Of course "on paper" they actually did police work.
But what do you think gave them "the hunch" that so-and-so was the badguy and just so happened to have exactly the incriminating evidence they needed to bust him in folder XYZ in his "My Documents" folder?
"Police Work" is often just another term for collecting the evidence and creating the link from A to Z, after the fact, to justify the police's actions.
The only requirement is if one of the occupants consents to the search. It doesn't have to be someone that lives there or owns the property. Any random person whom is inside the property can give consent, including a 2 year old or a dog.
My best advice for anyone in this situation is to document everything.
I spent a few years working customer service handling orders for manufacturing company. One particularly customers was a consistent problem. This company believed one of their personnel shat gold bricks, but I realized right off that they were incompetent and used lies & intimidation to cover this up.
This person would routinely fax their orders at the end of the day (right before they would leave) without confirming that they actually sent me the files necessary to start their order, and that their orders were almost always "rush" orders with very very short turn around times. Another thing this person would do, would be to call me up, tell me they had an order and ask me what the latest day they would need to receive the order by a specific date and time. I would tell them, then they would wait well past this final submittable date, submit their order and then claim that I had promised to turn around the product by that time. Over the years, the turn around time necessary to complete their orders shrunk to impossible expectations and their customer began getting upset as my customer started blaming me personally for the delays.
The irritating part, is that whenever I some how failed to live up to this person's errors (i.e., I was unable to cover for them), they would call up my boss and complain about me. My boss only believed half their bullshit, but it was still enough to impact my career.
Unfortunately for them, one of their customers wasn't an idiot, and had remembered me when he came along to our plant for a facility inspection prior to us beginning production of their product. This customer set up a meeting between our companies and asked me point blank when I received the purchase order, when I received the files and when I delivered the product. Thankfully, I had records of the time and date of every purchase order that company had ever sent, along with records of the time and date of receipt of every file to begin production, as well as the delivery date of the product to their warehouse.
It turned out that the end customer was sending the purchase orders to our problem person up to three weeks before the problem person would send me the PO and files. The problem person would sit on the file for weeks before submitting it to their production and farming out our part to us. The problem person ended up losing their company around $2million in sales yearly when they lost their client.
We ended up being directly contracted by the end customer to continue manufacturing our part of their product.
Given how shady cops are with their actions while they conduct themselves, the cameras are much much more of a detriment to an officer's behavior/actions than the citizenry's.
Many of the article's I've read on the subject talk about how many less complaints the department received. One article even mentioned that the when only half the police department wore the cameras (the other half refused to wear said cameras...), the Excessive Use of Force complaints went down by over 70%.
So the question becomes, is this because the citizenry aren't making complaints? Or is it because police were moderating their behavior and not using excessive force or heavy handed tactics as their first response to every situation?
Either way is a win/win for us taxpayers. And the latter is a HUGE win for us citizenry as far as police tyranny is concerned.
Having been on the receiving end of such a shady cop violating the law, departmental "procedure" and having the dash-cam video go "missing" during discovery, I am all for more accountability for cops.
I love how making something illegal, no mater how innocuous and innocent that something is, immediately polarizes the populace against them. After all, that person is now a scumbag felon.
Who cares if they were railroaded. Who cares if the prosecutions abused the law. Who cares if the prosecutors used smear campaigns and black mail to destroy a persons life just so they can cut a notch on their belt during their next their re-election. None of this matters because the ignorant public (in case you didn't catch it, I'm referring to you, spire3661) see only the "label" of what they are accused of and instantly write off that person as a human being and are perfectly acceptable in watching that person's rights be violated.
I just fucking love how history keeps repeating itself.
The only discretion available in a completely voluntary relationship where you are dissatisfied with the other participant, is to not participate. (I.E. boycott EA).
On the flipside, some of the things done by these companies can be considered fraudulent or criminal (particularly in the case of installing rootkits).
When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
It's been that way for over almost a decade now.
DHS just dropped ~$100 million on a bunch of APCs, school Districts are buying assault weapons for their on-campus police forces and the LAPD has been known to send out swat team members to deal with parking tickets.
The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy. The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.
You're right, "Lawyer up" is more of something you do once you are arrested, regardless of how ambiguous or pretextual the whole encounter appears.
And Hiibel v. Nevada isn't applicable to every state, only those with Stop & Identify laws. IIRC Hiibel v. Nevada even mentions this in reference to Kolender v. Lawson.
There is quite a bit of difference between complying with legal requests by a law enforcement officer and answering vague open-ended questions that are superfluous to a LEO's execution of their job. Questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", "Why are you in such a hurry?" and my all time favorite: "Is there anything illegal in your possession that I should know about?"
But to be fair, you are absolutely right. When subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and give testimony there isn't much you can do. And historically federal criminal prosecutors have used subpoena's to force individuals to divulge sensitive information against other members of their family, friends, cliques, groups or organizations. But some subpoena's can be squashed (not saying that is very likely or easy with a federal subpoena...) and most importantly, going in with the mindset and knowledge that you aren't going to some how miraculously say the magic words that make the situation all better is an important piece of information to understand and remember when answering questions. I'm sure a practiced attorney could help coach an individual on how to answer questions and the exact scope of the required complicity a subpoenaed individual most provide.
I.E. if a criminal investigator is asking you questions, they aren't asking you questions to get information to exonerate your friend/family member/self, that is not their job (that is your friend/family's defense attorney's job). They are asking you questions to give them evidence and help them build a case to so they can bring charges and/or convict someone of a crime.
On a side note, I present this quote from Supreme Court Justice of the United States Stephen Breyer, quoted in the oft famous (and I think cited several times on by other commentators on this topic...) "Don't talk to the Police" youtube video, as quoted from Rubin v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html)
“...the complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.”
Again, you are absolutely right. There wasn't much Quinn Norton could do when subpoenaed, but still I think this quote is particularly applicable given the context of the situation that Quinn Norton found herself in her unwitting contribution to the miscarriage and perversion of justice executed against Aaron Swartz.
I think subpoenas and discovery motions are two elements of our legal system that are oft abused to the detriment of this nation as a whole. The former by the zealous over-criminalization of America and the latter by copyright attorneys extorting money from individuals otherwise protected from identification by law. This case is just yet another incident of the rampant abuse of our legal system and what saddens and disgusts me is that there isn't much that can be done about it.
Sadly, immunity wouldn't of helped Quinn Norton in this case as her words weren't being used against herself, but another.
Now if only such a similar criminal investigation would be brought against the people (and by people, I mean the federal prosecutors who targeted Swartz) who subverted the justice system to push corporate special interest.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
~Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.
When it comes to criminal investigations in America, there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case. The only thing you can do is make it worse. The best bit of advice is to shut the fuck up and lawyer up.
Before they can do that, they have to show standing. I.E. they have to show that they were harmed/inconvenienced by FISA in some way.
It is the ultimate legal "chicken and the egg" situation. You can't "prove" you have standing to challenge the law until you can challenge the law so you can prove you have standing...
The difference, in case you missed it, is that most citizens-organized militias openly recognize they are civilians where as the police do not consider themselves civilians.
That's why the police in CA have all sorts of exemptions from the penal code:
Like the ability to purchase Off-Roster Handguns that aren't on the California Approved "Safe Handgun List" for personal use despite their department issuing them their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
The ability to buy standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for their personal firearms despite these magazines being provided with their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
Or the ability to purchase an Assault Weapons after the end of the registration period for personal use, despite their department providing Assault Weapons (or even actual Assault Rifles...) for their use in each squad car. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
That is just one area where LEO's gain more "privilege" that us mere citizens, think of how LEO's can get out of traffic tickets, can disobey the law, get preferential treatment with all the discounts (despite making six figures...) and can perjure themselves on their official documents and/or in court at whim with impunity.
No, the Police are a Privileged class of citizen above and beyond a mere civilian.
And if you have ever heard LEO's talking to each other about us mere peasants, you'd realize how much contempt they have for, and how much they consider themselves above us mere civilians.
Gamesworkshop also used the claim of "trademark infringement" to go after online retailers of their product. Making them the only online retailer allowed to have a shopping cart system with their product. All other venders require customers to fill out a form to order product.
Gamesworkshop needs to have the shit sued out of them for their abuse of their claim to "trademark" to include everything under the sun.
Take the US Fish and Game code that says that is illegal to be in possession of any plant or animal life that is prohibited in any country. You'd never believe that such an open and sweeping law would ever be used, but it has been to arrest an innocent man and send him to prison for several years for a crime he didn't even commit. (It turns out the persons he bought his supplies from didn't properly fill out their paperwork.) Source.
Or, how about the grandmother in NY who took pictures of her grandchildren in the bathtub playing and ended up going to prison for making child porn (she had her film developed at a Walmart who reported her)?
You're incredibly naive and shortsighted (as well as delusional) if you don't realize how common the misuse of law is, and how creative prosecutors get when they try and shoe-horn otherwise innocuous actions into crimes so they can get another notch on their belt and look better when it comes time for re-election / promotion.
In addition to what the previous poster said, the law also required anyone who processed foods, regardless of whether they contained GMO ingredients, to label their foods as if they had GMO ingredients. Of course, the law also exempted any food producer declared "Organic" by the FDA.
Some how an "Organic" food producer that say, canned some tomatoes, doesn't have to label their tomatoes. But a food producer that wasn't certified "Organic" but just so happened to have bought the same tomatoes and canned them would.
Lastly, being certified "Organic" doesn't exclude the use of GMO foods. So if you were certified as "Organic" you could still use certain GMO products and not have to label your food.
After reading the law extensively, I concluded that it would do 2 things.
1.) Make lots of money for trial lawyers,
2.) Create a protected market of "Organic" farmers who were exempt. Thus increasing the sales of "Organic" food products during by exploiting the consumer fear.
The text is derived from sections 1.10.32–3 of Cicero's De finibus bonorum et malorum (On the Boundaries of Goods and Evils, or alternatively [About] The Purposes of Good and Evil).[3]
Care to cite your source?
Also, I think you need to re-read the pornography laws for wherever you live as, unless you live in Canada or Australia, possession of fictional portrayals of illegal sexual crimes are not the same as having physical evidence that illegal sexual crimes have been committed. Because if what you assert is true, that having possession of fictionalized events of under aged sex or pedophilia is a crime, then it sucks to own a copy of Bram Stroker's Dracula, or Homer's Iliad, or Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, or Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash or heaven forbid any one of many Heinlein novels as they all describe fictional illegal sexual acts involving intercourse with under aged minors or children and are almost all considered literary classics in their respective genre's.
What about the 16 year old girl who sent a sexual nude pic of herself to her boyfriend who then went and shared the pic with the whole class getting the 16 year old girl arrested for creating and distributing child porn?
She is now a registered sex offender and can't go to school or college. Her life is destroyed because of some blind application of a law that was not intended to target her but because of overzealous DA's who want a notch on their political belt go after such easy crimes because of the emotional appeal to people like you.
Or how about the grandmother who took pictures of her naked grandchildren (under the age of 3) in a bathtub and then took the pics to walmart to get prints? Another overzealous DA went and prosecuted her. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
It is evil that children are getting exploited. The problem is, the ones getting punished by the application of the laws due to the political and emotional fervor such application engenders for those leading the crusade, are not the ones exploiting the children.
Both those who download decade old pictures, or pictures of jailbait teens who voluntarily post their own pics on the net, or of innocent grandmothers who take pictures of their infant children, these are not the people being exploited nor are they the one's exploiting others, yet they are the people being targeted by the current application of the law.
Because a DA with 10 "Child Porn convictions" under his belt has an emotional appeal to mindless cosmic space zombie followers and that emotional appeal will get him elected / re-elected.
In case you didn't realize it, but the IP wasn't traced to the right person. The guy it was "traced" to was innocent, remember?
On another note, it's impressive you are able to psychoanalyze such a large demographic of people without actually having any interaction of knowledge of them specifically to make such a determination that they are dysfunctional and have father issues. You should open up a clinic or something, or maybe publish a paper on it...
Slashdot Mirror
Of course "on paper" they actually did police work.
But what do you think gave them "the hunch" that so-and-so was the badguy and just so happened to have exactly the incriminating evidence they needed to bust him in folder XYZ in his "My Documents" folder?
"Police Work" is often just another term for collecting the evidence and creating the link from A to Z, after the fact, to justify the police's actions.
I remember how it took me nearly two weeks to get to level 12 in FFXI.
Why would I ever want to subject myself to the same kind of leveling game mechanic a second time?
The only requirement is if one of the occupants consents to the search. It doesn't have to be someone that lives there or owns the property. Any random person whom is inside the property can give consent, including a 2 year old or a dog.
And you don't see this getting abused?
That is fucking absurd.
Or how about we fix the problem by cutting out all the bloat in our education costs?
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa...
My best advice for anyone in this situation is to document everything .
I spent a few years working customer service handling orders for manufacturing company. One particularly customers was a consistent problem. This company believed one of their personnel shat gold bricks, but I realized right off that they were incompetent and used lies & intimidation to cover this up.
This person would routinely fax their orders at the end of the day (right before they would leave) without confirming that they actually sent me the files necessary to start their order, and that their orders were almost always "rush" orders with very very short turn around times. Another thing this person would do, would be to call me up, tell me they had an order and ask me what the latest day they would need to receive the order by a specific date and time. I would tell them, then they would wait well past this final submittable date, submit their order and then claim that I had promised to turn around the product by that time. Over the years, the turn around time necessary to complete their orders shrunk to impossible expectations and their customer began getting upset as my customer started blaming me personally for the delays.
The irritating part, is that whenever I some how failed to live up to this person's errors (i.e., I was unable to cover for them), they would call up my boss and complain about me. My boss only believed half their bullshit, but it was still enough to impact my career.
Unfortunately for them, one of their customers wasn't an idiot, and had remembered me when he came along to our plant for a facility inspection prior to us beginning production of their product. This customer set up a meeting between our companies and asked me point blank when I received the purchase order, when I received the files and when I delivered the product. Thankfully, I had records of the time and date of every purchase order that company had ever sent, along with records of the time and date of receipt of every file to begin production, as well as the delivery date of the product to their warehouse.
It turned out that the end customer was sending the purchase orders to our problem person up to three weeks before the problem person would send me the PO and files. The problem person would sit on the file for weeks before submitting it to their production and farming out our part to us. The problem person ended up losing their company around $2million in sales yearly when they lost their client.
We ended up being directly contracted by the end customer to continue manufacturing our part of their product.
Given how shady cops are with their actions while they conduct themselves, the cameras are much much more of a detriment to an officer's behavior/actions than the citizenry's.
Many of the article's I've read on the subject talk about how many less complaints the department received. One article even mentioned that the when only half the police department wore the cameras (the other half refused to wear said cameras...), the Excessive Use of Force complaints went down by over 70%.
So the question becomes, is this because the citizenry aren't making complaints? Or is it because police were moderating their behavior and not using excessive force or heavy handed tactics as their first response to every situation?
Either way is a win/win for us taxpayers. And the latter is a HUGE win for us citizenry as far as police tyranny is concerned.
Having been on the receiving end of such a shady cop violating the law, departmental "procedure" and having the dash-cam video go "missing" during discovery, I am all for more accountability for cops.
Please list some of the things you would like to do but can't because you are not free. I can't think of any.
No fly list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
Yay ignorant populace!
I love how making something illegal, no mater how innocuous and innocent that something is, immediately polarizes the populace against them. After all, that person is now a scumbag felon.
Who cares if they were railroaded. Who cares if the prosecutions abused the law. Who cares if the prosecutors used smear campaigns and black mail to destroy a persons life just so they can cut a notch on their belt during their next their re-election. None of this matters because the ignorant public (in case you didn't catch it, I'm referring to you, spire3661) see only the "label" of what they are accused of and instantly write off that person as a human being and are perfectly acceptable in watching that person's rights be violated.
I just fucking love how history keeps repeating itself.
I agree.
The only discretion available in a completely voluntary relationship where you are dissatisfied with the other participant, is to not participate. (I.E. boycott EA).
On the flipside, some of the things done by these companies can be considered fraudulent or criminal (particularly in the case of installing rootkits).
When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
It's been that way for over almost a decade now.
DHS just dropped ~$100 million on a bunch of APCs, school Districts are buying assault weapons for their on-campus police forces and the LAPD has been known to send out swat team members to deal with parking tickets.
The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy. The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
And Hiibel v. Nevada isn't applicable to every state, only those with Stop & Identify laws. IIRC Hiibel v. Nevada even mentions this in reference to Kolender v. Lawson.
There is quite a bit of difference between complying with legal requests by a law enforcement officer and answering vague open-ended questions that are superfluous to a LEO's execution of their job. Questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", "Why are you in such a hurry?" and my all time favorite: "Is there anything illegal in your possession that I should know about?"
But to be fair, you are absolutely right. When subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and give testimony there isn't much you can do. And historically federal criminal prosecutors have used subpoena's to force individuals to divulge sensitive information against other members of their family, friends, cliques, groups or organizations. But some subpoena's can be squashed (not saying that is very likely or easy with a federal subpoena...) and most importantly, going in with the mindset and knowledge that you aren't going to some how miraculously say the magic words that make the situation all better is an important piece of information to understand and remember when answering questions. I'm sure a practiced attorney could help coach an individual on how to answer questions and the exact scope of the required complicity a subpoenaed individual most provide.
I.E. if a criminal investigator is asking you questions, they aren't asking you questions to get information to exonerate your friend/family member/self, that is not their job (that is your friend/family's defense attorney's job). They are asking you questions to give them evidence and help them build a case to so they can bring charges and/or convict someone of a crime.
On a side note, I present this quote from Supreme Court Justice of the United States Stephen Breyer, quoted in the oft famous (and I think cited several times on by other commentators on this topic...) "Don't talk to the Police" youtube video, as quoted from Rubin v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html)
“...the complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.”
Again, you are absolutely right. There wasn't much Quinn Norton could do when subpoenaed, but still I think this quote is particularly applicable given the context of the situation that Quinn Norton found herself in her unwitting contribution to the miscarriage and perversion of justice executed against Aaron Swartz.
I think subpoenas and discovery motions are two elements of our legal system that are oft abused to the detriment of this nation as a whole. The former by the zealous over-criminalization of America and the latter by copyright attorneys extorting money from individuals otherwise protected from identification by law. This case is just yet another incident of the rampant abuse of our legal system and what saddens and disgusts me is that there isn't much that can be done about it.
Sadly, immunity wouldn't of helped Quinn Norton in this case as her words weren't being used against herself, but another.
Now if only such a similar criminal investigation would be brought against the people (and by people, I mean the federal prosecutors who targeted Swartz) who subverted the justice system to push corporate special interest.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
~Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.
When it comes to criminal investigations in America, there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case. The only thing you can do is make it worse. The best bit of advice is to shut the fuck up and lawyer up.
Before they can do that, they have to show standing. I.E. they have to show that they were harmed/inconvenienced by FISA in some way.
It is the ultimate legal "chicken and the egg" situation. You can't "prove" you have standing to challenge the law until you can challenge the law so you can prove you have standing...
How is a "legal avenue" that will ultimately fail a "viable" avenue? You seem to be contradicting yourself...
You do understand what "PR" means right?
Think about it; which one sounds better from a PR perspective?
The difference, in case you missed it, is that most citizens-organized militias openly recognize they are civilians where as the police do not consider themselves civilians.
Do you see the distinction?
That's why the police in CA have all sorts of exemptions from the penal code:
Like the ability to purchase Off-Roster Handguns that aren't on the California Approved "Safe Handgun List" for personal use despite their department issuing them their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
The ability to buy standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for their personal firearms despite these magazines being provided with their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
Or the ability to purchase an Assault Weapons after the end of the registration period for personal use, despite their department providing Assault Weapons (or even actual Assault Rifles...) for their use in each squad car. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
That is just one area where LEO's gain more "privilege" that us mere citizens, think of how LEO's can get out of traffic tickets, can disobey the law, get preferential treatment with all the discounts (despite making six figures...) and can perjure themselves on their official documents and/or in court at whim with impunity.
No, the Police are a Privileged class of citizen above and beyond a mere civilian.
And if you have ever heard LEO's talking to each other about us mere peasants, you'd realize how much contempt they have for, and how much they consider themselves above us mere civilians.
Gamesworkshop also used the claim of "trademark infringement" to go after online retailers of their product. Making them the only online retailer allowed to have a shopping cart system with their product. All other venders require customers to fill out a form to order product.
Gamesworkshop needs to have the shit sued out of them for their abuse of their claim to "trademark" to include everything under the sun.
It's not rubbish. It's reality.
Take the US Fish and Game code that says that is illegal to be in possession of any plant or animal life that is prohibited in any country. You'd never believe that such an open and sweeping law would ever be used, but it has been to arrest an innocent man and send him to prison for several years for a crime he didn't even commit. (It turns out the persons he bought his supplies from didn't properly fill out their paperwork.) Source.
Or, how about the grandmother in NY who took pictures of her grandchildren in the bathtub playing and ended up going to prison for making child porn (she had her film developed at a Walmart who reported her)?
You're incredibly naive and shortsighted (as well as delusional) if you don't realize how common the misuse of law is, and how creative prosecutors get when they try and shoe-horn otherwise innocuous actions into crimes so they can get another notch on their belt and look better when it comes time for re-election / promotion.
You commit 3 felonies every day.
The fact that you can lose that much money in a GAME is why EVE sucks.
It's not a game, it's a job.
In addition to what the previous poster said, the law also required anyone who processed foods, regardless of whether they contained GMO ingredients, to label their foods as if they had GMO ingredients. Of course, the law also exempted any food producer declared "Organic" by the FDA.
Some how an "Organic" food producer that say, canned some tomatoes, doesn't have to label their tomatoes. But a food producer that wasn't certified "Organic" but just so happened to have bought the same tomatoes and canned them would.
Lastly, being certified "Organic" doesn't exclude the use of GMO foods. So if you were certified as "Organic" you could still use certain GMO products and not have to label your food.
After reading the law extensively, I concluded that it would do 2 things.
1.) Make lots of money for trial lawyers,
2.) Create a protected market of "Organic" farmers who were exempt. Thus increasing the sales of "Organic" food products during by exploiting the consumer fear.
The text is derived from sections 1.10.32–3 of Cicero's De finibus bonorum et malorum (On the Boundaries of Goods and Evils, or alternatively [About] The Purposes of Good and Evil).[3]
Care to cite your source?
Also, I think you need to re-read the pornography laws for wherever you live as, unless you live in Canada or Australia, possession of fictional portrayals of illegal sexual crimes are not the same as having physical evidence that illegal sexual crimes have been committed. Because if what you assert is true, that having possession of fictionalized events of under aged sex or pedophilia is a crime, then it sucks to own a copy of Bram Stroker's Dracula, or Homer's Iliad, or Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, or Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash or heaven forbid any one of many Heinlein novels as they all describe fictional illegal sexual acts involving intercourse with under aged minors or children and are almost all considered literary classics in their respective genre's.
What about the 16 year old girl who sent a sexual nude pic of herself to her boyfriend who then went and shared the pic with the whole class getting the 16 year old girl arrested for creating and distributing child porn?
She is now a registered sex offender and can't go to school or college. Her life is destroyed because of some blind application of a law that was not intended to target her but because of overzealous DA's who want a notch on their political belt go after such easy crimes because of the emotional appeal to people like you.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/sexting-teens-makes-sex-offender-list-20110121-19zwu.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-07/justice/sexting.busts_1_phillip-alpert-offender-list-offender-registry?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001082-504083.html
Or how about the grandmother who took pictures of her naked grandchildren (under the age of 3) in a bathtub and then took the pics to walmart to get prints? Another overzealous DA went and prosecuted her. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandma-arrested-for-child-por
It is evil that children are getting exploited. The problem is, the ones getting punished by the application of the laws due to the political and emotional fervor such application engenders for those leading the crusade, are not the ones exploiting the children.
Both those who download decade old pictures, or pictures of jailbait teens who voluntarily post their own pics on the net, or of innocent grandmothers who take pictures of their infant children, these are not the people being exploited nor are they the one's exploiting others, yet they are the people being targeted by the current application of the law.
Because a DA with 10 "Child Porn convictions" under his belt has an emotional appeal to mindless cosmic space zombie followers and that emotional appeal will get him elected / re-elected.
In case you didn't realize it, but the IP wasn't traced to the right person. The guy it was "traced" to was innocent, remember?
On another note, it's impressive you are able to psychoanalyze such a large demographic of people without actually having any interaction of knowledge of them specifically to make such a determination that they are dysfunctional and have father issues. You should open up a clinic or something, or maybe publish a paper on it...