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?
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!}
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!)
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
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
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
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.
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!}
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.
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
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.
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!}
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.
As an American, I'm amused to see a Frenchman doing all he can to promote the stereotype of the snobby-but-clueless Frenchman. HAND. And as if atheism weren't as presumptuous as the rest... {shrug}
I'm quite sure that you don't have to swear on the Bible in a U.S. court, considering that one can affirm instead (as certain religions forbid the swearing of oaths as such). I suppose an agnostic or atheist could make a strong case for swearing on a volume of the U.S. Code...
'suppose, were I ever to be dragged into court, I could make a case that swearing on a book that whose contents I do not fully accept would be rather disrespectful of those that do, and arguably blasphemous. What they really require is the verbal version of signing your name to a statement that you're not about to commit perjury; once that's entered in the court records, you're bound by law regardless of whether it was a paper signature or an oath sworn in court in front of witnesses or what have you.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
...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.
In a better society, who would have detected this particular apparent problem, assuming that he didn't voluntarily step forward? His family? Co-workers? Sysadmin? (It does happen; remember a former head of the Harvard Divinity School? A computer techie discovered his (non-kiddie) porn collection; that's why he's former...).
Or law enforcement, or one of his victims? In the former case, they'd have to be either acting pre-emptively (as in this case), or real-time (monitoring all communications), or passively (waiting for victims to emerge). In the latter case, how many would be willing and able to come forward?
At least in this case, it seems that there isn't a trail of victims to attribute (directly) to him. {shrug}
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
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! :)
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)
Ten years ago people tried to *fix* homosexuals. Now we just say that different people have different sexual preferences. You can not *fix* a homosexual because they are not broken. You also can not *fix* a pedofile. They just have a sexual preference that society does not approve of.
I personally don't want my family to be the victim of some shrink's latest theory about how to change someone's sexual preference.
If someone is attracted to children lock them up for good.
The police did not provoke him. He initiated contact with the agent and he told the agent that he wanted to have sex with her, the agent presumably did not attempt elicit this response in any way. If the agent's conversation indicated that she was sexually interested in prior to his indication that he was sexually interested in her then it is entrapment, but once someone has indicated that they want to commit a crime, an agent can pretend that they will help them commit that crime. Entrapment is when an agent gets someone to commit a crime when there was no indication that the person wanted to commit a crime prior to the agent convincing them to. In other words, an agent can't ask you if you want to buy drugs, but if you ask an agent if they are selling drugs then the agent can pretend as if they are; agents can hang out on the streets and wait for someone to solicit them for sex, but they are not allowed to ask someone if they want to pay for sex. The agent did not proposition him, he propositioned her. The complete dialog between them was not available, but if it turns out that all he said to her was "hi" and she responded with something like "hi, i'm a 13 year old girl and i want to have sex with you" then the case will be thrown out of court because he did not indicate that he wanted to break the law until the agent proposed breaking the law to him.
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.
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 see how you can compare Mr. McNaughty to drug users. Pedophiles have victims; weed smokers do not. Smoke some crack or shoot some heroin, and you're only fucking up yourself, but with pedos, there's another person involved, and it's a person who society has agreed needs to be protected even from their own decisions (i.e. we don't let them vote or buy alcohol, so their decision to have sex is likewise invalidated). There's just no comparison 'tween pedos and drug users, except for maybe minor drug users.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
The police did not provoke him. He initiated contact with the agent and he told the agent that he wanted to have sex with her, the agent presumably did not attempt elicit this response in any way
Soooo... hanging out in '#father&daughtersex!!!!!!!' isn't an attempt to elicit some kind of sexual response from someone else in that channel? I'd say once you enter one of those channels it's like automatically propositioning everyone else there.
I mean, why else would you be in that channel if you weren't interested in that kind of thing? Seems pretty shady to me...
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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!
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?"
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