should not be so quick to judge based on the actions of our government. We should be carefull not to encourage tyrany.
If he is guilty, then may pay for his crimes, but not until he is found guilty by his peers.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
>Oh, and convicted pedophiles deserve all that they get. I can't comment on the FBI procedures as they seem the only way to track down this kind of crime. I wouldn't like my privacy violated in this kind of way but... No. Heinous crime is heinous crime.
This is a *very* dangerous attitude. I agree with your moral judgement about these people, but you must *never* allow the authorities to have this kind of exceptional power for any crime. That's how we got all these horrible anti-crypto bills: "terrorism is a special, horrible crime, so we need to trample rights to kill it".
This way lies fascism. Literally.
"Oh, Senator, you're so gullible!" - Buckaroo Banzaii
I agree with most of you comment, except for the 'lock em up for good' part. Yes, sex with children to young to consent is wrong. But I'm sure there are plenty 'closet pedophiles' who are attracted to children, but see that it is not ethicly possible to do this. Punish the rape, don't punish a way of thinking.
1) I am always amused by the sight of libertarians, anarchists, and other self-proclaimed anti-statists falling over themselves to pronounce judgement upon the latest individual picked up by law-enforcement and charged with whatever crime 20/20 is currently describing as an epidemic sweeping the nation. I would never posit a monolithic /. ideology, to be sure, but many of the discussions hereabouts do touch upon issues such as the appropriate role of the state in the lives of its citizens, and how little the state can be trusted in just about any circumstance [examples available upon request if needed]. Given the regularity of such exchange, I hope one can understand my bemusement when I encounter so many posters so quick to accept the state's narrative describing the facts of the situation. Perhaps the fellow is guilty; perhaps he isn't. But the only evidence we've seen so far isn't even evidence; it consists of press releases written by know-nothing hacks [and I use it in the most derogatory sense of the word] regurgitating law enforcement issued screeds designed to cast the involved agencies in the best possible light in expectation of the next fiscal year. Yes, yes, I know, the sexual abuse of children is an awful thing. And, yes, I agree, that there should be laws against it. But the severity of such charges--and the ease with which representatives of the state have so often deployed such charges in the past--lead me to greet incidents such as this with some skepticism. But, of course, I can perfectly understand why a predominantly white, predominantly educated, audience of bourgeois males would be quick to jump to another conclusion.
2) Also amusing are the posts which offhandedly take prison rape and violence as a fact of life. Some of these posts even give the appearance of suggesting that such violence is an acceptable form of penal control and punishment. Recently there was a scholarly work [and I apologize for allowing the citation to slip from memory at this moment, but I'm sure Lexis could remember for you] which set about exploring the role of prison rape within the American penal system. Not surprisingly, the authors concluded that the process was, at the least, implicitly endorsed by the state, if not subject to consideration as an explicit technique used to intimidate individuals into toeing the line. What troubles me most about the posters' acceptance of prison rape and violence as acceptable techniques of penal control is the unstated premise: that the victims deserve it, because their presence in the penal system establishes their criminal guilt. Such an assumption is laughably ridiculous to anyone familiar with the mechanism that is American justice in this day and age... or, for that matter, to anyone with any acquaintances involved in big city, state, or federal law enforcement.
Enough for now. Next time I'll explain why I find anti-statist libertarians who support the death penalty so pathetic.
-ioscream@endofhistory.com
"A 1994 survey, conducted by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and costing taxpayers some $750,000 over five years, examined over 12,000 accusations of ritual abuse, finding no physical evidence to back up any of them." Remember the late '80s? Remember the individuals put away for life because 5 year old children testified they had been carried on flying broomsticks to far-away sites where they were forced to take part in dark rituals? They went to prison labelled predators of the worst type: persons who hurt children.
Oh give me a break. I think the premise here is that in this country, theyre is no such thing as consensual sex with a 13 year old. Called statutory rape, methinks. If you think this law is out of date and there should be age of consent at 13, then wirte your congressman ;-) or leave the US.
As far as entrapment, yeah that's a tough one. I guess if they had sent him explicit pictures of a 13 year old girl to his e-mail and invited him to come onto IRC and then led him to a meeting, that would be a better argument for entrapment. But this guy sounds like a lowlife if he goes cruising on father&daughter and sends links of pictures of himself and sets up 'dates'.
My god, there are enough 18 and above girls out there, leave the 13 year olds alone for christ's sake. It would be different (somehow) if he was just crising online for kicks, but trying to meet a little girl in real life to do something is just sick.
Good. He belongs behind bars, and certainly does not belong in a position running a content network for little kids.
That's embarassing as Hell. Funny article, though. Looks like this guy is gonna get the shaft (in more ways than one!).
Seems like an awful lot of comments all of a sudden disappeared. I had 3. Looks like the same people are posting now (i.e. jcr, etc.). What happened, Rob? And yes, my threshold is on -1.
You moron. This is a proven method many municipalities use to capture pedophiles. How many times do we have to hear about some young girl being molested by a perv they met online? The man INTENDED to have sex with a 13-year-old girl. Do you think arresting someone for hiring a hit man should be called entrapment and the accused let go? I don't think so.
Anyone who sees the method in which this PEDOPHILE was taken down either has too many delusions about the government or some other serious problem....
You're going to hear a lot of bull about how this is somehow a violation of his privacy, but anyone trying to lure 13 year-old girls to his house deserves to be put away for a long, long time.
My only beef is that they'll probably just lock him up for a few years and then release him without trying to give him the help he obviously needs.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
They should have had a young woman, perhaps an 18yo who looked very young, and like the girl in the picture that was sent to him, waiting.
That way they'd know from how he acted when he saw her if he was trying to have sex with her, or actually thought she was older, and that he did want to have sex, but thought it was someone older with the same fantasies he had.
If he'd been met by someone playing the 13yo who he had talked to, perhaps he'd have shown through his actions that he didn't really intend there to be a young girl, or maybe he'd have tried to take her to a nearby hotel. Let him prove their case for them. The fact that they arrested him before he had a chance to do anything seems to suggest that they didn't think he would.
And the kiddy porn shouldn't really be relevant. It shows that he had a fantasy about kiddy porn, but that's obvious from what he's fantisizing about. It doesn't show that he would actually do anything about it. It's a seperate crime, and he should be liable for any appropriate penalties, but it shouldn't be evidence against him at his trial.
btw, I think he has a good case with the "I was sure she was just roleplaying" thing, mainly due to the way the FBI mishandled this. They were in a dad&daughter sex channel, even if that doesn't equal entrapment (He saw it and that gave him the idea he wouldn't have otherwise had.) it would indicate that the person on the other end wasn't really a 13yo girl. Then when they arrested him just for showing up, without trying to find out what he'd do if she did appear to be 13...
I'm pretty sure the guy is a bit of a sleeze, but I'm unwilling to say he deserves a long prison sentence without them doing more to prove his guilt.
I don't excuse him but I'm scared by the FBI methods.
In most civilized country of the world yhe police has not the right to provoke a crime.
-- "Life is easier since I have excluded JonKatz stories from my homepage"
First, he apparently wasn't into this just for the chatting. Chatting was a means to an end, and he expressed definite interest in sex with minors and boasted of having sex with a 16 year old. Sure, some people like to go into chats and claim all sorts of things, but this guy was definitely predatory.
If he thought he was just acting out a fantasy with a woman who was of legal age but they were pretending she was under-age, wouldn't you think he'd be concerned about the law and her true age, and upon meeting her ask for some proof of age? If I had a need to act out some kiddie-sex fetish but only in a fantasy sense, I'd sure make sure I was with an adult lest I get my ass arrested.
She did not have to be 13 for his actions to be a crime.
The FBI had what the news sources call a female deputy waiting for him, alone (seemingly) at the meeting place. Now, I think anyone can be deputized for a specific purpose, so this could actually have been a 13 year old, just as the police will send in real minors to try to purchase cigarettes and alcohol to check stores' compliance with those laws. Perhaps this deputy wasn't 13, but a young-looking 18...doesn't matter. He had stated his desire to meet a minor for the purpose of sex, and there he was, as promised, ready to commit the act. And upon meeting the girl, he didn't back out and say it was all just a game.
I've seen several stories of arrests of men who either had sex with or propositioned sex from minors, both boys and girls, and they used chat rooms to get things started. You're naive if you think it's all role playing or a joke, and you're worse than naive if you think it's ok.
See here. Somehow, this page about Haughton was pulled.
I can't believe it -- he was arrested for chatting with someone who *claimed* to be a minor? What a joke. I can't believe how far it's going. I believe you can't blame someone until they've actually commited something for real -- what do we know? A lot of people might be turned on by the idea of having with 13 yo (not me!), that does'nt mean that when the occasion actually arises they will do it. This is sickening. Roleplaying -- that's what chat room seem to about, isn't it? Now it's forbidden to play anything but some PC shit. Absurd.
Things like that happen. I'm glad to see the story has been relinked.
/. make us a bit jumpy. :)
You'll have to pardon us crazies who are a bit set in our ways--all the recent changes on
Overall, tho, I think it is better to jump the gun a little in defending free speech than to turn a blind eye to everything.
This sig is false.
no doubt they'll be an inquiry into JAVA now on how it can turn sensible people into kiddie fiddlers. Brad
One issue I see overlooked in this case is the age of the children in the "child porn" on his hard drive.
Okay, so he propositioned a 13 year old girl over the net. Ignoring entrapment and other such issues, is this really such a horrible crime. In my state, the age of consent is 14. At most, he planned on committing statutory rape. And I can tell you, there's a lot of that going around - it just usually doesn't cross state lines. An awful lot of 13 year old girls know exactly what they're getting into when they seek sex with an older man.
And he had "child porn" on his computer. Again, was it preteens (sick sick sick) or was it merely under-18 porn? The latter isn't really a big deal... if a female is sexually mature (regardless of her age) then I don't see anything wrong with getting turned on by it. Maybe his "child porn" is an illicit pic of Traci Lords from one of her banned videos taken when she was 17.
I think it's interesting how everyone assumes he's a pedophile. More likely, he's just a dirty old man.
And of course there's the possibility that the FBI framed him. Oh right... what am I thinking... the FBI never lies... scratch that.
Well.. quit whining and move on. What's the only that wastes more time than an overmoderated post? A followup comment where someone bitches about it.
If it really ruined your day, metamoderate down.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I think the whole thing is disgusting. People usually do stuff like this because it was done to them. Instead of giving them the psychological help they need, they're thrown in prison and abused more.
There is a big myth-conception that child-molestors are just sick people who, given the right counseling, can recover. This is not supported by the figures. IIRC, approx 90 percent of child molestors relapse upon release from prison -- even if they did have psychiatric help. Molesting children is completely a power issue. It's actually a very low percentage of child molestors who are just 'passing the love along' (ie, were molested themselves, in turn). Yes, prison will not help with these power issues, but rather exacerbate them, leaving the molestor (if he gets out alive) needing even more to verify to him/herself they are still in power over somebody... hence more kiddies. Sure, they're supposed to inform the proper authorities of where they plan to move and make sure they're not near an area with a high child density (much less a playground), but the simple fact is, they don't. They claim it ruins their life, people don't want them living near them, and so on. Think about it. Within two weeks, they know all the nearby parks as well as the regulars at each one. I find that scary.
Maybe I'm a bit more callous than your average joe because I grew up in a country where the death sentence (as well as other punitary mutilations) are carried out quite often: Saudi Arabia. Let me say the crime rate there is amazingly low, though there are definitely drawbacks to their system which keep me from completely endorsing their punitary system.
Where is the "correction"? Where is the therapy that will reform the criminal into an ordinary person who will be of some use to themselves and to society?
I'm no fluffy bunny, but I'll tell you it is there. It's not the best, it's not available for everybody, and it doesn't always work, but for the handful of success stories we have I am unwilling to throw it all out the window. It is not successful with child molestors, though, and until then I am of the view they should be killed as they're not worth the tax money to keep them warm, fed and alive until they die of 'natural causes'.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
Every time something like this happens people invariably start posting things like "Censorship!" "Big brother!" "Slashdot sucks now!"
Yet every single time it's happened it's either been a site glitch or human error. You'd think people would figure this out?
Slashdot has always been about openness, full disclosure -- anything *but* censorship. Do you really think they would totally reverse that philosophy for an article like *this*? It really isn't even all that controversial.
>One cannot actually solicit prostitution from a police officer (at least I hope not).
Yes, you can. If you offer someone money to have sex with you, you have solicited prostitution, whether or not you believe the other person will take you up on it, and whether or not they do. Cops in vice stings have to be very careful to make the "john" offer money for sex, without actually offering sex for money themselves.
Not everyone is a fed, but every 13 year old Female is. Anyone who knows a 13 yr old girl knows that the last thing she wants is some old loser business man. So let me narrow that a bit more... Any 13 Yr old girl who wants to talk to _you_ is a fed. ---e (coincidence really)
.. as usual.
There is no 'attempted' crime: he was chatting, and (apparently) moved to meet his 'victim'. We don't know if he would have attempted anything.
I think some folks miss why this is potentially scary.
I think that if the guy is guilty, then he ought to be punished, using some *reasonable* definition of guilty.
Problem is, few folks agree on what's reasonable in terms of child sex/porn. Some think 18 is an unreasonably high age for consent. Some think child porn shouldn't neccessarily be illegal to own.
Most think it should be illegal to have sex with 13 year olds, or produce photographic child porn (i.e. take pictures of). It's illegal in the US to own pictures of a 17 year-old taken in a country where it was legal.
In between, it's a bit gray.
Even if the laws are unreasonable, just try to compaign for allowing certain forms of child porn, and see how far you get. It will take a case like this going to the Supreme Court for a different precedent.
I expect that if the guy gets charged with even just chatting, he will get nailed with a major crime. The minimum would be contributing to deliquency.. The most would be the same as if he actually had sex with a 13 year-old, despite there being no actual teenager involved.
If you think the US doesn't prosecute thought crimes, or intent, then you haven't been watching the hacking cases. Bernie S. got nailed for having a red box, not using it. In many states, you can get prosecuted for carrying anything that might be considered a burglary tool, unless you're a locksmith.
We're already well past the point where you can get arrested because you *might* commit a crime.
Let's look at a concrete example: the steel industry and the Pittsburgh area. You'd be hard-pressed to say that people like Carnegie and Frick gave a rat's ass about anyone but the wealthy when they were making their money. The common working man was a replaceable and necessary cog who needed to be kept down to do this grunt work.
But the Carnegie library system in Pittsburgh is everywhere. The Carnegie museums entertain and educate many. Frick Park stretches for lush green miles.
Do you have to throw out all good when it's 'tainted' by bad? Or are people, their motivations and their legacies just a little more complicated than that?
Put another way: I know H. L. Mencken was one sharp witted guy and a great writer, but does the fact that he was an anti-semite make me ignore everything he's done? Or do I, as a thoughtful person, take that into account when I read his works?
Chris
M-x auto-bs-mode
Considering all the silly paranoia around here about law enforcement, I just wanted to point out that this was a case of law enforcement done right. It doesn't take many cases like this getting publicity before the sickos trolling for 13 year olds get a message that the Internet is not a safe place to prey.
amen brother
-- Virtual Windows Project
It's not suprising that it has the "Disney" corporation associated with the story. Disney is notorious, (from books like "Disney: the mouse betrayed", articles, and radio talks), for having child offenders as employees who, ironically, have direct contact with children. Heck, I think of child offenders when I hear of Disney so much that I forget about Mickey!
Could it be that Naughton got along well with Disney executives because they share the same hobbies and interests? Disney[World|Land] is still a nice place to vacation, even if they have their own police force and may not be controlled by local government or laws.
Be kind to the children, it's not easy being a kid these days.
Okay.. the guy is young, talented, and has been a high level exec at several of the hottest tech companies around. Let's just assume for a second that money isn't an issue here (it probably isn't).
What are the chances that he can hire a "legal dream team" (I though that term died in `96) and get out of this. Hell, OJ stabbed his wife and friend, bled everywhere, and still got out, and there were no FBI agents asking to be murdered either. This guy was propositioned by the agent first, which to me sounds like good old-fashioned entrapment. My question is, what are the legal ramifications of this? Will he get out on a technicality? Or, do you think he'll be able to hire enough good lawyers that they can convince a jury that the guy got screwed?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
BTW, do witnesses really swear on the bible in a trial in america?
That is one of the oaths that a witness can swear. A witness can be given another oath if they do not wish to swear to god.
It's always a shame to see aomeone fall from such heights as this. If he is indeed guilty, though, I have absolutely no sympathy for him at all.
However, this is going to prove very problematic. Censors and snoopers alike are going to have a field day, thanks to the fact that this case will inevitably become quite high-profile. Censors will decry the ease of transmission of information on the Net, claim it's "a haven for chold pronography" and demand censorship (not like they haven't been doing it already, but now they have a high-profile case to latch onto).
Snoopers, on the other hand, will show how "people like this" use encryption to hide their activity from law enforcement, therefore "they" need a backdoor. Worse, since their point is semi-valid, they'll sway a lot more people over to their side than they would with pure crap.
Note I said semi-valid; they have a right to investigate, but it does not counter or override the people's right to privacy. I'll gladly let the FBI search my computer and decrypt my stuff, but they're going to have to show me a warrant first. If they don't, then they aren't getting into my machine, plain and simple.
But I digress. The point is, even if justice is served in this case, it could very well pave the way for injustices of the worst kind later on. We're going to have to watch this very carefully.
Hhmmm..... let's see........ Nope, not normal. Not even close.
Again, another naive human being (YOU!). If the guy had any second thoughts, he wouldn't have flown all the way to S. Cal. End of story.
I don't like christians means that I don't like the fact that people have the christian belief (muslim being worse in my book). Now, I can appreciate christians for other reasons. Just like I don't like football fans. As long as they don't bother me with their football, I don't mind. There is a huge difference in saying 'I don't like (jews|niggers)': being a hew is (99%) an inherited trait, something that people don't choose, and it means more than just a religion. By what "Jew" usually means, I could as well be considered a catholic.
Admittedly, the content of THIS story makes me think that the alleged offender, if he truly did these things, needs to be locked up with the key thrown away.
I can't bring myself to consider a 37-year-old having sex with someone he *knows* is a young teenager as anything other than predatory.
However, a lot of organizations are losing a lot of good volunteers these days. A lot of schools are losing a lot of good teachers. People are scared to work with kids because they might fit the fictional profile of a molester. (Never mind that this almost never meshes with the actuality -- and yes, as a matter of fact, I *am* speaking from personal experience that I would rather forget.)
Are you gay or bisexual? Are you online a lot? Are you ANYthing other than Protestant? Are you a single male working with children not your own? Guess what, if the answer to any of those questions is "yes", you're a real nice tempting target for a false accusation of child molestation, something that could completely ruin your life.
What drives me still nuttier is this: Suddenly, giving an upset kid a hug could easily become a federal crime. ALL touch from an adult other than a parent is sexualized -- now what kind of fucked-up message does THAT send to kids, hmm?
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I might remind all of you who are assuming that he is guilty already, these are allegations. Last I checked the constitution still guaranteed United States citizens the right to a fair trial and upheld the notion that we are all innocent until proven guilty.
Until a court of law, and a jury of his peers has ruled a verdict upon Mr. Naughton, kindly show him some respect. These crimes are alleged - keep that in mind.
They were simply hanging out in IRC chat rooms. They weren't targeting any specific person. He probably saw "her" online, initiated contact, and moved from there. The feds just sit and wait for someone to contact them. Usually they don't have to wait long.
:)
Let's not give unnecessary credence to any more Big Brother conspiracies. Slashdot has enough of them already.
How would "they" have detected that guy's massive problem without seriously invading his privacy? Pedophilia is a "problem" not normally volunteered to the authorities, no matter how sympathetic they are.
You may think the use of agents posing as children is playing dirty pool; but really, what other method does the FBI have, aside from actually waiting for some kid to actually be victimized, and maybe reporting the crime?
--
--
Think Green... Burn only 100% recycled dinosaurs in you car.
Pomme de terre deserves credit for recognizing naughton's contributions and not consigning him to the legal-moral category of dirty pervert. It also reminds us that this man is not out to destroy society, but a man who has predilections that almost any society will guard against. Charlie Chaplin and Roman Polanski are two movie people who actually had sex with young girls. As with drugs the enemy is us. However any society will protect children from being sold for prostitution or force into by homelessness etc. Finally, the question of rape deserves careful consideration. Therefore the defense of privacy is intriguing but insufficient. Those who question the use of deceit and lies by the police are on to something. Here the issue of consensual crime ought to be examined. Instead of simple condemnation, maybe we should listen first and decide later.
eVillager
Oh no that is just utter bullshit. I'm sorry for the anger here but I have to say it. If we allow more and more things to be "something someone can't help" then sooner or later people will get off (in court) just becuase they can't help it. I am sick and fucking tired of people saying the equivilent of "the devil made me do it". People need to take responsibility for what they do. What he did was sick and twisted. I'm not denying that things in life can cause trauma. I've had my share but where do we draw the line between what is people choose to do and what people "can't help"? The only thing I've ever noticed is that alot of sexual deviance is just like addiction. Follow me here:
Drugs - They say alot of hardcore drug use comes about by people wanting a better high
Sexual - You can't "get off" on just looking at simple pictures, you want something more. Something more twisted.
I will admit that it is an addiction but he made his own damn decision to even entertain the thought that a 13 year old girl was what he wanted.
If this had been my little sister, I would have fucking killed him.
Sorry for the rant but you are the master of your destiny. Take responsibility for it.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Lately (or at least since I've been paying attention) everyone says that we're innocent until proven guilty, but the converse seems to be true. Especially when it comes to matters of sexual misconduct. The mere accusation of misconduct is enough to make life very uncomfortable for the accused.
Even if they are aquitted, if the accusation is withdrawn - or even if it is proven false in court, the stigma remains. A person accused this way may be vindicated morally, but often loses their job, and ends up moving out of the area, because of the ghosts that follow them.
This tendency to blow accusations out of proportion is getting out of hand. Once the media and the gossip-mill get a hand on the news, it becomes so widely disseminated that facts don't have a chance.
Don't get me wrong, I think that once proved guilty, the punishment should be maximal. I personally favor tatooing the convicion on the forehead of the perpetrator. But, we should certainly withold judgement until the machine has done it's work, and a jury has returned a verdict.
And if we're not on the jury, let's get on with our lives. We'll read about the case soon enough (Except if it involves O.J., Jon Bennet, M$ or the Clintons). The Brits seem to manage this type of thing better - black out the news until it's done.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Kinda off topic, but i really think its strange that because you can't aim a gun properly and don't hit the person you are shooting at, that you are any less guilty of a crime than if you had actualy shot someone in the face? Yes i know that no one actualy died and there is no greiving family, but if the person wasn't so clumsy then there would be, and being clumsy is NOT a defence.
As an unmarried white male in my 30s, there is no way in hell I would ever assist a child, period, in any way. I see a kid crying on the street... I look the other way and keep going. I see a confused and lost kid in a department store... I might tell the oldest female clerk in the area, but I ain't going near the kid. I see a little kid being chased by a guy wearing a hockey mask and swinging a chainsaw... well, I might call 911 but I'd do it anonymously, and I'd make sure I didn't leave any fingerprints on the payphone.
In the US today, if you're a man, being around kids is dangerous for your health. Sometimes even if they're your own kids.
first, i hope he's innocent. i generally don't like to think people do things like that. so with that mindset, it's rather easy to see a scenario where he is innocent...
let's say i'm an evil bad guy and i don't like mr. naughton. he fired me, he had an affair with my wife, he used closed source code, or maybe he's a business competitor. whatever, i don't like him. so i end up hunting around until i find one of the many undercover cops trying to snag pedophiles. (as an aside i don't really think it's a bad thing for law enforcement to do this - it just has to be done responsibly)
anyway, i start to feed bits of info to this person. i like little girls, my phone number, and all the damning evidence. in addition i target mr. naughton. i find web sites he likes, or maybe generate some for him. a month before the meeting i set up, i start putting "img src" tags that are scaled to 1x1. the images are child porn.
now i set up the meeting. i get mr. naughton there as well for some reason valid to him. if i'm really nasty i watch from somewhere nearby and laugh my ass off. my unsuspecting enemy thinking he can protect himself hands over his laptop - voila, the fbi see child porn peppered through his browser cache.
i dunno if the img src tag thing would work (perhaps browsers don't load 1x1 pix or something), but one could also do it with email attachments, java applets, a virus, etc.
i would hope the fbi would use backup info (non-computer) for conviction. dates and times of chats vs. the suspect itinerary for example. regardless it seems like an amazingly simple way to discredit someone.
the man is innocent until proven guilty. my desire to think the best of my fellow man wants him to be proven innocent (an adversary is much more paletable to me then a pedophile), but my desire for compotent law enforcement hopes he's proven guilty and that the fbi isn't just some dupe in an effort to destroy someone's life. either way, i hope justice is allowed to happen
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I think the fact that they found child porn ON his laptop hard drive is probably grounds enouhg to see that he is a pedophile and deserved to be fired on the spot. You think he's potentially NOT guilty on 2 charges? Wake up, brother. It's an open and shut case. Pedophile solicits TWO "young girls," engages in "erotic" chat with them, has child porn on his laptop, AND shows up for a meeting with a 13-year-old. I call that BUSTED! Period.
Looking at it from another angle, do you really think the "family network" is going to hold on to a suspected child molester? I don't think so. Would you let this guy alone with your kids knowing what we all know now? Not a chance, and you know it.
> Especially when I have no idea who the heck this guy is.
.... if Philippe were ever arrested for something similar, I'd expect to see it here.)
He was one of the developers on the original Java team. (OK, granted, that doesn't make it _Linux_ related, but it's probably enough to make it relevant news
In my comments, I never made any assumption of guilt or innocence on his part. I merely expressed a distaste for the phrasing that /. editors had used at the end of the original piece.
I don't think that there is anything "very sad" about this person getting arrested, unless and until ALL charges are proved utterly without cause. Then I would consider his arrest "very sad". But not until then.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
What he was saying, in a nutshell, is that not doing something for the sole reason that you haven't obtained consent can be a silly reason.
If you're a animal-rights person, then you should have other arguments against killing and eating animals than simply "they can't consent to it". In the same way, it's not wrong to have sex with minors merely because they can't legally agree to it - it's wrong for a whole slew of other reasons.
He is not arguing that it's OK to kill, harm, or eat animals, just that there are better reasons not to than "they didn't agree".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm:
Straight
Gay
Pedophile
Asexual
Cucumber
Huh?
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
A more apt comparison would be the old Fatty Arbuckle case A description of the famous silent film era scandal, in which a "not guilty" verdict didn't restore a man's life.
Open and shut case? Why not have a French Revolutionary 'Reign of Terror' or Salem Witch Trial system of justice then? Innocent until proven guilty, but the FBI has put an end to that right in this case.
And this is an age when the FBI (post-WACO lies about using incendiaries) is looking particularly corrupt.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Raising a knife against someone is assault with a deadly weapon in most US states. Plunging it above the waste is likely to be attempted murder if it doesn't strike the arm. Plunging it into the groin (ouch) is either attempted murder or malicious wounding in some states. Otherwise, it's assault and batter with a deadly weapon.
My attitude is "Book 'im, Dano!"
--Al
Actually that teacher went to prison and is still there.
Make sure you have the facts next time.
::: jane
I can't believe how many people on this site actually are defending a would-be child molester. Anyone who thinks a 13 year old girl could consent to sex with a 37 year old man is just stupid. Period.
A 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote and blacks were segregated. Your right we were MUCH smarter then
Yes "Sick,perverted, and twisted" would be the words I would use to describe this bastard. And the fact that you think its OK just proves where you are on the evolutionary ladder.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
i know,he hasnt been convicted,theres probably a lot of little loopholes for him to get out of and he hasnt engaged in physical intimacy with a minor(that we know of).
HOWEVER what we do know from this story is that he is willing to do the nasty with a girl of
thirteen.thats enough.thats beyond the limit of tolerance.thats enough in more rural counties than not to have him turn up "dismembered"and decomposing on a backroad in an "unsolved"murder.
there is no hope for these offenders.they consistently repeat when freed.no liberal rehab program works on a high enough percentage of them
to make freeing any of them an acceptable risk.
every little person has a right to a healthy
childhood,mentally and physically.
these are predators,not human and therefore
fair game for anything however severe.dont hire them,dont help them,drive them from your communities.they dont care about our children,theres no reason ethically or reasonably
to allow them to live.theres nothing they could return to society that justifies even one child getting molested.
the humanitarian way in this case is"a fair trial and a decent hanging".his contributions far underweigh his potential for evil.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Here in the UK the age of consent is 16. I think that this is much, much more suitible than 18, at least for our culture, as most people end up having sex for the first time at the age of 16/17 anyway. Also, quite a few girls do go for 'older' guys, its not unuseual for a 16 y/o girl to go out with, or at least sleep with, someone who is in their early 20's or so. Not to mention the 14/15 year old girls who go out every weekend fully tarted up looking like they are 18 trying to pick up older guys.
Back to the issue at hand, if the guy was honestly intending to screw a 13 year old then he is guilty of *something*, but if he honestly thought that it was just a fantasy and it was really a bored housewife willing to let him spank her and tell her what a bad girl she is, then thats just fine. It appears to be the former, but it could very well be the latter. Who is to say what goes on in the mind of someone else?
Nick
Nick
I've read a few posts that wonder why he was in trouble for crimes he was PLANNING to commit, but hadn't actually committed. Though this may seem Orwellian, I don't really think it is. Let me explain.
My father is a minister, which classifies him as a "counselor" (along with lawyers, psychiatrists, and a few other types of people). This means that if someone comes to him and confesses a crime, my father is breaking the law to tell the authorities of this confession. It's the same idea as attorney/client privileges, but it extends to a few other occupations. It basically ensures confidentiality.
The sole exception to this is crimes involving children - such as child abuse, or sexual abuse as the case is with Naughton. In these cases, my father is required to tell the police. I wholly agree with this clause because it protects children who are not able to stick up for themselves. If a crime is committed against another adult, then that adult at least has the capacities to take action and report it to the proper authorities. It's quite possible that a thirteen-year-old girl that could have been a victim to Naughton would not even know that what she was doing was wrong. Young people who are not completely independent need responsible adults to protect them against people trying to harm them.
Although the technical age of consent may be debatable, I'm glad that we do have these laws that prevent people who attempt to take advantage of young people from doing so.
Infoseek stock, of which I own too much, has taken a dive over recent months, and has dropped nearly three points since this story was released. Ugh.
Also! Dude, you shouldn't be going after kids. That's pretty fucked up right there.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
he should go to jail for trying to screw a 13 year old not for being stupid enough to get caught. I for one am very happy that he was stupid enough to get caught. Because now he can have sex with people he deserves...dirty AIDS ridden BULL QUEERS in jail. Java Programmer, Oil Magnet, Jesus Christ himself...it doesn't matter...dirty bastard
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
There have been some efforts to expand laws to include depictions of minors having sex regardless of whether it could be demonstrated that they were actually minors. Such efforts have failed and are unconstitutional besides.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
He was also responsible (in some sense) for Java. He was going to leave Sun for NeXT, and McNealy asked him to write a letter telling him what was wrong with Sun. This led to the FirstPerson "skunkworks" project that eventually spawned Java. Here's a good article about it.
Although the consent age in the UK has nothing to do with this case, you should know that the age of consent varies from state to state in the U.S.
Here, in California, the age of consent is 18. In my home state of Louisiana, it's 17. There is a two year age difference allowed if the girl is under the age of 17. That is, if the man is 18, the girl must be 16 or older. If the girl is 15, the boy may be no older than 17. Pennsylvania has the youngest age of consent at 14. (Ouch!) Most states (GA, MN, etc.) have 16 as their age of consent.
Hopefully, this helps for our friends outside of the U.S.
However, the above rules apply for statuatory rape, not child molestation. There's a heckuva difference. Child molesters (generally those who engage in impure acts w/ children under the age of 14) are given harsher sentences and must often be placed into protective custody to serve their sentence. Child molesters are considered violent offenders. Whereas stat. rapists are simply sent to jail. Depending on the state, both must register as sex offenders for pretty much the rest of their lives.
Hint: If you're going to get caught committing a crime, make it possession of illegal narcotics (for personal consumption, *NOT* intent to distribute).
--Al
Except this, I wonder how stupid those high tech executives are. The Internet is the place where you can be easily identified if you don't use criminal tactics (like hacked accounts) to cover your id. How did he expect to get away with this?
And yes, I am delighted to see one of those, forgive me the strong wording, censorship companies getting problems of this nature. Nice irony.
Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle Website
Reading this site makes me think that the not guilty verdict reached in this famous case was probably correct. Too bad for Arbuckle, though, he was branded a rapist for life.
One of the interesting quotes on this Website is:
Used as a scapegoat by Will Hays for the ills of Hollywood, Roscoe found himself unemployable as actor. -- Roscoe Arbuckles Biography on this page
Of course the FBI loves silicon valley, the Internet, and all this wonderful technology that is making it harder and harder for them to keep tabs on all of us and what we are doing. They'd never decide to "make an example" out of someone prominent in order to make other prominent people think twice about criticizing them or their methods. Just like they never used incendiaries at WACO. We should all trust that the FBI is releasing all this info to the press, to ruin this person in the court of public opinion, because they have a really strong case against him and will be able to put him away for many years, not because they are covering themselves in case he gets off. You trust the FBI, don't you? You'd better, I'd hate to think what will happen to you otherwise...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
kidzero asks:
>Is he a child molestor if he didn't actually commit a crime?
A reasonable question. He's not charged with child molestation, but with "crossing state lines to have sex with a minor" -- and it's been recognized for some time that the target can be an adult law enforcement officer, but because of the defendant's predisposition to the crime, he is guilty. (Lack of predisposition is the crux of any successful entrapment defense -- such as the one you cited. That individual had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be cleared, though.) This is one relevant Supreme Court case.
It's a smaller crime than actually molesting someone, but part of the purpose of these stings is media attention -- that is, ruined careers, friendships, etc. The idea is that they do enough of these high-profile arrests and fewer people will have the balls to go through with the real crime with real kids. In a word, deterrence.
Aside from the solicitation, though, Naughton was caught with a bunch of child pornography on his computer. Even if he gets a light sentence for the solicitation (which is likely), he'll still face imprisonment for the porn.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
All well and good. We should be allowed to think or fantisize about whatever we want.
The instant that pedophile tries to live out their fantasies is the instant they cross the line and should be stopped. Whether it's meeting underage children in person, taking pictures, or in my opinion looking at pictures (by pictures I mean photographs of actual children) they have crossed a line and need to be stopped to protect those who may not be able to protect themselves.
Do you know of any sexually abused children with happy abuse stories? Do you know of any abused children who aren't horribly scarred by their experiences? These people are violating the trust of children and destroying their innocence.
I'm not sure that I understand your post at all. I hope you are being sarcastic. I know society has a tendancy to force morals on people based on popular approval; this is not always right when it doesn't respect an individual's rights or wishes. Pedophilia's moral standing in society shouldn't even be an issue - practicing pedophiles are forcing their preferences on individuals who have little or no defenses against such an attack.
Sickness and disgust aside, this in itself is wrong, and merits attention in the form of protection by laws, stings, prosecution, and ultimately very long jail sentances.
--
Your tax dollars at work...
Pedophiles are loathesome, detestable creatures. They're not new, nor are they rare. But in the past, how many men in such a position could have been propositioned by a 13-year-old? Does the FBI really need to go around drumming up business? Aren't there enough ACTUAL criminals without the FBI turning some POTENTIAL criminals into new ones. Besides, what of people who think they might commit a crime, but stop at some point (a point after which a zealous agent might already have arrested them) before actually committing a crime? Obviously one doesn't want to wait until the suspect is actually committing the act, but showing up can hardly be a crime, maybe he was just going to yell at this kid and find her parents and yell at them for being such morons. (I'm not gullible, he's probably a schmuck, but don't these people have bombers and such to find? They've proven they can catch one sicko who, left to his own devices, would likely have never hurt anyone, but they can't catch Erik Rudolph!)
He said it was the only fair system. Not that it was the system currently in place. I agree.
If he is guilty of this crime, may justice be served. However, I reserve judgement on this matter until I can better understand the facts. No one here has seen the evidence, yet everyone simply assumes that because the FBI says so, this man is guilty. Let us not be so trusting of big brother. Let us review the evidence, and judge the matter without prejudice. Let justice be served
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
Actually, Naughton is an author. He's written a couple of Java books. He was a software engineer on the original Java team at Sun.
In order to be prosecuted, you need at least three images present on your hard disk. In addition, none of the cases that I came into contact with were prosecuted soley on the presence of 3 images. In every case there were significant additional items of evidence (chat logs, stories, e-mail etc.) I am aware of cases where an individual was using automated software to decode pornography posted to usenet and possessed several pornographic images of children, but was not prosecuted. It was clear by the contents of his machine that the child pornography was incidental to the adult porn that he downloaded, classified, and kept. On the other hand, there was a case where an individual was successfully prosecuted for possesion of 3 nude(not sexually explicit) pictures of children. This was due to the large collection of pedophilic stories and journal entries also present on his machine. The justice system is generally (with some notable exceptions)not patient with people who waste it's time bringing cases to trial that are without merit, so a great deal of care goes into picking what to prosecute.
---
Let's not forget that all this is about someone's private life. If he has commited a crime (he's not been found guilty yet!), he'll be judged and condemned for it. Well, hopefully. Otherwise he'll be freed. Well, hopefully.
None of this is my business. So I'll just shut up.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
If you even think for one second that ANY 13-year-old is mature enough to make rational decisions about sex, you outgh to get your thick skull checked, you idiot.
How the hell can you call this a witch hunt??? This is a known and effective way of capturing people who directly solicit young children for sex. You tell me how many more stories YOU want to hear about some girl who ran away with a man 3 times her age, raped her, and threw her out the door. I'd rather guard against sick assh*les like that than "protect people's freedom."
No one should be scared of interacting with kids if they have nothing to hide.
Sorry, but I don't see anything more insightful here than what your hear in your local pub from "réactionnaire" drunks.
..... the rest of the persons achivements?
For example if your favourite writer was reveald to be a child molester could you still enjoy his/her books?
And yes, I am delighted to see one of those, forgive me the strong wording, censorship companies getting problems of this nature. Nice irony.
Yep, better this way ... still it will give more food to censor-happy freaks, who, I believe, are closet pedophiles, just like, according to a psychological study, a lot of homophobics actually have homosexual tendencies.
Also, that guy is filthy rich and can hire the attorneys he needs; now think about the little guy who will be caught thusly ... Think OJ Simpson ...
Oh dear, I can't believe it. The timing just seems so incredibly perfect !
/.ing to all.
Wherever this (rather muddy) story ends up, I can't help noticing the fact that it is brought to public attention just after Disney's acquired Infoseek and decided to set up its new "kids-safe" portal GoGuardian.
Even more flabbergasting [tm] is the fact that this scandal rises just as Disney launches its "SafeSurfing week" in Europe. This campaign is aimed at "giving children and parents basic tips of safety on the internet". Paedophilia is among its primary subjects...
This is no conspiracy stuff. I simply find it extremely amusing to see those oh-so-virtuous people discovering wolves in thir own shepherds.
Thomas
Happy
First of all, the issue is not 'should (or are) 13 year olds having sex' -- I'm 21, and growing up, I had several friends who were parents at that age, so whether or not anyone believes 13 year olds *should* be having sex, at least some *are* having sex.
The issue, however, is should *an adult* have sex with a thirteen year old. Understanding, of course, that in this society, adults have a hell of a lot more power than anyone under the age of 18. The legal answer is no, and my personal answer is no.
It is unfortunate that worthy people are scared to be around/help/mentor children for fear of being branded as a child molester. The number of people who are accused of (never mind arrested and convicted for) child sexual abuse is very low compared with the number of people who are around children. Very very few of these are completely unfounded. Hence it's a risk, but a very small one, especially if the adult in question acts responsibly and doesn't even go into grey areas (discussing sex, etc. and it's also unfortunate that our society is so screwed up over sex that many adults can't conceive of, much less parcipate or allow others to participate, in intelligent conversations about sex, but that's *not* the fault of sexually abused children, nor the adults that wish to protect them).
There are many more child molesters that go unpunished than innocent people punished for being child molesters.
And in this case, by all accounts that I've seen, 'mentoring' was not even a possibility.
It's both the value and curse of our media. Things explode even before there is a chance for our legal system to decide one way or another.
True, we have to give credit to law enforcement officials for a "job well done," but everyone has rights, including alleged pedophiles. I think one of the ways our legal systems need revamping is in how it goes about releasing this sort of information.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the freedom of information, but freedom at the cost of destroying a life? Who knows for certain what this guy did? All we have our reports from an organization who lives and breathes by finding these kinds of monsters, but who's to say that Naughton is until a judge or jury decides?
At least keep the poor schlep's name confidential.
--jeddz
13 year old girls should be out playing with their dolls, not being manipulated by old men. I just hope this whole event is focused on Naughton and not the internet. The internet is a medium, it is people with bad intentions who do bad stuff in that medium. The rest of us are not children and we would thank the law makers to recognize that the problem is the people who break the laws and not the medium that allows them to do it. Most of us are responsible. Please live with the fact that you cannot catch them all and cracking down on the medium is only going to hurt the larger population without affecting the bad guys one bit.
If you replace the internet with any other medium for doing bad you get the same thing. Guns can kill people, the internet can proliferate violence against children (and adults), knives can be used to kill, etc etc etc. Taking away the internet (or heavily regulating it) will not stop the child molesters, it will simply force them into another medium. We have to accept that bad things will happen and in a free society you can't stop EVERYONE. The only way to stop everyone is to take away all freedoms. If there is freedom, someone, somewhere is going to take advantage of it and use it for their own personal gain. This is why we have law enforcement. They will never end crime all together, they are simply there to keep things peaceful.
We must accept our freedom with two caveats:
1. We must defend it.
Politicians are on the front lines and get a lot of messages coming from many directions. Victims are justified in lobbying for tougher penalties and stricter regulation. However the politicians need to hear our side of the story to remind them that although we agree and deeply sympathize(SP?) with the victims, it is the criminals who broke the law and not the medium they broke it in. This is why Rob started "Your Rights Online".
2. There will always be people who will break the law.
Accept the fact that there will always be someone who is going to break the laws for their own personal gain (or some other twisted reason the shrinks can sort out later). In fact, being able to break the laws is an important "right" in itself. Civil disobedience is an important driver for social and political change. When stealing a small item at a convenience store results in the death penalty, the price of civil disobedience will simply be too high and that "right" will effectively go away. The best defense is to be vigilant and defend yourself when necessary. You could defend yourself as easily as calling 911 or in an extreme sense with a gun.
Thank you for your time.
-Chuck
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
I found this news pretty damn funny, actually. Two important things to note:
1) Everyone on IRC but myself is an FBI agent.
2) "hotseattle" is one hell of a funny nick.
- E
Don't forget comatose patients. They can't give consent either.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I am the person who submitted this story to Slashdot. When I first ran across the headline "Infoseek Exec Arrested" I was very uninspired to read the story. Something in my head told me to continue, however.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that the executive in question would be Patrick Naughton.
I am a 3rd year computer science major, but while I was still in high school I was not very serious about computer science. (I just coded for kicks.) That all changed when I read a 1995 (?) issue of InternetWorld. Inside was the greatest interview I'd ever read... a techy, smart conversation with a Starwave executive.
This exec freely stated his opinions on Microsoft, Java, the Internet, and the future of technology. He was brilliant, fun, and clever. He was who I wanted to be.
I changed my entire perspective on code, software, computer science. I looked at things analytically... I decided to do things the Right Way. All thanks to an interview with Patrick Naughton.
Now, it may sound stupid to many, but this man indirectly changed my life. That's why this whole situation is pretty difficult for me. All of his accomplishments, in the eyes of many, are nonexistant. He was a pioneer in Java. He wrote the original Hot Java browser. He went on to lead Starwave, a company that pushed the boundaries of web site design and content. He then settled in a comfortable position at Infoseek. A hell of a life, filled with lots of money and accomplishments.
But that probably won't mean much anymore.
I'm sorry for you Patrick. Thank you for changing my life. I only wish that you'd have shown better judgement in your own.
Pomme de Terre
In New Mexico the age of consent is 17, not 13.
Ahh, quite right. In particular I missed 30-9-11 F.
Anyway, my question was entirely academic, and I could have used [insert fictional state where AOC is
It's interesting and even a bit startling to note how widely the AOC varies from place to place. In Canada, where we are very Americanized, the age of consent is 14, which is much lower than most states. There is also a fairly significant philosophical implication here, as well: lawmakers pick arbitrary numbers that are used to define society's code of ethics.
Jason.
I'm almost with you on this, except that he supposedly tried to meet up with her in California having travelled down from Seattle for this purpose. That's taking role playing to excess I would think. If she had (pretended to be) 16, I would say that the little slut was asking for it, but 13 ? You would have to be a pretty disturbed 37 year old to want to fuck a 13 year old - they're just not ripe at that age.
Please read my posts about this man. I trust law enforcement about as much as you do. I consider prison rape one of the most disgusting abuses of power allowed and accepted by the people of this country. (Citizen Redneck says, "Let's make sure that that car thief gets sexually abused in the most degrading ways possible." Why? So that when he gets out of prison he'll be a murderer or other violent criminal? I don't understand people.)
Remember, Republicans who claim to be (note the small l) libertarians because they like some Libertarian ideas are not Libertarians. They just want to get the Libertarian vote. I doubt real, registered Libertarians can stomach this kind of abuse by the FBI. I certainly can't.
Of course the true beauty of the kind of public accusation levelled against Naughton is that if you oppose it for any reason you are apt to get labelled as a pedophile yourself. Salem-style witch hunt's have been back in a big way for a while in this country, you may see Libertarians who are afraid to point out just what a huge abuse of the legal system the FBI is guilty of here, for fear Naughton will be convicted and they'll find they have been defending the rights of a pedophile.
Incidentally, I've noticed a number of fist time posters with this post, I wonder who they are and why this story brought them here.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Here is the Jacobsen vs United States case involving the man targeted in a child porn sting. Even though he was convicted and every appeal along the way affirmed the government's case, the Supreme Court agreed that the investigation as conducted was entrapment.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
What they did was decide that this guy traveling so far... screw how far - he could have walked accross the street... to meet what he believed was a 13 yr old, and don't think for a second he thought it was some hairy 45 yr old guy ready to ram him, was enough intent. Enough of an attempt.
I havent seen the chat transcripts, but this guy obviously thought she was 13. According to his porn files, some Jay Leno looking guy in leather wasn't his bag.
Surely his guilt could be proven basing it on his actions and not whether the FBI provided a small child in a parking lot to meet him.
While I agree that paranoia about child molestation has in some cases gone too far (to wit, "recovered memory" psychology, but that's another rant), this just isn't one of those cases.
I agree that an 18-year-old sleeping with a 16-year old is no problem (and I say this as a (barely) legal adult in a relationship with someone who is (barely) a minor), and as several people have pointed out, the law usually makes exceptions in those cases. Even if such cases aren't covered by the letter of the law, nobody enforces the law in such situations, not even the child-molestation demagouges. That would just be ridiculous, and everyone knows it.
This, on the other hand, is totally different. She was 13, he was 34! Sorry, that's not the same as the difference between me and my girlfriend. For crying out loud, she was still busy being born when he was old enough to drink! One can quibble about the age of consent, and the maximum age difference underneath it, but 13 is just out of the question, as is a 21-year age difference. A 13-year old simply cannot be regarded as an emotional and psychological adult when it comes to handling sexual advances from a middle-aged man.
If he really did what the FBI says he did (and, although the case agains him looks pretty bad, let us not forget the presumption of innocence), I have absolutely no qualms about sending him to jail for as long as the law provides. This case, at least, is no witch-hunt. The laws about this were written for exactly this sort of situation, and to fail to punish this sort of behavior would be unconscionable.
So, while I agree that there are some issues with our current shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach to child molestation charges, this is hardly the case to be fighting these issues over.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
But of course, what a wonderful idea! Why attempted murder, that's not a crime at all! If somebody's about to kill somebody, then of course the police have no right to arrest him/her whatsoever.
Aside from the absurdity of not arresting somebody for trying to comit a crime, there's also the fact that they found kiddy porn on his laptop, the search for which he consented to.
-Laktar, a.k.a. Nick Rosen, laktar.dyndns.org
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord:
69. All midwives will be banned from the realm. All babies will be delivered
at state-approved hospitals. Orphans will be placed in foster-homes, not
abandoned in the woods to be raised by creatures of the wild.
-- Peter's Evil Overlord List, http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
Huh?
However, it is not illegal to take pictures of naked children, as long as they aren't "sexually explicit". I read a news article a long time ago about pictures of Brooke Shields. Her mother signed a contract with a photographer, who then took pictures of her before and during a bath. Rather gross if you ask me, but then I don't understand lots of what people call "art."
Where does art end and crime begin?
That doesn't stop anyone from discussing what he is or deserves if he's found guilty, we should just be careful to qualify our statements with "if he's guilty" or speak in general terms. Most people seem to be doing this, actually.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
I don't think they have much to nail him on for the following reasons:
1. It would probably be easy to show that the agent's chatting characteristics (they way she wrote, what she wrote, intelligence, maturity etc.) were not consistent with that of a 13 y/o thus leadig 'hotseattle' (he should get time for the nick) to believe he's talking to someone more mature then they pretend to be.
2. When was the last time anyone in a chat believed what they were told by someone else? There is no concrete way in a chat to know who you're talking to. Just because she said she was 13 does not make it true. People tend to fib alot in chats. This FBI story makes this point even more salient.
3. It would be arguable that even if the FBI agent had sent him a photograph of her 13 y/o self or any other 'evidence' he still had no real way of knowing her true age.
4. I doubt the FBI had a 13 y/o waiting for him in LA. It would be easy for him to claim that when he saw an adult waiting he decided to go ahead with it. Had he seen a 13 y/o he would have backed out bla bla bla.
In summary, he can claim a zillion things stemming from the fact that there is no way for anyone to know who they are chatting with in a chat room.
BTW is possesion of child pornography (for personal use only, of courseThe only punishment he will get is a nuked career....
Not that I chat online all that much, but sheesh it seems like if you are into cyber-sex you'd have to be very careful these days.
Yes, the article says the FBI agents repeated said they were 13, as part of their phoney persona, but when did they say it? And even so, does that count? It was chat, there was no way of actually verifying age - and much of online chat is about role-playing and fantasy (how many cyber sex females are actually female).
Suppose you meet someone online, engage in some pretty crazy fantasy, and want to pretend she is a teenager. She says she is 13. She is really an overweight housewife of 45. Have you done anything illegal? Not in my book.
This guy probably did in fact believe the girl he was talking to was 13, but that is a very fine line to walk. It is quite a bit different than an adult man trying to seduce a teenager in the real world.
Now granted, attempting to actually meet (real world) someone you met online, that you believe is 13, for the purposes of engaging in sexual activities, is pretty damned shady. But still, did he actually do anything?
The idea of getting arrested for a crime you might have committed is frankly very Orwellian. But there does appear to be quite a lot of lee-way in the American judicial system in this regard. Prostitution busts follow the same pattern. The Jon's are arrested for soliciting prostitution, in a situation in which a prostitute is not even present - it's a cop. The Jon is effectively arrested for his intent, what he thought the situation was, not based on the reality of the situation. One cannot actually solicit prostitution from a police officer (at least I hope not).
I don't know much about the legal precedents surrounding these sorts of things, but it seems to me that this sort of thing is getting out of hand.
I know, kiddie porn sucks, pedaphiles should be arrested - but only for committing actual crimes. I don't believe the framers of the constitution had in mind this bizarre form of preventative law enforcement.
Well if you've ever seen Jeremy Ellison in an interview at his house you know that the guys who run successful internet businesses are pretty wierd. We're talking perfectly spaced shirts, Pluto wierdness. Wierdness seems to be a prerequisite to gamble your life on something as percarious as internet startups and they're wierdness just somehow attracts fbi agents.
Anyway, my question was entirely academic, and I could have used [insert fictional state where AOC is ...
:)
That is: [insert fictional state where AOC is
*sigh* I even used < and it previewed correctly.
Jason.
I'm curious enought to post. According to the other articles, comments posted here disappear.
We shall see.
I wonder what's going on? Where's Arthur C. Clarke when you need him? I'm sure he could explain this.
Go spend some time over at www.religioustolerance.org especially in their section on "Sadistic Ritual Abuse." This epidemic DOES NOT EXIST. Innocent people's lives were completely ruined by this, both the alleged offenders who have at best had their reputations destroyed, and at worst are still rotting in jail. And the kids who now believe thanks to improper questioning by well-meaning therapists that they HAVE been abused are going to be screwed up probably for life.
I know, I'm ranting. But since I am bisexual and pagan (two strikes against me, right?), and I am also a survivor of sexual assault, this issue puts me on a reallllly short fuse. Hell, I'm supposedly more of a risk to kids because I *am* a survivor. This is insane.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
"[insert fictional state where AOC is _less than or equal to_ 13]"
:)
:)
Geez, slashdot's brokenness is making me look dumb.
I'm using [amp]lt; and it's previewing fine, but it's broken once it gets posted. Moderators, do your job on this subthread.
Jason.
The Man can provide the opportunity to do a crime. What they cannot do it provide encouragement or somehow otherwise force or draw someone into performing an illegal act that they wouldn't do without the Fed's involvement.
For example, providing an opportunity for someone to solicit a 13 year old is not entrapment, because the scumball in question took the initiative. Note that what's important here is the subject's intent and their belief -- I don't actually have to intend to kill a guy's wife for him o break the law by hiring me to do so, so long as he believed that I was a professional killer. I add this in because some moron actually posted that this was roleplaying. Yeah.
In any event, everyone protesting that this pedophile's rights were violated really needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves where their "privacy" rights end and the rights of their 13 year old daughter or sister or whatever not to be sexually fsck'ed up for life begin.
This guy needs to be removed from any position to hurt kids. I know some of you are so jaded from hearing politicians talk about "protecting children" that you can't see the forest for the trees anymore, but this is actually a case of protecting children from a sick individual.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
These kind of cases tend to make me feel a bit sick. And not necessarily because of the fact that pedophilia is despicable.
/. and they were almost worse. From the artcles I saw no real conclusive evidence that the man *hadn't* seen it all as a "roleplay". Now I don't have the IRC logs, so I can't really make a judgement here. The point is, neither does anyone else. (Unless you work for the prosecution or so.)
Not too long ago there was a case about an alledged pedophile here in Lund where I study. (He was a researcher at some liberal-arts institute.) Apparently they had found child-pornography on his work computer and thus he was prosecuted. The papers naturally made a big deal out of it and he seemed to be very guilty. (His name was never mentioned, but since he was no longer allowed to work at school it wouldn't be hard for someone to work out who he was.) The papers had some stuff about how he had told someone that the pictures where "research" and then given a different story to the police.
Later on it turns out he had been on leave for about half a year. During this period of time he hadn't been using his computer very much naturally. This did, unexpectedly not appear in very many headlines.
My point is that I find these witchhunts that the media persue again and again to be in some cases worse than the crimes. The current "witch" at least in Sweden are pedophiles, formely they have been BBS-junkies (who were alledgly bombmaking terrorists). Similarities can for instance be seen in Littletown with goths. (I'm not making any claims about goths' sexual preferences or anything of that kind here.)
Why is it that so much of todays media are sensational? Why does todays news have to be more gruesome than yesterdays? And why do so many people put up with it?
And then I read some of the comments here on
Another thing that frightens me a bit is that the guy is mentioned with full name, occupation etc. Even if he is found innocent he will be marked as "pedophile" for the rest of his life. So sue the papers you say, but will that make his life better? It's not as if he has a shortage of money.
I'm not condoning his alledged actions. I'm not trying to say that pedophiles are "only misunderstood people ". I am trying to say that with all the new technology we have at our hands today it becomes easy to pump out news at a rapid rate. And for many more people to see the same news than ever before. (Not that I'm telling you something new here.)
Unfortuantely it also seem like many people fail to understand that there are actually people behind those news. And it often seem as if the reporters don't remember that either. So before you start lighting up the tourches and marching off to burn a new witch, make sure it's not some innocent old lady.
The thing about Thailand is that the government is pretty much allowed to do whatever they want and the people don't have constitutional rights like they do here. So, instead of pedophilia being less common than it is here, it is more so.
Just one of the many reasons why I'm against a government which isn't accountable to its people. If you want more, and more horrible crime, let the government be of men and not of laws. Naughton was an executive at a big company. If he were director of the FBI, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted along these lines right here in the USA and "none could call his power to account" (to quote Macbeth), right? At least it seems that way to me, and that's why I've been complaining about the way they've handled this case in my other posts.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
In the words of kyle from south park:
...
Thats pretty f***ed up.
IRC, chatting with teens, executive vp, too much time on his hands ? Hmm or maybe not enough time on his hands
Moderate this up. People need to read this.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
(Well, I've heard that's he's *somebody's* favourite author!)
Seriously though, is there any reason to believe that this guy actually molested any children? I don't really want to see the FBI out there trolling so they can bust somebody for thoughtcrime.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You know, I'm pretty sure there are decent, non-paedophilic homosexuals out there and that they are just as good at being scout leaders to unprejudiced children with unprejudiced parents as heterosexuals are.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
16 & 18 is VERY different from 13 & 34. VERY different. I agree that statuatory rape laws and the like should be changed to include some kind of at least 4 year difference thing as well, but posessing kiddy porn and going to meet and have sex w/ a 13 year old girl are things that should get this guy a long jail sentence.
-Laktar, a.k.a. Nick Rosen, laktar.dyndns.org
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord:
8. After I kidnap the beautiful princess, we will be married immediately in a
quiet civil ceremony, not a lavish spectacle in three weeks' time during
which the final phase of my plan will be carried out.
-- Peter's Evil Overlord List, http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
yeah, except if you're 19 or over, the age of consent ups to 18....
my 18 year old brother almost got himself arrested and charged when his girlfriends parents found out how old he was, she was 14 but looked older and lied about her age. but if he was 17 he could nail her all he wanted.
thats just warped.
Gnothe se Auton
The point is they are trying to PREVENT it from happening to any 'potential' child by a person who is obviously interested in doing it.
I have three siblings, 6, 14, and 17. It brings tears to my eyes to even IMAGINE what kind of pain it would bring to them for something so horrible to happen. NOBODY deserves to be coerced, manipulated, and convinced into a situation like that, child or not. Children have more of a disadvantage at being able to deal with the situation, tell their story, and move on. Adolescent girls (and boys) have so many hormones, emotional changes, and physical changes going on that they aren't sure what to think of sexual things... and to have someone completely trash them for life (or even CONSIDER it) like this just is not okay.
I don't think "everybody does it" is a good excuse, porn or sex.
In a better society, they would have detected that guys massive problem and put him under medical treatment. Here he gets directly sent to jail (maybe not, because he has money).
The same holds for drug problems, where it is not as clear to me, when someone is a criminal or when someone is sick, as it seems to be clear for certain other folks. Compare attitudes in the US and the Netherlands to see what I mean. If it were an easy problem/distinction, we already had a nice solution for treating such people. But it is not. It is a hard problem.
I pulled my kid out of the scouts when I learned his scoutmaster had outed himself as a heterosexual. I don't want my kids exposed to that kind of thing.
If it's true, then he needs to be put away. There aren't too many things much more disgusting than kiddie porn in my book!
Affidavit here. IF what the FBI says is true, looks like they did it correctly. No telling if this actually happened in the manner stated by the SA without full transcripts and traffic logs.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I say this because where I used to work, a fellow came in one time and told me that when he was in the military, he got busted in a foreign country for drug something or other and then extradited to the US. He was placed in federal prison because it really wasn't any state's problem.
That's why there are laws that specifically contain language to indicate that state lines were crossed.
And yet it also pleases me and seems right that what is of value and wisdom to one man seems nonsense to another -Hesse
jmp100 wrote:
...).
>I read a news article a long time ago about pictures of Brooke Shields. Her mother
>signed a contract with a photographer, who then took pictures of her before and during a
>bath. Rather gross if you ask me, but then I don't understand lots of what people call "art."
That would be the film Pretty Baby, written and directed by the late Louis Malle. In the context of portraying Keith Carradine's character's sexual interest in young girls, the character played by the young Brooke Shields is portrayed fully nude. It was intended to be shocking. While such a film might not be made today, it was completely legal under the pornography laws in place in 1978 (and probably still is, except in Kansas
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Are you trying to imply that gay people are paedophiles, or are more likely to be paedophiles? C'mon! Give us a break, this is the most ridiculous unfounded prejudiced biggotted accusation I have read for a long long while...
It does look that way. If you'd read the article at all (or perhaps a little more closely), you'd have seen that he's been charged with crossing state lines with intent to have sex with a "minor."
The question isn't whether or not he's been charged with breaking a law, but whether or not the law should have been there for him to be charged with breaking.
(Yes. We shouldn't have to wait until someone actually molests a child before we get them out of society.)
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
C'est la vie...
Anyway, obviously Nicolas and I are morons in your view and not only that, we're sick morons because we're "siding with" the accused. Fuck, I don't know why we even go on living.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
In New Mexico the age of consent is 17, not 13. Also, since this guy crossed state lines, he can be charged with a Federal crime, not simply a state crime. So, even if this "13 year-old" had been from New Mexico, he still would have been in big trouble.
Sig goes here
On what do you base that claim?
It may be unfair / unprovable, but certainly credible claims have been made that they are not above putting incriminating evidence onto hard drives to ensure a conviction. (Or keeping hard drives full of business-critical data with the threat or intention of putting people out of business, ala Steve Jackson.)
And kiddie porn seems an obvious choice for a smear tactic. If you want to make someone look bad, put some kiddie porn on their hard drive -- how effective are denials, after it comes out that someone has even been *suspected* of that?
Kiddie porn == bad, clearly.
But I think it's prudent to consider the history of distortions and advantage-taking that US (for instance) law-enforcement bodies have in prosecuting people. No doubt there are many ethical, well-intentioned people in the FBI etc, but the events of the past several weeks should at least make you raise your eyebrows a few times.
Eh?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
...this news bite appears and a couple of minutes later it is pulled from the index page. The title changes from "Patrick Naughton Jailed" to "Patrick Naughton Arrested" and the story remains off the index page in spite of a new news link being added to it.
While the initial title was incorrect, and thus irresponsible journalism, having something yanked off Slashdot is just to wierd for me. Something that is a valid news article is hotter than publishing information on how to access people's personal email when the Hotmail crack was released?
How does that work? The Slashdot community wants to know this story. Tell us little people who slapped your wrists and what next.
-------
Oh, and convicted pedophiles deserve all that they get. I can't comment on the FBI procedures as they seem the only way to track down this kind of crime. I wouldn't like my privacy violated in this kind of way but... No. Heinous crime is heinous crime.
Intent to commit a crime is just as guilty as committing the crime. You need to read about more drug busts. And other crime investigations. Because believe me, this is common. FBI agents play undercover to get drug deals all the time. And the drug traffickers are arrested and tried. No difference.
Still, I would not want such a person in charge of a major internet infrastructure, but that has already been taken care of by Infoseek and Disney.I disagree with this. If Infoseek dismissed him because he committed a crime, that's wrong. You are innocent till proven guilty. However, I suppose there are many reasons you can dismiss someone. If they are in jail or on trial, it's hard to have a job.
-Brent--
NEWSFLASH: Most teenagers in the US are sexually active WAY before the age of 18.
Very true. Usually with someone else who's also under 18. The kids in my high school (not I, alas) did an awful lot of screwing around with each other at 15, 16 and 17. Even 13 and 14, sometimes.
The point is that there's a pretty big difference between a 14-year-old hitting on a 13-year-old and a 34-year-old hitting on a 13-year-old. While I agree that age-of-consent laws can be pretty screwed up, most of the problems can be fixed with "sliding window" rules: e.g. if you're over 18 and she's under 18, but there's only two years' difference between your ages, then you're okay. Under no circumstances should it cover a twenty-year age gap, which represents an incredible imbalance of power.
Not that I support the truly sick pedophiles out there that prey on children, but I can't help but wonder what this modern-day witch-hunt has done to discourage good people with a lot to offer youth groups and their members from participating.
Your point would be better taken if the evidence in this case were a little more ambiguous. As it is, Naughton doesn't seem to have much room to claim that he didn't know what he was doing, or that the police snookered him into it. I find it hard to weep.
The Fatty Arbuckle thing looks like it is exactly what I was talking about. Naughton will be scarred for life whether he is guilty or not.
I really don't get the reference to the Salem Witch Trials. How does dunking a person, if they drown they were innocent, relate to me thinking there isn't a lot of points to argue in this case?
Of course a lawyer with a enought money can probably come up with quite a few things I can't.
--
?
Scoutmaster Bob who does his best to hide his tendencies. I dont see how you can make pedophilia == homosexuality as most child offenders go both ways on kids, depending on what they can find. Not to mention how heavily watched a gay scoutmaster would be.
The joys of camping...
The FBI Released a TRANSCRIPT: NAUGHTON: I've got a GO GUARDIAN in my PANTS LITTLE GIRL: I want to TURN ON GO GUARDIAN!
I worked last summer at seek and I was there when the Starwave merger was released and Naughton was given the VP job. Basically he was a bastard and pushed everyone arround. Since then people have been leaving SEEK like rats off a ship.
Oh.. and a java genious he was not..
i hope the sick bastard gets screwed in a very uncofortable place
- not like the back of a Volkswagon
"I'm like an opening band for the sun" -Pearl Jam ; Yield ; Push Me , Pull Me
In many other societies the age of consent is 11,12,or 13 years of age. I heard a story of a couple who were married in mexico, the man was 18 or 19, the women I think was 13. Anyhow they came to the US to live with the girl's parents. A couple months pass, one of her teachers discovers out what was going on and the man was arrested.
Im not saying I particularly agree with the views of that society or not. I don't see how you can make a particular view of any one culture into law in a country that is supposed to be a "melting pot" of cultures. As long as you do not infringe on someone else's rights in the expression of your culture I don't see why it should be considered "wrong" in the eyes of the law.
It is actually an easy task to set somebody up.
What the authority has to do is to arrest someone, confiscate his computers, and then, in some government lab somewhere, announced something like "We found kiddie-porn materials inside."
Hey, all it takes is two diskettes filled with kiddie-porn jpeg pictures and the guy's reputation is ruined forever.
Think about it, will you?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
One thing that was good about slashdot back in the day was that you could be certain that no "outside forces" were going to affect what stories were posted. Here it seems as tho someone upstairs didn't like this story--considered it Too Hot to be on the front page of slashdot.
This doesn't look good. I, of course, give Rob and Crew the benefit of the doubt, that maybe it is a bug of some sort, and the story will be reposted/linked a little later.
If it isn't, I will have to rethink why I read slashdot. I don't want "Filtered news for nerds, stuff that isn't Too Hot".
I guess we will have to wait and see.
This sig is false.
True, Role playing is not a crime. However, child porn is (unless you're in British Columbia, Canada). He sent porn to a child, and that also is a crime. Although, it wasn't actually a child, was it. Crimminy, this is where internet law goes fuzzy. But they had enough reason to get a warrant to search his computer, found child porn, which is illegal in all states I think, and that's it.
p.s. maybe now they'll untweak all the search engines so that they don't return porn sites when you do a search for practically anything....
We must remember that it wasn't his fault. He was actually the helpless victim here. He has a sexual addiction that he can not control. It's a sickness, not a choice. From what I've heard, it all stems from that fact that his he didn't have a stable childhood becuase he both his mother and grandmother wanted to care for him. It's really sad. I think the FBI should be offering help for him, check him into therapy not co-arranging visits to CA so that they can arrest him! :)
Just so you don't accidentally mislead some one: the age of Consent in New Mexico is 16. No one really bothers with this law there, but that is the law and if you are over 18 you sure give it some thought. They might not proscecute you if you are under 18, I don't know, I did not try to find out.
"Alt-F4 that's for quitting" quoth Dan_Wood
It's very interesting to note how old the sting agent said she was. If she had said 14, instead of 13, then Patrick Naughton would not be suspected of anything in 2 States in the US (24 Countries also would not prosecute). If the FBI agent had said 15 then Patrick would not be accused of a crime in 5 states (and many Countries).
Check out ageofconsent.com to find out the Age of Consent in your country/state.
I think it would be interesting to see how old the slashdot readers were when they "lost it". But more interesting might be how old their significant other would have been. There's a big difference between a sexually active 13 year old, and a 35 year old who would have sex with that person. I'm not trying to take any position on the subject. I don't know what Patrick did, I don't like that he was set up - but I don't know if he is a child offender. It might turn out that he has a child molestation ring that he runs.
Joseph Elwell.
There are two missing threads in this discussion:
1) A whole schwack of msgs re:Entrapment - was it or wasn't it? while his possession of kiddie porn is mentioned but not really discussed. Excepting the good question about the difference between porn and documentation. (My answer to this one would be context, of which I haven't seen enough evidence of in this story to judge for myself)
2) What's the relationship between the so-called 'stereotypical' computer geek who has problems socializing face to face with members of the other human species and sexually aberrant behaviour?
(Probably offtopic)
Wonder if the FBI agents sold their Infoseek stock before arresting this guy.
Hands in my pocket
Notice how that the sick idiots who are replying to this article with messages such as 'I like 13 year old's too' or 'legalise child pornography' are all posting as anonymous cowards?
For the record my name is Rob Casey - I live in Melbourne, Australia - and I think that those of you who truly believe that Naughton did nothing wrong are yourselves maligned.
Rob (aka. DoctorBob)
I hope he gets put away for a long time, though. Soliciting an FBI agent for sex is just SICKENING.
Um, I don't exactly recall a waiver being signed by the ones being herded into the slaughter house either.
Is consent the only issue you have against animal sex? I mean, if you trained a sheep (with food treats) that being sex0r3d was good, and it 'consented' (didn't need to be held down) would beastiality suddenly be okay?
No, I'm not an animal rights freak, and I enjoy a good steak. I just thought it was funny that you didn't like animal sex, simply because they can't consent. (Like, he lusts after them, but except for ones trained to sign, he's too polite to simply assume that they want him.
I'm not going to debate whether or not he should be sent away if this is true, it's beyond debate and you need to ask yourself some serious questions if you think he didn't intend to commit a heinous crime if it is all true.
I've got a much more esoteric question. How do people do this stuff? I'll open up and admit that I was well in to my highschool years before I learned a lot of things about girls, I never knew how to tell if they liked you, I had no confidence, I couldn't read their body language, I never knew how couples became couples. I guess my social expectations were all screwed up or something, I was a nerd (I still am but more ladies like me now..;) I admit it. I don't think I'm alone in this group. I was a social late bloomer and I can still be really intimidated by women and I know am one of the most unorthodox dates most women ever experience. Anyway's I kind of figured things out and I'm still learning, it took a while but it happened. There is totally a learning process that you have to go through.
Now IRC throws me for a loop. I've been on there before, usually in technical forums or some kind of geek related stuff, I've never spent hours on it. I've gone in to one or 2 "social" channels and I was blown away, there was so much talk and I couldn't follow it all, it seemed like everyone knew each other already. Guys were acting like girls, I don't know if any girls were there, I don't know how old anyone was, it was far more intimidating to me. On top of that, I'm in the know, I knew there were sexual predators out there and I knew there were guys pretending to be girls and tons of deception. When I talk to a real woman face to face I don't know what to say sometimes, I had no idea what-so-ever what to say to a virtual maybe-it-a-woman. How do people arrange these sexual encounters on IRC? I've heard of people getting married to IRC friends and stuff like that. I'm not really interested in trying it, I just want to know how it happens. It seems really uncondusive to a romantic relationship with a woman. Am I just that much more sexually and socially reserved than most people? Is it close to the same level as soliciting a prostitute? I'm much more fascinated by a woman than by sex, I've never solicitated a prostitutes because they don't really do it for me but having sex (making love) to a woman I'm really attracted to is far more stimulating. Do you just have to be more trusting to talk to some stranger you can't see on IRC and start a relationship? Or is it just plain sex? or what? It just boggles my mind that this stuff happens. I'm not sure how you'd fall in love on IRC. The beautiful thing about women is their abstract and complicated nature combined with their physical presence, it seems like you'd only get a partial view and that view would be clouded because it would be what they wanted to present.
Does this question make sense to anyone? Or am I just a complete loser and missing out on something? I'm not looking for a pervert's guide or something like that, I'm just curious as to what the relationship entail and what's expected when people meet in chat rooms.
Ok, I'm qouting the entire thing, slap me...
Anyways, I met my fiance on IRC, we both hung out in a channel calld Krynn, a Free Form Role PLaying channel using Ad&D style rules and characters. We happened to end up talking out of character and I said something that caught her eye, I said I prefered women who didn't wear make up. After that we got into a long discussion, it turned out we had a lot in common, liked the same things, and liked each other. After that we were friends for about a year, then somehow we decided we would be a couple... So we talked on the phone, chatted all the time etc.... Then we met for the first time face to face about 1 yr 9 months ago. After that we met several times, visited each others family, stuff like that. 9 months ago at the beginning of this year I moved to baltimore and now we're living together and plan to get married in almost exactly 1 year.
Whenever someone asks me how to find a 'date' online I tell them this, DON'T GO LOOKING FOR DATES ON IRC YOU IDIOT!!! It's just asking for trouble. Instead go to places where you would normally be interested in hanging out, programming channels, RPG or game channels, whatever. Meet people there who have similar interests, eventually one will be female and you can start a conversation and become friends. Also, people in 'normal' channels are less likely to be men impersonating women. The key to finding a relationship is to look for someone who is interested in what you are interested in. However, if you just wanna 'cyber' go hit '#superhotwetsexwitheveryone' or something like that...>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Treatment? Aversive conditioning, perhaps, but not directly connected to the stimulus (i.e., he's in for a rough time).
If things are as they appear, then he should be found guilty. OTOH, the police who "set him up" should also be convicted (soliciting a felony, or some such, I forget the exact term). It's probably a lesser offense, but it still appears to be a criminal act.
If anyone knows of a legal way to effectively treat this kind of problem, they've kept it hidden (but see Rober Anton Wilson's "Promethius Rising", etc. for possible approaches).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He will have a new title to add to his existing stellar credits "short eyes" which is prison slang for child molestors. And from what I understand they are not embraced in the system. So he will likely come out of this more dangerous then when he went in. Is it Madison Avenue that encourages this sick behavior or is it our animal past.
Mark J. Panick -Eat Flaming Death Fascist Media Pigs- Philip Proctor aka Firesign Theatre
Man, how stupid are you? Think. There are real 13 year old girls in chat rooms. It's luck he found a fake 13 year old girl first (assuming this is his first time).
Ahhhh! But are there real 13 year old girls in #0!!!!Father&daughtersex ????? Last time I checked that wasn't a popular place for kids to hang out....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
NEWSFLASH: The second you turn 18 you lose that. You can vote. You can buy cigarettes. You can drive a car without limitiations on the time. You can join the army. You cannot boff teenagers under 18. That's just the way it works.
Let me get this straight:
So you're saying that two underage people (say; 16 and 17) having sex and all is fine, but the minute the 17 year-old turns 18, you just have to STOP because some law tells you to? And then you have to wait for 2 more years 'till miss 16 turns 18, and you can get at it again with no fear of being arrested and burned at the stake for being a SEX OFFENDER?
Is that how it works??
I'm curious if that's really how you think about it...
The Java Handbook, it's ok, I use it a lot but I have better Java books. But I like the Java development history Naughton gives in the epilogue. It's about something which has been fairly important in software (not as important as the hype, but important) by a guy who was there from the beginning.
As to the details of the case: Naughton is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but he's been ruined, probably, no matter what the court outcome is. The publicity surrounding the case has turned it into a "guilty even if proven innocent" situation. This is a case where I wish someone would prevent the FBI from spilling all this stuff to the press before there has been a trial. I mean, it undermines the whole concept of a fair trial for someone to be tried in the press. Of course, Naughton may be guilty of the crimes he has been accused of, but the FBI ought not to be allowed to use the press as a weapon in this way. Trial by public accusation is a violation of due process, anyone think Naughton will have a career at Disney even if this turns out to be a frame job? How about any other prominent place in Silicon Valley?
On a personal note, I do think that parents need to be careful about letting their kids do any of the various forms of chat on the Internet unsupervised. As a veteran former MUCKer, I know the majority of what people tell you online (at least the people I used to hang out with) is lies. I loaned over 700 bucks to a woman I met online and had felt close too for over a year (she was desperate about her rent, she told me) and soon after that she lost interest in me. Needless to say, I never got the money back, but I learned a valuable lesson about the kind of people you can meet on-line.
I hope people will at least wait to see the kind of evidence that is presented to the defense before pre-judging this thing, though. I get suspiscious when prosecutors or police decide to release huge amounts of damaging information to the press. It makes me think they are covering themselves in case it turns out that there was massive impropriety in their case. Remember, this FBI hasn't been looking too good, lately, because of some of the crooked stuff it has pulled. Maybe Naughton looked crosseyed at the wrong politician. I'm not saying it is a case like this, only that it seems odd that they've presented such a heavy case to the press before it has even gone to trial.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
>I'd love to have an out homosexual as my kid's scout leader... NOT.
and why not? I fail to see the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
The answers to your first two questions are no and no. Those photographs do not constitute child pronography because a.) you were not put in a sexually compromissing possition, b.) they were not taken with the intent to distribute for the purposes of sexual arrousal.
Now, on the topic of your third question, at no point in time would those pictures be considered pornographic because they were taken for medical reasons. It is analogous to taking a photograph of a naked corpse. No one is goig to get aroused over that unless there is something seriously wrong with them.
This case is not about documentation vs. pornography, it is about a person who may or may not be guilty of trying to suduce some one below the age of consent in every state in the Union. For the record, I know girls that were sexually mature at the age of 10. Sexual maturity just means that the girl is menstrating, it has nothing to do with emotional and intelectual maturity.
The fine line between pornography and ordinary photography is only difficult to distinguish near the border of art. What is art? What is just meant to get a rise out of the viewer? The reasonable question is: Can you spot a photograph intended to arouse? Most people can.
It is a judgement call in court when presented with photographic evidence as to what is and what isn't. The rule of thumb is: if it is questionable and has underage people in it, it is. If the people in it are all above the age of 18, the legal age where you can sign a contract, then there is no case.
"Alt-F4 that's for quitting" quoth Dan_Wood
Well, duh. If you came out in favor of a position that is not only almost universally condemned, but outright illegal in most jurisdictions, would you post your name? Sick, yes. In need of help, yes. Idiots, no - idiots would've posted with their name.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Everything except the burned at the stake part, yup. Welcome to the wonderful world of adulthood and learning to live with others. Gotta draw that line somewhere, and it's drawn for a reason.
--
I'm curious what the FBI agent puts on his time sheet for all the time he spent on IRC chatting with this guy. Who pays people to pretend they are 13 year old girls looking to meet up with 31 year old guys.
Glad they aren't MY tax dollars.
Fjord. eh.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
> For example if your favourite writer was reveald to be a child molester could you still enjoy his/her books?
Something similar to this happened to me. One of my favourite authors used to be Graham Greene. Then I read his biography, and
found out that he was a philandering hypocrite. After that, everything by him stank of pompous moralizing.
So I would say yes, particularly in the case of a writer or someone else you admire because of the philosophy they espouse.
Alex.
I did give Rob and crew the benefit of the doubt, and I certainly never cried "Slashdot sucks now!" I even appologized to the poster of the story.
But I can't deny that it freaked me out a bit.
This sig is false.
He spends his time at work trying to protect kids and family from the smut of the net and gets nailed for this. Bhahah! Mayby it was research.
I am glad they got the (alleged)slimeball, but Infoseek jumped the gun. I have seen many people ACCUSED of crimes, then found innocent; and they already have had their lives ruined. Infoseek should not have fired him YET. They should have put im on adminstrative leave or something and fired him if it turns out to be true.
Those who open their minds too far often let their brains fall out.
This type of 'story' on Slashdot is a bit sensational, isn't it?
Of course, I don't want anyone to think I'm in support of such dispicable behavior (then again, the guy was only ARRESTED!). Why is it that criminating news is only news before it is actually publicly declared criminal?
I have a hard time figuring out why the words Java and arrested have to appear in the same headline, unless it specifically involves SUN MICRO, especially when I have no idea who the heck this guy is. This is poor, really poor. If I want to see this type of stuff I'd watch FOX news or read ZDNET daily.
Once again, a disclaimer: just about everything about this story makes me sick.
That's an umbrella statement, in addition to being an incorrect one. Just like animals in the wild, not all of them are predatory. Sure, there are some pedophiles who seek out young innocent children who have no predisposition to sexual contact. But just like there are scavenger animals who wait for a weak or dead animal to pounce upon, there are also scavenger pedophiles who look for individuals who are OPEN to sexual contact (for instance someone who's already in a channel called "Father&DaughterSex").
There is quite a difference between the two types of pedophiles, and I assure you they do exist. I see it as an unforgivable crime to molest or seduce a child who is not showing any signs of sexual activity. But let me tell you I was one fucking horny bastard when I was 13, and I know plenty of girls who were just as horny as me, and would have jumped at the opportunity of having sex with an older man. Hell, I know a few who did.
In my eyes there's nothing wrong--awkward, yes, but not wrong--with having consentual sex (yes it is possible) with a minor, no matter what the age. As long as it's fully consentual, age doesn't matter.
So you'd dump your girlfriend just because all of a sudden some law says you have to? Because you crossed some arbitrary line? Don't you at least agree that that is somewhat silly?
Oh, by the way, don't get me wrong: I definitely don't agree with the 13YO - 30+YO thing. No way ever. I just can't imagine you or anyone ditching your girlfriend at your 18th birthday because some law tells you to.
What is says to me is that there are dirty old men in the computing industry, just as there are dirty old men in every industry in the world.
The only difference is that the computer industry, unlike the cement mixing industry or the auto repair industry, is in the face of the average Joe on a daily basis.
I've never met or talked to anyone before, even a PARENT, who thought two years was a big deal. And the AOC laws in my state allow for (IIRC) up to a five-year age difference. At that age, for most kids, five years *is* probably pushing it (it wasn't for me; I was a college sophomore). But there's a big difference between an 18 year old dating a 16 year old, and a 28 year old dating that same 16 year old. *shrug*
Perhaps your sister *is* coloring your opinion here. But have you ever asked HER how she feels, or are you just being overprotective because you think she needs it?
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I don't know because I never dated anyone younger than me. Maybe. I still think it's wrong though.
--
I thought it was pretty weird that at one point in his chat he confused her with another 13 yr old girl who was also an FBI agent!! Just how many agents does the FBI have masquerading as horny teenagers? All of them?
Arrest Jon Katz before he writes an article on the subject!
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Role-playing is fine... I'm sure there's many a person who has had sexual play that's not quite kosher, but there's a difference. This guy was told 'I'm 13 years old' and then he proceeded to discuss sexual fantasies with this person. You just do NOT do that unless you can verify that the person is really a 45 year old housewife with a fetish.
They found kiddie porn on his computer AND he crossed state lines in order to hook up with this girl. That's so, so wrong. Personally, I hope he enjoys the company of his new boyfriends in jail.
I don't think this is a defensible action.
This really makes me glad of one of the things that the ops of one music-chat channel I frequent do. Whenever we notice an underager, we try to befriend them in order to be sure that they can have somebody to talk to who is SAFE. To protect them from these perverts. Unfortunately I know (IRL) somebody who was the victims of one of a pedophilic bastard. After seeing the psychological damage it does, and the condition she was in previous to the abuse, it's quite obvious that pedophiles are a predatory, and dangerous breed.
This will seriously piss some people off, but here goes: NEWSFLASH: Most teenagers in the US are sexually active WAY before the age of 18. I sometimes question the reason behind the US "age of consent" laws. I remember sweating and stressing when I was in high school and I turned 18, but my girlfriend for the last year was still 16. The way these laws are enforced today, I could have been considered a "child sex offender" and forced to register for the next 20 years or whatever. Creepy stuff. Amazing how we in the US are willing to surrender our liberties in the name of doing what's "best for the children."
In the past, I've worked with youth groups that have very strict controls and rules for working with children, including a complete FBI background check. Unfortunatly, the developments over the past years have casued many otherwise good people and mentors to leave the organization for fear of some kid making up a story about abuse and ruining a life.
Not that I support the truly sick pedophiles out there that prey on children, but I can't help but wonder what this modern-day witch-hunt has done to discourage good people with a lot to offer youth groups and their members from participating. Sure, we "may protect the children" from the occaisional bad apple, but at what price? There is no way to measure what kids may be missing from never having the opportunity to meet a potentially great teacher or mentor who is now scared of interacting with kids.
It's illegal in Denmark too. The idea is that the police should provent crimes from happening, not provoke crimes to happen. The counter-argument is that certain kind of criminals (drug dealers) are hard to catch without the use of provocateurs. It is one of the hottest political issues in the justice debate.
It boils down to a difference in how you view humans. Are there basically two kinds of people, good honest citizens who would never commit a crime, and evil criminals who will continue to do bad things until caught? Or is it a spectrum with people in between, who will not normally live an honest life, but may be provoked into doing crimes?
I don't know how much of this debate relates to the present case, there seems to be some evidence against the man, besides his conversation with the provocateur.
With child molestation it's a little different. You don't want to wait until the crime happens, intent should be enough. The general concensus also seems to be that once someone is given to that type of crime, they are damaged and need to be removed from population (maybe forever.) The Polly Klaus law reflects that attitude, once a sex crime has been committed you could very well be labeled a pervert and sex offender for the rest of your life.
I'm totally against thought crime and that sort of thing but I think the right thing was done here. Here is a guy, clearly an intelligent adult human being with lot's of money and power. He has some sexual fetish, not a big deal we've all got some sexual desire which could be labeled fetish by someone. I'm even willing to cut some slack, I've got no problems with someone going on IRC and talking dirty to someone else, even if that other person happens to be a minor. He went above and beyond that, he flew down to LA and went to a place for an expected rendezvous. That's a lot, what other reason could he have been there? He's a pedaphile, he's got a problem, he need's to be isolated from society and he need's to get some kind of help. Did he ask for pictures or a telephone call or make any attempt to find out if she wasn't really 13? The article makes it sound like he was looking for sex with a minor and I would expect the Disney media powerhouse to do everything they could to sugarcoat it.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
Get a clue: his name is Patrick Naughton.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Naughton has written pages and pages of assembly. You want to see some of it? He's no PHB, although he is quite arrogant.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
is very nice
I think my balls
just turned to ice
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
If he only went to somewhere like Thailand to do his dirty buisness. I just wonder about this guy, he sounds like he has a brain but then does the stupidest thing you can possibly think of. On the other hand I wonder how many times he has gotten away with this before.
Vidi, vici, veni. (I saw, I conquered, I came)
My question is how did the fed know which chat rooms he was in? How did the agents know where he was on the internet at any given time? With all the /. stuff about big bro watching, it makes me think for a moment...
-davek
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
If I was Mr.Naughton's attorney's, I wouldn't be at all concerned. The FBI has cornerned themselves. The complete basis for the arrest, and in turn, the case, is the DEFENDANT's mind.
They have to prove that he was aware of the fact that the individual was in fact thirteen. It's one thing to prove an actual crime, but considering all they have (at best) is intent, and at worst, they can't even prove that he didn't know that the individual was older.
Unless they can conclusively prove that he was fully aware of her age (something impossible, considering he didn't know that it was an FBI agent) -- in effect, they'd have to prove that he did know, what he couldn't possibly know.
(Just for the record, I'm not defending his intentions, but legally.... )
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
One wonders how many things like this happen online:
bigweenie: Hey baby, come on over to my place.
imjust14: ok i'll be right over and we can have sex
bigweenie: Yowza! I'll see you soon
imjust14: you're under arrest for soliciting from a minor!
bigweenie: under arrest??? I'm undercover FBI lookie for kiddie pornographers!
imjust14: oops! ha ha!
bigweenie: boy is MY face red! ha ha!
imjust14: let's not tell anyone about this...
One also wonders what all those FBI agents who run around acting like 13 year-olds online and the ones hunting down kiddie porn all day long do in their spare time....
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
Conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, assault. If there's no body there's no murder but there still may be a crime. If I shoot at you and miss its not murder but it is attempted murder. If I hire somebody to kill you and that person is an undercover cop no murder happens but there is a conspiracy to commit murder.
There is a similar gamut of crimes to cover near-offences of child molestation.
I certainly don't condone kiddy porn or people trying to seduce little girls, but I must say I've heard of many instances of people getting arrested for meeting people who claim to be kids on the net, but turn out to be cops, but I can't remember hearing about any actual molestation cases where the molestor met his victim over the net!
Given the media's propensity to over-hype anything net-related, its seems likely that it doesn't happen all that often. My local paper seems to have stories about pedophiles getting arrested every week, but non of them seem to be net-related.
This leads me to the conclusion that most of the "children" trolling for sex on net chat rooms are actually law enforcement officials. Shouldn't they be doing something more useful? Now if these people are actually prodcung child porn, then busting them obviously should have a high priority, but you only hear about these people possessing it, not making it. They probably got it from some FBI troll anyway. It looks to me that the cops like this because they can sit on their butts eating tax-payer doughnuts and look like they're doing something useful.
Bigger question...Was there intent? If so, he's guilty, not of murder but of the lesser crime.
The consent law is more for emotional protection. Despite what some would have you believe, a 13 year old girl is NOT capable of dealing with the emotional aspect of sex.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I have no problem with two underage teenagers going at it in the back of Dad's car... hell, I was there once myself but...
NEWSFLASH: The second you turn 18 you lose that. You can vote. You can buy cigarettes. You can drive a car without limitiations on the time. You can join the army. You cannot boff teenagers under 18. That's just the way it works.
Aside, I think 18 year olds who date 16 year olds have a bit of a problem. I mean, come on! You're telling me you didn't feel at ALL strange with someone TWO years younger than you!? Makes a big difference at that age! Of course, I have a sister two years younger than me that may be coloring my opinion here!
--
NEWSFLASH: Most teenagers in the US are sexually active WAY before the age of 18.
Are you using this as some sort of justification for what he was going to do? "She was menstruating anyway, what's the big deal?"
I remember sweating and stressing when I was in high school and I turned 18, but my girlfriend for the last year was still 16. The way these laws are enforced today, I could have been considered a "child sex offender" and forced to register for the next 20 years or whatever.
Most states' laws provide for cases like this, so long as one partner is within three years' age of the other, which seems reasonable.
I, for one, think these particular laws serve their purpose well.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
From the article, he was caught trying to solicit
sex with a minor. Major no-no. Then, he gave his
consent to have his harddrive searched. They then
found kiddie porn on it! Even worse.
The FBI certainly didn't put the porn on his machine
so he can't try an entrapment defense.
However, since he's probably quite well off due to
his investments and severance packages from Sun plus
any others, he could probably pay for a very good
defense team. OJ anyone?
Lets also not forget that he's innocent until the
court has convicted him.
Sol
i remember a few years ago on IRC i'd find some people looking for netsex, and you pretended to be a 13 year old girl and have interesting netsex with them and then after the kinky show you announce that you're really a 16 year old boy to freak'em out.
But this is killer, you know, instead of "haha! look, i'm a 16 year old male! fooled you, pervert!" it's "haha! i'm an undercover agent! fooled you, criminal!"
The paid ones always take it a little further than most...
fou aje oym asoyf ueyf jaffaq afset su!6j!/\ op 'ua>|7!>| ppn7
Alot of people are trashing the FBI for their methods of catching perverts like this. It however is nothing new.
If you walk up to an undercover cop and try to pay for sex, you'll get arrested for soliciting a prostitute.
This isn't any different, the guy was blatantly solicting sex with a minor, and in my personal flamebait opinion should be put to death slowly and painfully.
Non gratis rodentus anus
At the risk of going against the grain...
I've studdied sexual deviancy to some extent. It was a subject that I started reading about when it was pointed out to me that the function of life was to produce more life, therefore sex is the key to life. This is a reductionist point of view, are are machines to make more machines and our function is to reproduce.
Anyhow, most sexual deviants are helpless to change their orientation. This does not excuse what he did. He should have seeked help, but nobody chooses to be a sexual deviant.
Pedophilia is a paraphilia. Paraphilias can range anywhere from a harmless shoe fetish to a sadistic murderer. Most paraphilias are harmless, and studies suggest that paraphilias are anything but uncommon. The American obsession with breast size is classfied as a paraphilia for example. Pedophilia becomes more uncontrollable as the pedophile ages. It's an evil and chronic condition. If you are a pedophile now, you're going to get worse. Get help.
Don't hate the guy. He's a predator, but it's not his fault. It may not be a popular thing to say, but society does make us what we are. He did not make a decision to be a pedophile. He's as much a victim as a victimizer.
"Potential" criminal? Hey, man, the guy INTENDED to meet with a 13-year-old girl to molest her. What the hell else do you need to be convinced that the guy is a PEDOPHILE? If the report is true that he also had kiddie porn on his 'puter, then that's just about all the evidence I need. No one MADE him do this. He fell into a trap many other sick bastards have fallen for. I can't believe you would be dumb enough to say he probably would have shown up to yell at the kid!!! Wake up, bozo! Would you like to buy a bridge? I have one for sale.
Good riddance to another sicko.
And to think he worked for Disney.....
Okay, here goes.
I'm trying to to get involved in the name calling and blame throwing, since the man is indeed innocent until proven guilty. AFAIKT his major crimes are possession of child pornography and attempting to meet this supposed teenager.
Freeh, the head of the FBI spoke to congress in 1997 about child pornography, and so here are some excerpts:
Sexual exploitation of children involves sexual activity in which the perpetrator receives sexual gratification and may benefit financially, such as through the manufacture and distribution of child pornography. Exploitation may include contacts for sexual purposes, prostitution, pornography, or other sexually exploitative activities. Increasingly, pedophiles and sexual predators are using the Internet and on-line services to target and recruit victims and to facilitate the distribution of child pornography.
Pedophiles often seek out young children by either participating in or monitoring activities in chat rooms that are provided by commercial on-line services for teenagers and pre-teens to converse with each other. These chat rooms also provide pedophiles an anonymous means of establishing relationships with children. Using a chat room, a child can converse for hours with unknown individuals, often without the knowledge or approval of their parents. There is no easy way for the child to know if the person he or she is talking with is, in fact, another 14-year old, or is a 40-year old sexual predator masquerading as a peer. In other instances, a pedophile may use e-mail capabilities to send child pornography to persons who enter a chat room, even though the recipient does not request or want such mail.
Any similarities seen here? Let's continue.
In July 1996, 16 members of a group that often frequented a chat room known as the "Orchid Club" were indicted in federal court on a variety of charges involving the production and distribution of child pornography, as well as conspiracy. A joint investigation by the FBI, the United States Customs Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service determined that individuals used the chat room to arrange for and transmit child pornography. While in the chat room, they also discussed their involvement and desires in molesting children. What was especially significant in this case was that many of those conspirators later admitted active participation in child molestations within each of their own geographic locations.
One subject of the "Orchid Club" case admitted to having sexual attractions to girls age four to ten years old. He also admitted to writing diaries of his sexual desires for children and to secretly videotaping children at playgrounds. During a search of this subject's residence, investigators found approximately 700 floppy diskettes, 100 videotapes, diaries, writings, books, magazines, clippings, and related materials that indicated the subject's sexual interest in children.
This isn't quite the same, but it is an interesting notion.. (assuming he's guilty) would he have eventually progressed to this?
In 1994, the FBI initiated an innovative and proactive investigation, designated as "Innocent Images," to focus on the sexual exploitation of children through the Internet and on-line services. This investigation grew out of our experience in the May 1993 disappearance of George Stanley Burdynski, Jr., a 13-year old, in Prince George's County, Maryland. [snip] As of March 5, 1997, the "Innocent Images" investigation has generated 200 search warrants, 40 consent searches, 81 indictments, 33 informations, 91 arrests, and 83 felony convictions.
The "Innocent Images" Task Force is staffed by agents of the FBI's Baltimore, Maryland, field office, other federal agencies, and investigators from surrounding state and local jurisdictions in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. However, it is estimated that 95 percent of the subjects identified by the "Innocent Images" investigation reside in other states.
My assumption here is that "Innocent Images" was either behind the sting on Naughton or a major contributor of information and tactics.
And finally, from Freeh again to a congressional subcommittee,
Encryption. When I testified last week before the Subcommittee on the FBI's 1999 budget request, I outlined for the Subcommittee a number of challenges facing the FBI as it moves toward the 21st century. One of these challenges is the growing use of encryption by criminals to conceal their illegal activities. The "Innocent Images" initiative has uncovered sexual predators who use encryption in their communication with each other and in the storage of their child pornography computer files. This encryption is extremely difficult, and often impossible, to defeat.
It is essential that law enforcement agencies at all levels of government maintain the ability, through court order, to access encrypted communications and data relating to illegal activity.
I figured I'd just throw in a little encryption debate for you all to chew on.
It strikes me that Naughton has little hope. If he is convicted he'll be very lucky to not get jail time, and his life will be saved if he doesn't. Others have mentioned this already, but it is an enormous problem (or lack thereof, in some peoples' opinions).
Please, though, let's not judge him until the courts do.
Regards,
-efisher
---
this
Frankly, I'm a little offended at the "very sad" at the end of the piece.
/., and you just think that he's a sad person. That this is a sad statement on society at large, that people like this are running around, and that they are using the Internet to facilitate what used to be far more difficult to do in a small town.
/. sound like they are sad that a fellow webster of any sort is being jailed. No matter how sick a person he is. And that is offensive to me. There are people that need to be removed from the main segment of society. Yes, I do think that treatment would be nice for this person. But if he's soliciting sex from what he believes to be an extrememely underage girl, he needs to be taken off the streets. And the fact that he was busted is not sad, in any way, shape, or form.
/. to edit this piece to clarify what the editorial bent on this happening is.
At the very least, it is very poor editing on the part of
Otherwise it makes the editorial staff of
Newspapers issue revisions, and updates to story's in later editions, and in future papers. I think it would behoove
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke