The US laws on this are so scary, what with drawings that someone would consider underage qualifying as child pornography now, you take any serious nerd and scrub his hard drive you'll probably find something illegal if he's ever visited 4chan.
The law you're referring to was actually overturned by the Supreme Court, IIRC.
Yeah this makes the supposed innocent victim's story smell. He claims he didn't know he had downloaded child porn but that doesn't mean its true. That and the fact that its fairly unlikely that after deleting the offending files over a year ago that they would not have been overwritten. Segments that contained a short lived file or group of files are unlikely to remain unused over a year later. And something had to bring the FBI to this particular computer in the first place.
Jail is full of people who claim to be innocent, we shouldn't assume this guy's story is the truth purely on his say so, especially since he is pleading guilty.
I don't think this is what that person was referring to. There was a big todo not long ago regarding someone with a very large manga collection, where some of the images were considered illegal. A quick scan of the Gaiman's blog showed this post. I believe it is the one I recall having read previously.
So... pretty sure the original point is still valid.
Edit: I should add, last I remember the person being mentioned by Gaiman was having to plead guilty.... I'm trying to find the latest news now.
I find in interesting that this deleted child porn survived a year on his hard drive without being written over or degraded.
I don't. Hard drives these days are several hundreds of GB. If the guy doesn't download lots or constantly install new programs, it's going to take a while for him to fill that up. It's entirely possible for a small region of space to remain unused for a few years.
Besides, according to the article, the FBI didn't run a simple un-delete program. It says they went looking deep with pretty specialized tools. So it was probably pretty degraded, and they restored it.
I find in interesting that this deleted child porn survived a year on his hard drive without being written over or degraded.
I don't. Hard drives these days are several hundreds of GB. If the guy doesn't download lots or constantly install new programs, it's going to take a while for him to fill that up. It's entirely possible for a small region of space to remain unused for a few years.
Besides, according to the article, the FBI didn't run a simple un-delete program. It says they went looking deep with pretty specialized tools. So it was probably pretty degraded, and they restored it.
Wait... so if I accidentally/stupidly open a zip file that I get from some spam (as many idiots are wont to do) and discover that it has shocking and illegal content that I immediately delete... I'm still fucked if anyone decides to go over my hard drive with a fine tooth comb?
I find in interesting that this deleted child porn survived a year on his hard drive without being written over or degraded.
I don't. Hard drives these days are several hundreds of GB. If the guy doesn't download lots or constantly install new programs, it's going to take a while for him to fill that up. It's entirely possible for a small region of space to remain unused for a few years.
Besides, according to the article, the FBI didn't run a simple un-delete program. It says they went looking deep with pretty specialized tools. So it was probably pretty degraded, and they restored it.
Wait... so if I accidentally/stupidly open a zip file that I get from some spam (as many idiots are wont to do) and discover that it has shocking and illegal content that I immediately delete... I'm still fucked if anyone decides to go over my hard drive with a fine tooth comb?
That is morally insane.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
Then consider the case of "sexting" that happened recently. Then consider a case where a friend's family leaves, and you find that one of the younger children got ahold of your camera and took pictures that you would not be comfortable keeping. Report, or just delete?
I find in interesting that this deleted child porn survived a year on his hard drive without being written over or degraded.
I don't. Hard drives these days are several hundreds of GB. If the guy doesn't download lots or constantly install new programs, it's going to take a while for him to fill that up. It's entirely possible for a small region of space to remain unused for a few years.
Besides, according to the article, the FBI didn't run a simple un-delete program. It says they went looking deep with pretty specialized tools. So it was probably pretty degraded, and they restored it.
Wait... so if I accidentally/stupidly open a zip file that I get from some spam (as many idiots are wont to do) and discover that it has shocking and illegal content that I immediately delete... I'm still fucked if anyone decides to go over my hard drive with a fine tooth comb?
That is morally insane.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
Again, given the far-too-likely outcome for the person reporting it, I think it's by far the more reasonable course of action.
Someone who comes across such things without seeking them is, in my view, innocent in the matter...yet the odds that the criminal justice system will treat them as such are not to my liking. I find no moral responsibility in this case to risk my freedom to report it, especially when the odds are the the only person who might wind up arrested is, well, me. Considering that it's pretty unlikely they'll track down the original uploader/distributor.
Hell, you're assuming that the person you got it from is even in a location the authorities can touch. Interwebs be mad international, yo. Once the cops/FBI figure out that the originator was over in Crapistan or Wherevernisia, and thus completely out of their reach, I'd say the odds that they'll settle for forcing you to plead out to a sex crime just go up.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Then consider the case of "sexting" that happened recently. Then consider a case where a friend's family leaves, and you find that one of the younger children got ahold of your camera and took pictures that you would not be comfortable keeping. Report, or just delete?
Again, the only person likely to get arrested in this case is you. Delete, and forget about it.
Hell, this is a good argument for that phone insurance they try to tell you. Incinerate the phone, scatter the ashes.
EDIT: Especially in this case, where there may not even be another crime being committed. You know, other than your potential possession of child porn. Best case, they arrest the kid for possession/distribution of child porn for taking pictures of their self. Reporting anything in this case is fucktarded. At least to the authorities (after the burning/ash-spreading, feel free to notify the parents so they can deal with their kids).
I find in interesting that this deleted child porn survived a year on his hard drive without being written over or degraded.
I don't. Hard drives these days are several hundreds of GB. If the guy doesn't download lots or constantly install new programs, it's going to take a while for him to fill that up. It's entirely possible for a small region of space to remain unused for a few years.
Besides, according to the article, the FBI didn't run a simple un-delete program. It says they went looking deep with pretty specialized tools. So it was probably pretty degraded, and they restored it.
Wait... so if I accidentally/stupidly open a zip file that I get from some spam (as many idiots are wont to do) and discover that it has shocking and illegal content that I immediately delete... I'm still fucked if anyone decides to go over my hard drive with a fine tooth comb?
That is morally insane.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
That's a fair point. It is destruction of evidence... But that's the extent of the crime.
I find in interesting that this deleted child porn survived a year on his hard drive without being written over or degraded.
I don't. Hard drives these days are several hundreds of GB. If the guy doesn't download lots or constantly install new programs, it's going to take a while for him to fill that up. It's entirely possible for a small region of space to remain unused for a few years.
Besides, according to the article, the FBI didn't run a simple un-delete program. It says they went looking deep with pretty specialized tools. So it was probably pretty degraded, and they restored it.
Wait... so if I accidentally/stupidly open a zip file that I get from some spam (as many idiots are wont to do) and discover that it has shocking and illegal content that I immediately delete... I'm still fucked if anyone decides to go over my hard drive with a fine tooth comb?
That is morally insane.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
I think you're absolutely mad to risk going to the authorities, knowing the witch-hunt mentality they have wrt this stuff
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
The chance of it actually being the original producer, or even someone vaguley linked to the original producer is practically nil. So lets imagine it's not you who ends up getting done (which is a very non-zero chance), you may well have just got a guy banged up, and marked as a sexual predator which will destroy his life. He may well not even have known what it was he was distributing.
In which case, good job. I hope you're very proud of yourself. Seriously well done. We all know people who have been outcast and crushed by the system are less likely to engage in illegal activities, not more.
I think the biggest problem with child pornography is that all the parties (which, should be mentioned, have to be living things...drawings is another thing completely) in the production are not able to consent to the acts they are performing and to the fact that these acts are being made public. With most other fetishes existing of consenting parties (except beastiality, not sure if that's illegal thought) this is where the line lies.
What about footage of 9/11, say the person falling to his death from one of the towers? Or photos of holocaust victims? These are photographic and video documentation of people put in insane, inhumane situations, situations that they had no say in being a part of.
Ah yes, but people looking at images of these events doesn't encourage people to make more of them, these pictures are simply a byproduct of the event.
In addition, nearly 100% of the time the victem in child pornography would argue to have the lewd pictures of them taken down while those in the situations you describe have been asked to keep the pictures public or advocate to keep it public so people know of the atrocities that occured.
It also helps that the atrocities you describe have been 'resolved' in a way, or at least, to the public. The holocaust is over and hitler is dead, 9/11 was resolved with bush's vengance war. Child pornography hasn't been resolved, there are new victems every year.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
Then consider the case of "sexting" that happened recently. Then consider a case where a friend's family leaves, and you find that one of the younger children got ahold of your camera and took pictures that you would not be comfortable keeping. Report, or just delete?
That's not the same situation--at all. If someone had been sending child porn to my phone without my knowledge, then yes I would report it.
Pictures that some kid took on their own that they shouldn't have isn't porn. There's an intent with porn that goes beyond little kids messing with a camera.
In your hypothetical, I'd tell the parents and let them deal with it.
Pictures that some kid took on their own that they shouldn't have isn't porn. There's an intent with porn that goes beyond little kids messing with a camera.
In your hypothetical, I'd tell the parents and let them deal with it.
I think the hypothetical situation is a lot more likely than you think.
Situation:
You are a parent of teenagers, horny teenagers who date/have sex/whatever.
Teenagers get a hold of the family camera and put dirty pictures on there for thrills or whatever.
I think the biggest problem with child pornography is that all the parties (which, should be mentioned, have to be living things...drawings is another thing completely) in the production are not able to consent to the acts they are performing and to the fact that these acts are being made public. With most other fetishes existing of consenting parties (except beastiality, not sure if that's illegal thought) this is where the line lies.
What about footage of 9/11, say the person falling to his death from one of the towers? Or photos of holocaust victims? These are photographic and video documentation of people put in insane, inhumane situations, situations that they had no say in being a part of.
Ah yes, but people looking at images of these events doesn't encourage people to make more of them, these pictures are simply a byproduct of the event.
Photos of child rape are byproducts of child rape. I don't think that people would rape to make pictures, but I do think people would take advantage of a rape to take pictures as trophies or bragging material. I don't think demand drives the rape.
In addition, nearly 100% of the time the victem in child pornography would argue to have the lewd pictures of them taken down while those in the situations you describe have been asked to keep the pictures public or advocate to keep it public so people know of the atrocities that occured.
It also helps that the atrocities you describe have been 'resolved' in a way, or at least, to the public. The holocaust is over and hitler is dead, 9/11 was resolved with bush's vengance war. Child pornography hasn't been resolved, there are new victems every year.
Things like Faces of Death are pretty obviously exploiting unwilling participants. I don't think it's at all likely that people are happy to have the deaths of family members or relatives exploited in such a way. New deaths on camera happen regularly enough for there to be a small industry/community dedicated to that kind of thing.
I think the biggest problem with child pornography is that all the parties (which, should be mentioned, have to be living things...drawings is another thing completely) in the production are not able to consent to the acts they are performing and to the fact that these acts are being made public. With most other fetishes existing of consenting parties (except beastiality, not sure if that's illegal thought) this is where the line lies.
What about footage of 9/11, say the person falling to his death from one of the towers? Or photos of holocaust victims? These are photographic and video documentation of people put in insane, inhumane situations, situations that they had no say in being a part of.
Ah yes, but people looking at images of these events doesn't encourage people to make more of them, these pictures are simply a byproduct of the event.
Photos of child rape are byproducts of child rape. I don't think that people would rape to make pictures, but I do think people would take advantage of a rape to take pictures as trophies or bragging material. I don't think demand drives the rape.
In addition, nearly 100% of the time the victem in child pornography would argue to have the lewd pictures of them taken down while those in the situations you describe have been asked to keep the pictures public or advocate to keep it public so people know of the atrocities that occured.
It also helps that the atrocities you describe have been 'resolved' in a way, or at least, to the public. The holocaust is over and hitler is dead, 9/11 was resolved with bush's vengance war. Child pornography hasn't been resolved, there are new victems every year.
Things like Faces of Death are pretty obviously exploiting unwilling participants. I don't think it's at all likely that people are happy to have the deaths of family members or relatives exploited in such a way. New deaths on camera happen regularly enough for there to be a small industry/community dedicated to that kind of thing.
I can honestly say I don't know how to reply to this. I know that child pornography is wrong and I can't explain why the other things aren't without you coming up with a counter.
Maybe it's just the whole socially acceptable thing?
Maybe someone else who's more versed in this has the reason?
This is a really long article but it details how a minor got fucked over by the justice system.
Basically the short of it is that Wilson, 17, got a blowjob from a 15 year old girl, and while the law allowed for intercourse between minors 3 years apart, it made no provisions for oral sex. Wilson was given a 10 year sentence for this. After he was put in jail, the law was changed, but did not include a grandfather clause. Luckily, after 2 years of his 10 year sentence, he was allowed to go free and I believe his sex crime registration was removed from his record as well.
But here's the thing that's really fucked up, ESPN did a video piece about Genarlow and on it, the prosecutor stated he knew he could not get Wilson for the rape charge the girl brought forth because there was video evidence proving she was a liar but that he could nail him for the statutory oral sex charge.
I mean, how fucked is that? He knows he can't get the kid on a real charge but can stick it to him on a technicality. That seems like a clear abuse of the law and something that should lead to a disbarment, in my opinion.
I can't find the video at the moment, because I'm at work, but I saw it in 2006, about the same time that ESPN article was written and it's stuck with me for the past 3 years on how stupid our laws can be and how scummy some of people using them are.
I think the biggest problem with child pornography is that all the parties (which, should be mentioned, have to be living things...drawings is another thing completely) in the production are not able to consent to the acts they are performing and to the fact that these acts are being made public. With most other fetishes existing of consenting parties (except beastiality, not sure if that's illegal thought) this is where the line lies.
What about footage of 9/11, say the person falling to his death from one of the towers? Or photos of holocaust victims? These are photographic and video documentation of people put in insane, inhumane situations, situations that they had no say in being a part of.
Ah yes, but people looking at images of these events doesn't encourage people to make more of them, these pictures are simply a byproduct of the event.
Photos of child rape are byproducts of child rape. I don't think that people would rape to make pictures, but I do think people would take advantage of a rape to take pictures as trophies or bragging material. I don't think demand drives the rape.
In addition, nearly 100% of the time the victem in child pornography would argue to have the lewd pictures of them taken down while those in the situations you describe have been asked to keep the pictures public or advocate to keep it public so people know of the atrocities that occured.
It also helps that the atrocities you describe have been 'resolved' in a way, or at least, to the public. The holocaust is over and hitler is dead, 9/11 was resolved with bush's vengance war. Child pornography hasn't been resolved, there are new victems every year.
Things like Faces of Death are pretty obviously exploiting unwilling participants. I don't think it's at all likely that people are happy to have the deaths of family members or relatives exploited in such a way. New deaths on camera happen regularly enough for there to be a small industry/community dedicated to that kind of thing.
I can honestly say I don't know how to reply to this. I know that child pornography is wrong and I can't explain why the other things aren't without you coming up with a counter.
Maybe it's just the whole socially acceptable thing?
Maybe someone else who's more versed in this has the reason?
Look, I don't know that I'm right and you're wrong. But I think I have a decent argument. I admit I'm probably somewhat invested in being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian which makes me somewhat blind to the weaknesses to my own argument, if indeed there are any.
But I think it's a mistake to blandly assert that I know that know I'm right when I don't. It's a mistake to accept convention as truth. There are many cases where complexity should exist in our understanding where it doesn't, where simplicity leads to injustice or other gross errors.
I wish that instead of saying you know you're right but you don't know why, you'd instead think harder about this or concede a point. The basic lesson of Bayesian analysis is that you can learn only from information that disconfirms some part of your current belief set.
Basically that case is a shining example of why I laugh in the face of anybody who waves "prosecutorial discretion" or any other argument claiming that the justice system is reasonable and/or sane on issues like this (or any issues, for that matter).
If you stumble across child porn on the internet by accident, and report it, you'd better be okay with the idea of being on the sex offender list for the rest of your life.
I mean, how fucked is that? He knows he can't get the kid on a real charge but can stick it to him on a technicality. That seems like a clear abuse of the law and something that should lead to a disbarment, in my opinion.
I can't find the video at the moment, because I'm at work, but I saw it in 2006, about the same time that ESPN article was written and it's stuck with me for the past 3 years on how stupid our laws can be and how scummy some of people using them are.
The incentive system for prosecutors in America is fucked beyond belief.
Look, I don't know that I'm right and you're wrong. But I think I have a decent argument. I admit I'm probably somewhat invested in being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian which makes me somewhat blind to the weaknesses to my own argument, if indeed there are any.
But I think it's a mistake to blandly assert that I know that know I'm right when I don't. It's a mistake to accept convention as truth. There are many cases where complexity should exist in our understanding where it doesn't, where simplicity leads to injustice or other gross errors.
I wish that instead of saying you know you're right but you don't know why, you'd instead think harder about this or concede a point. The basic lesson of Bayesian analysis is that you can learn only from information that disconfirms some part of your current belief set.
I'll admit you have a decent arguement, someone here would counter it if you didn't. But I have my limits, I know how I feel on the issues posted in the OP (they are injust, etc) but on the issues you bring forward I admit I haven't given much thought until now and I'll need more time than it takes to make a post to gather my thoughts on the matter before we could continue this.
Up until now I've just thought it's wrong because I'm told it's wrong, that's not to say I think it's okay now, but I've just realised I don't have any backing to why I think it's wrong besides that and I need to find it.
We could get into the whole, accepting convention as truth thing but I'll just leave it as I agree, convention should never be taken as truth, you should figure out the truth for yourself, I just never made the connection between atrocities and this before.
You have a point, yes, and I'll need to find time to reflect on why those issues are wrong.
Basically that case is a shining example of why I laugh in the face of anybody who waves "prosecutorial discretion" or any other argument claiming that the justice system is reasonable and/or sane on issues like this (or any issues, for that matter).
If you stumble across child porn on the internet by accident, and report it, you'd better be okay with the idea of being on the sex offender list for the rest of your life.
The lesson in the Wilson case is less about how statutory rape laws are fucked and more about how certain people in Ga. don't like the idea of a white girl giving a black guy a BJ.
I find it funny how TV glorifies technicalities like they're the godsend to getting the guilty party who got off yet in reality often you see it used the wrong way.
Basically that case is a shining example of why I laugh in the face of anybody who waves "prosecutorial discretion" or any other argument claiming that the justice system is reasonable and/or sane on issues like this (or any issues, for that matter).
If you stumble across child porn on the internet by accident, and report it, you'd better be okay with the idea of being on the sex offender list for the rest of your life.
The lesson in the Wilson case is less about how statutory rape laws are fucked and more about how certain people in Ga. don't like the idea of a white girl giving a black guy a BJ.
Last I heard, certain people in the U.S. don't like the idea of anybody possessing child porn.
Hell, depending where you live they'd (meaning cops, prosecutor, jury) probably hate you for looking at porn in general. At least getting busted for it. Let alone if you admit to searching for "teen" porn (generally meaning 18/19, or 20-something-year-olds-dressed-to-look-like-teens).
But if you feel confident you won't be arrested for possession of child porn, then prosecuted for it, then quite possibly convicted of it, by all means call the cops. I'll visit you in prison to tell you I told you so.
Think about the number of people in here, some who I generally consider to be reasonable and skeptical regarding abuses of the justice system, have suggested that there must be "something else going on" (or similar) for the guy in the OP to have been targeted by the FBI.
Now ask yourself why 93% of the population wouldn't say the same about you, after you get arrested for admitting to possession of child porn (which, to report it, you basically have to do). Ask if the bulk of the U.S. population will buy your story and let you off, especially without the mysterious distributor in cuffs to take your place. Who won't be, because assuming they're any more guilty than you are (they may not be, after all) they're probably in eastern Uzbekistan.
I have to admit, after reading these articles I would never report it now. I'd scrub my hard drive, destroy it it then scatter the remains and burn them.
I mean really, all I could think would be "OH GOD CHILD PORN, WHAT DO I DO?"
Shoulder Angel: "Report it to the police, you must right this wrong!"
Devil: "What are you, retarded? Remember that article about the kid who got busted? I'm sure he'll love to be the new discussion across the internet for the measly price of ten years in jail and being labelled a sex offender"
Angel: "Good point. Yeah, delete that and burn your hard drive."
Basically that case is a shining example of why I laugh in the face of anybody who waves "prosecutorial discretion" or any other argument claiming that the justice system is reasonable and/or sane on issues like this (or any issues, for that matter).
If you stumble across child porn on the internet by accident, and report it, you'd better be okay with the idea of being on the sex offender list for the rest of your life.
The lesson in the Wilson case is less about how statutory rape laws are fucked and more about how certain people in Ga. don't like the idea of a white girl giving a black guy a BJ.
Think about the number of people in here, some who I generally consider to be reasonable and skeptical regarding abuses of the justice system, have suggested that there must be "something else going on" (or similar) for the guy in the OP to have been targeted by the FBI.
Now ask yourself why 93% of the population wouldn't say the same about you, after you get arrested for admitting to possession of child porn (which, to report it, you basically have to do). Ask if the bulk of the U.S. population will buy your story and let you off, especially without the mysterious distributor in cuffs to take your place. Who won't be, because assuming they're any more guilty than you are (they may not be, after all) they're probably in eastern Uzbekistan.
This is even more kneejerk than defending the FBI reflectively. We only have this guy's unsubstantiated claim that the accidentally downloaded child porn and that the FBI mysteriously showed up at his home for no reason. Meanwhile, he's pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence. Its not trust that drives the skepticism its Occaam's Razor.
Either this guy, as essentially all criminal defendants do, is claiming he is not guilty despite the evidence against him because of some technicality. People will claim the drugs/guns/etc being pulled out of their pockets or car mysteriously appeared and they've never seen it before in their life. Now sometimes they are telling the truth and its been planted or there's some huge misunderstanding. But in this case, the FBI - not some local sheriff, the feds - showed up at this guy's door. And lo-and-behold this random computer they checked just happened to have child porn on it.
Now we could conclude that this guy was chosen at random for a visit from the FBI and that they just didn't like the look of his middle class white face and decided to use deep magic to find a file that had been deleted a year before. Or it could be that he is full of shit and he's pleading guilty for a reason.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
Then consider the case of "sexting" that happened recently. Then consider a case where a friend's family leaves, and you find that one of the younger children got ahold of your camera and took pictures that you would not be comfortable keeping. Report, or just delete?
That's not the same situation--at all. If someone had been sending child porn to my phone without my knowledge, then yes I would report it.
Pictures that some kid took on their own that they shouldn't have isn't porn. There's an intent with porn that goes beyond little kids messing with a camera.
In your hypothetical, I'd tell the parents and let them deal with it.
You have a shockingly naive view of the justice system, or maybe you should ask the couple in AZ that nearly got railroaded for taking pictures of their small children bathing? Or the immigrant couple that got arrested because a roll of film of theirs had both pictures of them naked and their children playing on it (not in the same picture, taken at the same location, or taken even on the same day - two entirely seperate things, but they were on the same roll of film so OMG PROTECT THE CHILDREN)
Either this guy, as essentially all criminal defendants do, is claiming he is not guilty despite the evidence against him because of some technicality. People will claim the drugs/guns/etc being pulled out of their pockets or car mysteriously appeared and they've never seen it before in their life. Now sometimes they are telling the truth and its been planted or there's some huge misunderstanding. But in this case, the FBI - not some local sheriff, the feds - showed up at this guy's door. And lo-and-behold this random computer they checked just happened to have child porn on it.
I think the reason you get knee-jerk reactions on this is because of just how plausible it is that he did get some images while he was searching for people his age. So, you are basically resorting to the whole "if you have nothing to hide, this is no big deal" defense of ridiculous law. Hell, the fact that they let them search implies to most people they actually believed that BS statement.
Basically that case is a shining example of why I laugh in the face of anybody who waves "prosecutorial discretion" or any other argument claiming that the justice system is reasonable and/or sane on issues like this (or any issues, for that matter).
If you stumble across child porn on the internet by accident, and report it, you'd better be okay with the idea of being on the sex offender list for the rest of your life.
The lesson in the Wilson case is less about how statutory rape laws are fucked and more about how certain people in Ga. don't like the idea of a white girl giving a black guy a BJ.
Last I heard, certain people in the U.S. don't like the idea of anybody possessing child porn.
Hell, depending where you live they'd (meaning cops, prosecutor, jury) probably hate you for looking at porn in general. At least getting busted for it. Let alone if you admit to searching for "teen" porn (generally meaning 18/19, or 20-something-year-olds-dressed-to-look-like-teens).
But if you feel confident you won't be arrested for possession of child porn, then prosecuted for it, then quite possibly convicted of it, by all means call the cops. I'll visit you in prison to tell you I told you so.
Maybe my perspective is skewed, because I am, in fact, The Man.
Basically that case is a shining example of why I laugh in the face of anybody who waves "prosecutorial discretion" or any other argument claiming that the justice system is reasonable and/or sane on issues like this (or any issues, for that matter).
If you stumble across child porn on the internet by accident, and report it, you'd better be okay with the idea of being on the sex offender list for the rest of your life.
The lesson in the Wilson case is less about how statutory rape laws are fucked and more about how certain people in Ga. don't like the idea of a white girl giving a black guy a BJ.
Think about the number of people in here, some who I generally consider to be reasonable and skeptical regarding abuses of the justice system, have suggested that there must be "something else going on" (or similar) for the guy in the OP to have been targeted by the FBI.
Now ask yourself why 93% of the population wouldn't say the same about you, after you get arrested for admitting to possession of child porn (which, to report it, you basically have to do). Ask if the bulk of the U.S. population will buy your story and let you off, especially without the mysterious distributor in cuffs to take your place. Who won't be, because assuming they're any more guilty than you are (they may not be, after all) they're probably in eastern Uzbekistan.
This is even more kneejerk than defending the FBI reflectively. We only have this guy's unsubstantiated claim that the accidentally downloaded child porn and that the FBI mysteriously showed up at his home for no reason. Meanwhile, he's pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence. Its not trust that drives the skepticism its Occaam's Razor.
Either this guy, as essentially all criminal defendants do, is claiming he is not guilty despite the evidence against him because of some technicality. People will claim the drugs/guns/etc being pulled out of their pockets or car mysteriously appeared and they've never seen it before in their life. Now sometimes they are telling the truth and its been planted or there's some huge misunderstanding. But in this case, the FBI - not some local sheriff, the feds - showed up at this guy's door. And lo-and-behold this random computer they checked just happened to have child porn on it.
Now we could conclude that this guy was chosen at random for a visit from the FBI and that they just didn't like the look of his middle class white face and decided to use deep magic to find a file that had been deleted a year before. Or it could be that he is full of shit and he's pleading guilty for a reason.
I still find the idea plausible enough that:
A) It's the FBI because it's an interstate computer crime. He got tagged (by IP, traced to subscriber) at the time of download, because it was a source the FBI was monitoring. The FBI simply didn't move in to scoop everybody up that they had tagged until later, so they could avoid tipping people off.
C) He's pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence because the alternative is worse. Considering the evidence is iron-clad, he will be convicted at which point he'd be doing considerably more than three years.
A-C above still fit the situation handily, and given A-C above 95% of people would still say exactly what you just said. And that 95% of people probably includes you.
I'm not stating as fact that the guy is innocent. I'm saying that it's entirely possible that he's innocent (and not "haha 1% chance" possible, but a significantly probability) and that regardless of his guilt or innocence it's pretty damn likely he'd be crushed under the heel of the criminal justice system regardless.
The only reason you really have to assume he's guilty rather than A-C above is trust of the criminal justice system, both in intention and outcome.
Whereas I am more than willing to accept that he might be guilty (I'd even say it's more likely than the alternative), but am pointing out that even if he was entirely innocent the result could be exactly the same. It's pretty trivial to find examples suggesting that this is the case (we've already seen one in this thread). Once a crime is identified, cops want arrests and prosecutors want convictions. And a startling number of the the above don't give a fuck who fills those shoes.
I think the biggest thing though, if this article is to be believed, is that there was one incident of child porn on his computer, deleted a while ago.
I could understand not believing the kid if...say he had a whole shit load of child porn on there or if it wasn't deleted when he said it was but currently this article is all we have to go on.
Pleading guilty is suspicious, yes, but you factor in that he's been suddenly thrown into this situation and his lawyer tells him to plead guilty or maybe he misunderstood the charge.
It could have easily been worded as 'Are you guilty of downloading child porn on said date?', this is stuff we don't know.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
Then consider the case of "sexting" that happened recently. Then consider a case where a friend's family leaves, and you find that one of the younger children got ahold of your camera and took pictures that you would not be comfortable keeping. Report, or just delete?
That's not the same situation--at all. If someone had been sending child porn to my phone without my knowledge, then yes I would report it.
Pictures that some kid took on their own that they shouldn't have isn't porn. There's an intent with porn that goes beyond little kids messing with a camera.
In your hypothetical, I'd tell the parents and let them deal with it.
You have a shockingly naive view of the justice system, or maybe you should ask the couple in AZ that nearly got railroaded for taking pictures of their small children bathing? Or the immigrant couple that got arrested because a roll of film of theirs had both pictures of them naked and their children playing on it (not in the same picture, taken at the same location, or taken even on the same day - two entirely seperate things, but they were on the same roll of film so OMG PROTECT THE CHILDREN)
Did that, by any chance, happen in Maricopa County? Because you're basically using examples from the most ridiculous and corrupt jurisdiction in the country and trying to paint the entire justice system with the same brush.
I think that him having none on his computer when they seized it, certainly none that he could access, should be a big fucking clue "Hey this guy's probably telling the truth".
Seriously go look up cases of the really bad pedophiles, actual honest to goodness child molestors. When they raid their houses they find all kinds of shit, thousands of images and videos, etc, etc.
A dude with images long deleted on his PC probably is innocent (defendants are supposed to always be innocent until proven guilty, but, you know)
I think it's short sighted to assume the whole system is like this but it's equally short sighted to assume citizens aren't going to react negatively towards the entire system when something like this happens.
I honestly don't think reporting if I accidentally downloaded child porn will result in my arrest but knowing that it's definitely a risk I'd rather find an alternative.
Did that, by any chance, happen in Maricopa County? Because you're basically using examples from the most ridiculous and corrupt jurisdiction in the country and trying to paint the entire justice system with the same brush.
What about the example from Georgia. Different crime, but still ridiculously corrupt, no?
What you don't seem willing to admit is that there are a shocking number of corrupt (ranging from somewhat to extremely) jurisdictions around the country...at least jurisdictions corrupt enough to railroad somebody found with actual child porn in their possession (regardless of the story they show up with).
Whatever jurisdiction you're in may well be one of the good ones. Super. But until you call the five-oh and let them know you got pictures of naked kiddies on your computer (and you really super promise you weren't seeking them out) and roll the dice, you won't know.
My point was that just naked pictures of minors are considered child pornography by a prosecutor, and in a conservative county the jury will destroy you regardless of guilt, intent, context, or any of that fancy elitist legal mumbo jumbo.
Imagine if murder cases were tried in this manner? If you report a dead body to police they immediately arrest you and you're told by your lawyer that your only option is to plead guilty. If you see a drug deal, 6 months later you are arrested for drug trafficking.
Our one size fits all laws in this area are just beyond stupid.
I think it's short sighted to assume the whole system is like this but it's equally short sighted to assume citizens aren't going to react negatively towards the entire system when something like this happens.
I honestly don't think reporting if I accidentally downloaded child porn will result in my arrest but knowing that it's definitely a risk I'd rather find an alternative.
Hahahahahaha.
It will with near-absolute certainty result in your arrest.
Now, whether it will result in an indictment and conviction is a crap shoot. Your odds might be decent, but the stakes are high (and keep in mind what override just said above regarding this).
But arrest? Yeah, you're going to be arrested. Cops showing up and finding kiddie porn on your computer, regardless of whether you're the one that turned yourself in (and keep in mind that this is essentially what you're doing, regardless of whether your intent is to report the mysterious "source"), are going to feel more than justified in taking you down to the station and detaining you. Don't be surprised if cuffs are involved.
mcdermott on
0
ShockwaveBack In BlackOntario, CanadaRegistered Userregular
About a year later, FBI agents showed up at his family's home. The family agreed to let agents examine the computer, and at first, they couldn't find anything
This is extremely suspicious and begs more questions than anything else in this article.
If they suspected him of downloading child porn, why did it take them a year to track him down? Why didn't the show up with a warrant? "The family agreed to let agents examine the computer" suggests to me the agents asked to see it without a warrant and someone (the dude's dad?) allowed them to. Why?
What did they suspect?
How did they suspect him of anything?
This entire case reeks of bullshit and entrapment and someone not telling the whole story.
I would never NEVER agree to let the Police search my house/computer unless they had a warrant... Mostly because I've heard horror stories of allowing this, and the above case just got added to that list.
Agreed. Stand up for your rights. If they have probable cause, they will get a warrant. You never want to just invite them in to run the risk of a) having them "find" evidence and b) being incriminated in lieu of finding a real perpetrator.
I find it funny how TV glorifies technicalities like they're the godsend to getting the guilty party who got off yet in reality often you see it used the wrong way.
Funny how TV (minus news) never shows that.
Putting Al Capone behind bars was the feelgood story of last century.
I think it's short sighted to assume the whole system is like this but it's equally short sighted to assume citizens aren't going to react negatively towards the entire system when something like this happens.
I honestly don't think reporting if I accidentally downloaded child porn will result in my arrest but knowing that it's definitely a risk I'd rather find an alternative.
Hahahahahaha.
It will with near-absolute certainty result in your arrest.
Now, whether it will result in an indictment and conviction is a crap shoot. Your odds might be decent, but the stakes are high (and keep in mind what override just said above regarding this).
But arrest? Yeah, you're going to be arrested. Cops showing up and finding kiddie porn on your computer, regardless of whether you're the one that turned yourself in (and keep in mind that this is essentially what you're doing, regardless of whether your intent is to report the mysterious "source"), are going to feel more than justified in taking you down to the station and detaining you. Don't be surprised if cuffs are involved.
It's similar to the advice the Australian consulate gave a guy who discovered someone had planted marijuana in his luggage and not grabbed it before he went through customs (and got through): dump it.
I think the only issue this thread hasn't touched is whether destroying a drive with thermite is the only acceptable outcome or if a secure eraser would work well enough.
Posts
I don't think this is what that person was referring to. There was a big todo not long ago regarding someone with a very large manga collection, where some of the images were considered illegal. A quick scan of the Gaiman's blog showed this post. I believe it is the one I recall having read previously.
So... pretty sure the original point is still valid.
Edit: I should add, last I remember the person being mentioned by Gaiman was having to plead guilty.... I'm trying to find the latest news now.
Besides, according to the article, the FBI didn't run a simple un-delete program. It says they went looking deep with pretty specialized tools. So it was probably pretty degraded, and they restored it.
Wait... so if I accidentally/stupidly open a zip file that I get from some spam (as many idiots are wont to do) and discover that it has shocking and illegal content that I immediately delete... I'm still fucked if anyone decides to go over my hard drive with a fine tooth comb?
That is morally insane.
Funny, I find it morally insane that someone would open child porn and just delete it rather than report it to authorities.
Then consider the case of "sexting" that happened recently. Then consider a case where a friend's family leaves, and you find that one of the younger children got ahold of your camera and took pictures that you would not be comfortable keeping. Report, or just delete?
Again, given the far-too-likely outcome for the person reporting it, I think it's by far the more reasonable course of action.
Someone who comes across such things without seeking them is, in my view, innocent in the matter...yet the odds that the criminal justice system will treat them as such are not to my liking. I find no moral responsibility in this case to risk my freedom to report it, especially when the odds are the the only person who might wind up arrested is, well, me. Considering that it's pretty unlikely they'll track down the original uploader/distributor.
Hell, you're assuming that the person you got it from is even in a location the authorities can touch. Interwebs be mad international, yo. Once the cops/FBI figure out that the originator was over in Crapistan or Wherevernisia, and thus completely out of their reach, I'd say the odds that they'll settle for forcing you to plead out to a sex crime just go up.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Again, the only person likely to get arrested in this case is you. Delete, and forget about it.
Hell, this is a good argument for that phone insurance they try to tell you. Incinerate the phone, scatter the ashes.
EDIT: Especially in this case, where there may not even be another crime being committed. You know, other than your potential possession of child porn. Best case, they arrest the kid for possession/distribution of child porn for taking pictures of their self. Reporting anything in this case is fucktarded. At least to the authorities (after the burning/ash-spreading, feel free to notify the parents so they can deal with their kids).
That's a fair point. It is destruction of evidence... But that's the extent of the crime.
I think you're absolutely mad to risk going to the authorities, knowing the witch-hunt mentality they have wrt this stuff
The chance of it actually being the original producer, or even someone vaguley linked to the original producer is practically nil. So lets imagine it's not you who ends up getting done (which is a very non-zero chance), you may well have just got a guy banged up, and marked as a sexual predator which will destroy his life. He may well not even have known what it was he was distributing.
In which case, good job. I hope you're very proud of yourself. Seriously well done. We all know people who have been outcast and crushed by the system are less likely to engage in illegal activities, not more.
Ah yes, but people looking at images of these events doesn't encourage people to make more of them, these pictures are simply a byproduct of the event.
In addition, nearly 100% of the time the victem in child pornography would argue to have the lewd pictures of them taken down while those in the situations you describe have been asked to keep the pictures public or advocate to keep it public so people know of the atrocities that occured.
It also helps that the atrocities you describe have been 'resolved' in a way, or at least, to the public. The holocaust is over and hitler is dead, 9/11 was resolved with bush's vengance war. Child pornography hasn't been resolved, there are new victems every year.
That's not the same situation--at all. If someone had been sending child porn to my phone without my knowledge, then yes I would report it.
Pictures that some kid took on their own that they shouldn't have isn't porn. There's an intent with porn that goes beyond little kids messing with a camera.
In your hypothetical, I'd tell the parents and let them deal with it.
I think the hypothetical situation is a lot more likely than you think.
Situation:
You are a parent of teenagers, horny teenagers who date/have sex/whatever.
Teenagers get a hold of the family camera and put dirty pictures on there for thrills or whatever.
Teenagers forget to delete pictures.
Photos of child rape are byproducts of child rape. I don't think that people would rape to make pictures, but I do think people would take advantage of a rape to take pictures as trophies or bragging material. I don't think demand drives the rape.
Things like Faces of Death are pretty obviously exploiting unwilling participants. I don't think it's at all likely that people are happy to have the deaths of family members or relatives exploited in such a way. New deaths on camera happen regularly enough for there to be a small industry/community dedicated to that kind of thing.
I can honestly say I don't know how to reply to this. I know that child pornography is wrong and I can't explain why the other things aren't without you coming up with a counter.
Maybe it's just the whole socially acceptable thing?
Maybe someone else who's more versed in this has the reason?
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=Wilson
This is a really long article but it details how a minor got fucked over by the justice system.
Basically the short of it is that Wilson, 17, got a blowjob from a 15 year old girl, and while the law allowed for intercourse between minors 3 years apart, it made no provisions for oral sex. Wilson was given a 10 year sentence for this. After he was put in jail, the law was changed, but did not include a grandfather clause. Luckily, after 2 years of his 10 year sentence, he was allowed to go free and I believe his sex crime registration was removed from his record as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia#Wilson.27s_release
But here's the thing that's really fucked up, ESPN did a video piece about Genarlow and on it, the prosecutor stated he knew he could not get Wilson for the rape charge the girl brought forth because there was video evidence proving she was a liar but that he could nail him for the statutory oral sex charge.
I mean, how fucked is that? He knows he can't get the kid on a real charge but can stick it to him on a technicality. That seems like a clear abuse of the law and something that should lead to a disbarment, in my opinion.
I can't find the video at the moment, because I'm at work, but I saw it in 2006, about the same time that ESPN article was written and it's stuck with me for the past 3 years on how stupid our laws can be and how scummy some of people using them are.
Look, I don't know that I'm right and you're wrong. But I think I have a decent argument. I admit I'm probably somewhat invested in being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian which makes me somewhat blind to the weaknesses to my own argument, if indeed there are any.
But I think it's a mistake to blandly assert that I know that know I'm right when I don't. It's a mistake to accept convention as truth. There are many cases where complexity should exist in our understanding where it doesn't, where simplicity leads to injustice or other gross errors.
I wish that instead of saying you know you're right but you don't know why, you'd instead think harder about this or concede a point. The basic lesson of Bayesian analysis is that you can learn only from information that disconfirms some part of your current belief set.
Basically that case is a shining example of why I laugh in the face of anybody who waves "prosecutorial discretion" or any other argument claiming that the justice system is reasonable and/or sane on issues like this (or any issues, for that matter).
If you stumble across child porn on the internet by accident, and report it, you'd better be okay with the idea of being on the sex offender list for the rest of your life.
The incentive system for prosecutors in America is fucked beyond belief.
I'll admit you have a decent arguement, someone here would counter it if you didn't. But I have my limits, I know how I feel on the issues posted in the OP (they are injust, etc) but on the issues you bring forward I admit I haven't given much thought until now and I'll need more time than it takes to make a post to gather my thoughts on the matter before we could continue this.
Up until now I've just thought it's wrong because I'm told it's wrong, that's not to say I think it's okay now, but I've just realised I don't have any backing to why I think it's wrong besides that and I need to find it.
We could get into the whole, accepting convention as truth thing but I'll just leave it as I agree, convention should never be taken as truth, you should figure out the truth for yourself, I just never made the connection between atrocities and this before.
You have a point, yes, and I'll need to find time to reflect on why those issues are wrong.
The lesson in the Wilson case is less about how statutory rape laws are fucked and more about how certain people in Ga. don't like the idea of a white girl giving a black guy a BJ.
Funny how TV (minus news) never shows that.
Last I heard, certain people in the U.S. don't like the idea of anybody possessing child porn.
Hell, depending where you live they'd (meaning cops, prosecutor, jury) probably hate you for looking at porn in general. At least getting busted for it. Let alone if you admit to searching for "teen" porn (generally meaning 18/19, or 20-something-year-olds-dressed-to-look-like-teens).
But if you feel confident you won't be arrested for possession of child porn, then prosecuted for it, then quite possibly convicted of it, by all means call the cops. I'll visit you in prison to tell you I told you so.
And risk getting investigated by association?
Now ask yourself why 93% of the population wouldn't say the same about you, after you get arrested for admitting to possession of child porn (which, to report it, you basically have to do). Ask if the bulk of the U.S. population will buy your story and let you off, especially without the mysterious distributor in cuffs to take your place. Who won't be, because assuming they're any more guilty than you are (they may not be, after all) they're probably in eastern Uzbekistan.
I mean really, all I could think would be "OH GOD CHILD PORN, WHAT DO I DO?"
Shoulder Angel: "Report it to the police, you must right this wrong!"
Devil: "What are you, retarded? Remember that article about the kid who got busted? I'm sure he'll love to be the new discussion across the internet for the measly price of ten years in jail and being labelled a sex offender"
Angel: "Good point. Yeah, delete that and burn your hard drive."
This is even more kneejerk than defending the FBI reflectively. We only have this guy's unsubstantiated claim that the accidentally downloaded child porn and that the FBI mysteriously showed up at his home for no reason. Meanwhile, he's pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence. Its not trust that drives the skepticism its Occaam's Razor.
Either this guy, as essentially all criminal defendants do, is claiming he is not guilty despite the evidence against him because of some technicality. People will claim the drugs/guns/etc being pulled out of their pockets or car mysteriously appeared and they've never seen it before in their life. Now sometimes they are telling the truth and its been planted or there's some huge misunderstanding. But in this case, the FBI - not some local sheriff, the feds - showed up at this guy's door. And lo-and-behold this random computer they checked just happened to have child porn on it.
Now we could conclude that this guy was chosen at random for a visit from the FBI and that they just didn't like the look of his middle class white face and decided to use deep magic to find a file that had been deleted a year before. Or it could be that he is full of shit and he's pleading guilty for a reason.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You have a shockingly naive view of the justice system, or maybe you should ask the couple in AZ that nearly got railroaded for taking pictures of their small children bathing? Or the immigrant couple that got arrested because a roll of film of theirs had both pictures of them naked and their children playing on it (not in the same picture, taken at the same location, or taken even on the same day - two entirely seperate things, but they were on the same roll of film so OMG PROTECT THE CHILDREN)
I think the reason you get knee-jerk reactions on this is because of just how plausible it is that he did get some images while he was searching for people his age. So, you are basically resorting to the whole "if you have nothing to hide, this is no big deal" defense of ridiculous law. Hell, the fact that they let them search implies to most people they actually believed that BS statement.
Maybe my perspective is skewed, because I am, in fact, The Man.
I still find the idea plausible enough that:
A) It's the FBI because it's an interstate computer crime.
C) He's pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence because the alternative is worse. Considering the evidence is iron-clad, he will be convicted at which point he'd be doing considerably more than three years.
A-C above still fit the situation handily, and given A-C above 95% of people would still say exactly what you just said. And that 95% of people probably includes you.
I'm not stating as fact that the guy is innocent. I'm saying that it's entirely possible that he's innocent (and not "haha 1% chance" possible, but a significantly probability) and that regardless of his guilt or innocence it's pretty damn likely he'd be crushed under the heel of the criminal justice system regardless.
The only reason you really have to assume he's guilty rather than A-C above is trust of the criminal justice system, both in intention and outcome.
Whereas I am more than willing to accept that he might be guilty (I'd even say it's more likely than the alternative), but am pointing out that even if he was entirely innocent the result could be exactly the same. It's pretty trivial to find examples suggesting that this is the case (we've already seen one in this thread). Once a crime is identified, cops want arrests and prosecutors want convictions. And a startling number of the the above don't give a fuck who fills those shoes.
I could understand not believing the kid if...say he had a whole shit load of child porn on there or if it wasn't deleted when he said it was but currently this article is all we have to go on.
Pleading guilty is suspicious, yes, but you factor in that he's been suddenly thrown into this situation and his lawyer tells him to plead guilty or maybe he misunderstood the charge.
It could have easily been worded as 'Are you guilty of downloading child porn on said date?', this is stuff we don't know.
Did that, by any chance, happen in Maricopa County? Because you're basically using examples from the most ridiculous and corrupt jurisdiction in the country and trying to paint the entire justice system with the same brush.
Seriously go look up cases of the really bad pedophiles, actual honest to goodness child molestors. When they raid their houses they find all kinds of shit, thousands of images and videos, etc, etc.
A dude with images long deleted on his PC probably is innocent (defendants are supposed to always be innocent until proven guilty, but, you know)
I honestly don't think reporting if I accidentally downloaded child porn will result in my arrest but knowing that it's definitely a risk I'd rather find an alternative.
What about the example from Georgia. Different crime, but still ridiculously corrupt, no?
What you don't seem willing to admit is that there are a shocking number of corrupt (ranging from somewhat to extremely) jurisdictions around the country...at least jurisdictions corrupt enough to railroad somebody found with actual child porn in their possession (regardless of the story they show up with).
Whatever jurisdiction you're in may well be one of the good ones. Super. But until you call the five-oh and let them know you got pictures of naked kiddies on your computer (and you really super promise you weren't seeking them out) and roll the dice, you won't know.
Imagine if murder cases were tried in this manner? If you report a dead body to police they immediately arrest you and you're told by your lawyer that your only option is to plead guilty. If you see a drug deal, 6 months later you are arrested for drug trafficking.
Our one size fits all laws in this area are just beyond stupid.
Hahahahahaha.
It will with near-absolute certainty result in your arrest.
Now, whether it will result in an indictment and conviction is a crap shoot. Your odds might be decent, but the stakes are high (and keep in mind what override just said above regarding this).
But arrest? Yeah, you're going to be arrested. Cops showing up and finding kiddie porn on your computer, regardless of whether you're the one that turned yourself in (and keep in mind that this is essentially what you're doing, regardless of whether your intent is to report the mysterious "source"), are going to feel more than justified in taking you down to the station and detaining you. Don't be surprised if cuffs are involved.
Agreed. Stand up for your rights. If they have probable cause, they will get a warrant. You never want to just invite them in to run the risk of a) having them "find" evidence and b) being incriminated in lieu of finding a real perpetrator.
Putting Al Capone behind bars was the feelgood story of last century.
It's similar to the advice the Australian consulate gave a guy who discovered someone had planted marijuana in his luggage and not grabbed it before he went through customs (and got through): dump it.
I think the only issue this thread hasn't touched is whether destroying a drive with thermite is the only acceptable outcome or if a secure eraser would work well enough.