Well, it works like this...
Either
(a) you're for civil liberties and protecting the ritual exploitation of children (these two are always intertwined, never forget that)
or
(b) you have a soul and will gladly waive your right to demand a warrant from some jackbooted thugs before they haul your ass away for hentai, real or suspected.
I don't have any problem with the FBI's actions--I mean, are they just supposed to assume that he accidentally downloaded child porn? They probably seized the computer of a known distributor and were able to trace all of the people who had downloaded his pictures.
According to federal law, I think that (1) you have to knowingly download the material and (2) it's an affirmative defense that the person who downloaded the pictures possessed less than three images immediately deleted them.
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.
How did they get to his house in the first place? Like, what possessed them to knock on that door and seize his computer?
Um--pretty sure that the Supreme Court said that cartoon child porn isn't a crime because no actual child is being harmed.
Yes and no. Virtual child pornography is not the equivalent of actual child pornography. What this means is that adults have the legal right to possess virtual child pornography in their homes. Additionally non-obscene virtual child pornography (say a nude drawing of a non-existent minor) retains it's First Amendment protection. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
However obscene virtual child pornography (drawings of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct) may be criminalized in the same manner as obscenity. Persons may be liable for transmitting obscene virtual child pornography through interstate commerce (i.e. the internet) and may be liable for possession with intent to distribute obscene virtual child pornography. Because such material are "obscene" and therefore retain no First Amendment protection, a person may be charged criminally. What is cause for concern is that the punishment for distribution of this specific type of pornography is the same for possession of actual child pornography and references the same penalty statute. 18 U.S.C. 1466A; U.S. v. Whorley; U.S. v. Handley.
I'm wondering, the guy was 20 when he got the files and 22 when the cops came, yet the parents can give permission for them to look on his computer?
How the hell does that work?
"The Family" probably includes the suspect as well. Might have been a situation where it was "Well, you were using their bandwidth, soooo..." and he wanted to prove his parents didn't have anything to do with it.
Anyway, shit like this is why you keep a copy of DBAN handy, and why you never ever submit to searches unless you have no choice. Most people don't realize they have an option, and can damn well tell the officer he can't come in, etc. Assuming no warrant, of course.
I honestly can't decide whether this or the UK thing infuriates me more. I might give the slight edge to the US case, since I'm pretty numb to idiotic weapon / self-defense stuff involving the UK. There's just so much of it.
I don't have any problem with the FBI's actions--I mean, are they just supposed to assume that he accidentally downloaded child porn? They probably seized the computer of a known distributor and were able to trace all of the people who had downloaded his pictures.
According to federal law, I think that (1) you have to knowingly download the material and (2) it's an affirmative defense that the person who downloaded the pictures possessed less than three images immediately deleted them.
So the law is fine and his attorney is dumb.
Except, they apparently had no warrant to seize his computer and seemingly preyed on his family's naive nature and ignorance in order to find evidence that they didn't even find on the first pass.
You are siding with the FBI in lieu of evidence to do so. You're assuming they seized the computer of a known distributor and traced people who downloaded the pictures... except P2P services do not really work that way. Websites do, yes, but the IP record-keeping of P2P services are laughably non-comprehensive. With services like Limewire, this isn't a bug, it's a feature! Limewire, even though it makes a big contractual song and dance of "don't use our service to download illegal material" knows good god damn well that's what people use it for and have all but provably designed their software to make locating users over their network extremely difficult.
So, you're making up excuses for the FBI and then saying they did nothing wrong. The only truth is we don't know why the feds came knocking at his door one day, why (if they had evidence linking him to a known distributor) they didn't have a warrant and why his family happily handed over his computer without such a warrant.
The FBI is known for these sorts of shenanigans and nobody should give them the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is an important component of the justice system, as is due process and proper arrest and investigation procedures. If the FBI suspects someone of doing something illegal and is investigating them for doing so, the onus is on them to show how they came to this conclusion.
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
I don't have any problem with the FBI's actions--I mean, are they just supposed to assume that he accidentally downloaded child porn? They probably seized the computer of a known distributor and were able to trace all of the people who had downloaded his pictures.
According to federal law, I think that (1) you have to knowingly download the material and (2) it's an affirmative defense that the person who downloaded the pictures possessed less than three images immediately deleted them.
So the law is fine and his attorney is dumb.
Except, they apparently had no warrant to seize his computer and seemingly preyed on his family's naive nature and ignorance in order to find evidence that they didn't even find on the first pass.
You are siding with the FBI in lieu of evidence to do so. You're assuming they seized the computer of a known distributor and traced people who downloaded the pictures... except P2P services do not really work that way. Websites do, yes, but the IP record-keeping of P2P services are laughably non-comprehensive. With services like Limewire, this isn't a bug, it's a feature! Limewire, even though it makes a big contractual song and dance of "don't use our service to download illegal material" knows good god damn well that's what people use it for and have all but provably designed their software to make locating users over their network extremely difficult.
So, you're making up excuses for the FBI and then saying they did nothing wrong. The only truth is we don't know why the feds came knocking at his door one day, why (if they had evidence linking him to a known distributor) they didn't have a warrant and why his family happily handed over his computer without such a warrant.
The FBI is known for these sorts of shenanigans and nobody should give them the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is an important component of the justice system, as is due process and proper arrest and investigation procedures. If the FBI suspects someone of doing something illegal and is investigating them for doing so, the onus is on them to show how they came to this conclusion.
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
The only reason the FBI and Police try this is because the public is woefully misinformed about their rights. They wouldn't have shown up if they didn't think they could trick or pressure the family into showing them incriminating evidence.
I mean, swindlers are well within their legal rights to use reverse mortgages to steal from old ladies, and homeopaths are well within their legal rights to sell sugar pills to a gullible public. It doesn't make any of these actions less despicable.
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
The only reason the FBI and Police try this is because the public is woefully misinformed about their rights. They wouldn't have shown up if they didn't think they could trick or pressure the family into showing them incriminating evidence.
I mean, swindlers are well within their legal rights to use reverse mortgages to steal from old ladies, and homeopaths are well within their legal rights to sell sugar pills to a gullible public. It doesn't make any of these actions less despicable.
Yes, the FBI asking to search a computer they thought child porn had been downloaded to is exactly like someone ripping of old ladies.
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
The only reason the FBI and Police try this is because the public is woefully misinformed about their rights. They wouldn't have shown up if they didn't think they could trick or pressure the family into showing them incriminating evidence.
I mean, swindlers are well within their legal rights to use reverse mortgages to steal from old ladies, and homeopaths are well within their legal rights to sell sugar pills to a gullible public. It doesn't make any of these actions less despicable.
Yes, the FBI asking to search a computer they thought child porn had been downloaded to is exactly like someone ripping of old ladies.
They could have gotten a warrant, just to avoid issues with consent and third party consent. Of course the fact that search warrants for electronic data are currently in a very controversial state, see U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 579 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (officers should waive reliance on plain view doctrine for electronics searches and seizures), may exclude a lot of evidence that would be admissible under the broad scope of a consent search. Plus most people consent to searches anyway since consent to search doesn't require any strict waiver (they have to know they have the right to say no and the consequences of waiver) of rights.
Is there even anything concrete as to whether they had a warrant or not? All I see is one local news article that is very one-sided and ambiguous as to how the search actually took place.
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
I'd be more scared of being arrested for having possession of it then worried about whoever was distributing it.
And I don't know how many of you remember the days of kazaa, but there was a lot of crap that was named wrong on purpose that people might download.. bestiality with normal porn names, etc... And then of course your computer automatically starts uploading it to other people before you've even looked at it, so yay, then you get a distribution charge against you as well.
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
I'd be more scared of being arrested for having possession of it then worried about whoever was distributing it.
And I don't know how many of you remember the days of kazaa, but there was a lot of crap that was named wrong on purpose that people might download.. bestiality with normal porn names, etc... And then of course your computer automatically starts uploading it to other people before you've even looked at it, so yay, then you get a distribution charge against you as well.
This is also exactly how Bit Torrent works.
Download a file from Bit Torrent and you are distributing the file before it is even complete and you have a chance to view it.
So, you could be charged with distribution without even knowing you distributed it.
Internet issues need better designed laws than what we apply to other issues.
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
I'd be more scared of being arrested for having possession of it then worried about whoever was distributing it.
And I don't know how many of you remember the days of kazaa, but there was a lot of crap that was named wrong on purpose that people might download.. bestiality with normal porn names, etc... And then of course your computer automatically starts uploading it to other people before you've even looked at it, so yay, then you get a distribution charge against you as well.
Yeah, most people don't consider the idea that by calling the cops to report it they're exposing themselves to a non-zero (very non-zero) chance of being arrested and prosecuted for the possession of it. I imagine if you run into a prosecutor looking to be a dick (or just looking to pad his numbers) you could very well find yourself glad that all you had to do was enter a guilty plea and register as a sex offender, instead of heading off to jail for a few years.
Unless, of course, you feel confident in a jury of your peers being reasonable and understanding that when you searched for "teenage porn" you really meant 18 and up. Because people in this country are so reasonable about such things.
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
I'd be more scared of being arrested for having possession of it then worried about whoever was distributing it.
And I don't know how many of you remember the days of kazaa, but there was a lot of crap that was named wrong on purpose that people might download.. bestiality with normal porn names, etc... And then of course your computer automatically starts uploading it to other people before you've even looked at it, so yay, then you get a distribution charge against you as well.
This is also exactly how Bit Torrent works.
Download a file from Bit Torrent and you are distributing the file before it is even complete and you have a chance to view it.
So, you could be charged with distribution without even knowing you distributed it.
Internet issues need better designed laws than what we apply to other issues.
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
I'd be more scared of being arrested for having possession of it then worried about whoever was distributing it.
And I don't know how many of you remember the days of kazaa, but there was a lot of crap that was named wrong on purpose that people might download.. bestiality with normal porn names, etc... And then of course your computer automatically starts uploading it to other people before you've even looked at it, so yay, then you get a distribution charge against you as well.
Yeah, most people don't consider the idea that by calling the cops to report it they're exposing themselves to a non-zero (very non-zero) chance of being arrested and prosecuted for the possession of it. I imagine if you run into a prosecutor looking to be a dick (or just looking to pad his numbers) you could very well find yourself glad that all you had to do was enter a guilty plea and register as a sex offender, instead of heading off to jail for a few years.
Unless, of course, you feel confident in a jury of your peers being reasonable and understanding that when you searched for "teenage porn" you really meant 18 and up. Because people in this country are so reasonable about such things.
This is just me, but if I accidentally downloaded evidence of child rape I would turn it over to the police rather than delete it and pretend I never saw anything.
considering in this very thread we have a case of a dude being arrested for trying to report and turn in an illegal gun to the police i don't blame anyone who simply goes "OH SHIT!" and then deletes the file and never speaks of it again.
i've never accidentally downloaded child porn, although if i did i am pretty sure i'd like
take that entire hard-drive and light it on fire until it is melted nothing
and then just buy a new hard-drive
the very non-zero chance of getting my balls busted by an overzealous legal system deters me from ever going to the police about something like that.
like seriously
If they suspected him of downloading child porn, why did it take them a year to track him down?
A couple months back here in Houston, I remember watching the news and seeing a story about how authorities arrested a man in the area who downloaded more than 600 movies of child porn. My immediate thought was wow, why didn't they catch this guy after 200 movies? Or 400 movies? Because 600 is a lot!
like seriously
If they suspected him of downloading child porn, why did it take them a year to track him down?
A couple months back here in Houston, I remember watching the news and seeing a story about how authorities arrested a man in the area who downloaded more than 600 movies of child porn. My immediate thought was wow, why didn't they catch this guy after 200 movies? Or 400 movies? Because 600 is a lot!
yeah, well, it really could have reasonably taken that long to track a man down if he just then (at 600 or so) blipped on their radar, so to speak
to take a year to track down a guy for downloading one movie and not even show up with a warrant is highly dubious to me
like, was he part of a much larger operation where they used the connections list of a known distributor to find him, or what?
you don't just spontaneously show up on the FBI's shit-list for downloading child porn. something has to happen. you either have to get stung as part of an operation, or someone else catches you, or they catch someone else and you get connected to it, or what.
this is, from the information we are given, like some kind of spontaneous search without cause and uh
this is, from the information we are given, like some kind of spontaneous search without cause and uh
that's screwy
Well, one possible answer is the FBI was not looking for year old deleted child porn. Maybe they were looking for something else and the suspicion of porn was a pretense to get their foot in the door. Maybe they were a family of terrorists!
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
I have to stop you here, maybe its a social issue but over here if the cops showed up at my apartment and asked to look around I wouldn't even think of a warrant. I'd just say "sure whatever, what can I help you with?"
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
I have to stop you here, maybe its a social issue but over here if the cops showed up at my apartment and asked to look around I wouldn't even think of a warrant. I'd just say "sure whatever, what can I help you with?"
Which is why law enforcement love consent searches. Not only do most people, even guilty people, usually consent to searches, but the scope of a consent search is very broad. Unlike with a warrant, where law enforcement may only search places that have probable cause of incriminating evidence, consent searches allow law enforcement to search areas they have no PC for. Also a person does not have to know they have the right to say no to a consent search, nor do they have the right to know what the police are searching for, or the consequences of consent.
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
I have to stop you here, maybe its a social issue but over here if the cops showed up at my apartment and asked to look around I wouldn't even think of a warrant. I'd just say "sure whatever, what can I help you with?"
Which is why law enforcement love consent searches. Not only do most people, even guilty people, usually consent to searches, but the scope of a consent search is very broad. Unlike with a warrant, where law enforcement may only search places that have probable cause of incriminating evidence, consent searches allow law enforcement to search areas they have no PC for. Also a person does not have to know they have the right to say no to a consent search, nor do they have the right to know what the police are searching for, or the consequences of consent.
I don't think you're allowed to kick the cops out after you consent either
Kitty, did anything happen on that squabble a few months ago where the FBI wanted ISPs to release data collected from their customers up to a year old. As it is now, ISPs only release info 90 days old to authorities and aren't required to do any more than that.
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
I have to stop you here, maybe its a social issue but over here if the cops showed up at my apartment and asked to look around I wouldn't even think of a warrant. I'd just say "sure whatever, what can I help you with?"
Which is why law enforcement love consent searches. Not only do most people, even guilty people, usually consent to searches, but the scope of a consent search is very broad. Unlike with a warrant, where law enforcement may only search places that have probable cause of incriminating evidence, consent searches allow law enforcement to search areas they have no PC for. Also a person does not have to know they have the right to say no to a consent search, nor do they have the right to know what the police are searching for, or the consequences of consent.
I don't think you're allowed to kick the cops out after you consent either
this is correct in Canada and the US
once you've consented to the search, you don't get to go "takesy-backsy!" and kick them out just before they stumble on your weed stash or something
i will say this
in my experience with local and federal law enforcement showing up at my house here in Ontario, at no point did they ever even ask to come inside, let alone search the joint.
generally speaking cops up here recognize how fucking dangerous and stupid that can be and prefer to talk to you outside your house where everyone is nice and safe and you don't get to bitch about anything later
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
I have to stop you here, maybe its a social issue but over here if the cops showed up at my apartment and asked to look around I wouldn't even think of a warrant. I'd just say "sure whatever, what can I help you with?"
Which is why law enforcement love consent searches. Not only do most people, even guilty people, usually consent to searches, but the scope of a consent search is very broad. Unlike with a warrant, where law enforcement may only search places that have probable cause of incriminating evidence, consent searches allow law enforcement to search areas they have no PC for. Also a person does not have to know they have the right to say no to a consent search, nor do they have the right to know what the police are searching for, or the consequences of consent.
I don't think you're allowed to kick the cops out after you consent either
You can withdraw consent at any time, actually, which ends the search. It's just that doing so may give the police reasonable suspicion or even probable cause of incriminating evidence. Law enforcement may now have the option of all sorts of warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests that have been carved out as exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.
Bad Kitty on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
"Hey officer, I was trying to pirate this new DVD and someone else is doing crime, please track them down and arrest them without messing with me or confiscating my computer. Thanks."
I understand why someone would hate the FBI. But I also have trouble believing this guy really only downloaded one file and it was accidental. I like to assume that people are generally rational, and there is no reason for the FBI to go after this guy for one file that he downloaded, and even if they did, it wouldn't take a year. That is not to say that they were justified, but I can't believe that he's telling the whole truth.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
"Hey officer, I was trying to pirate this new DVD and someone else is doing crime, please track them down and arrest them without messing with me or confiscating my computer. Thanks."
Yeah the odds of them actually bothering to go after the uploader vs arresting you for piracy/kiddie porn are really not in your favour
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'm not assuming the guy is innocent, I'm saying that suspects should be innocent until proven guilty. That's not what this sounds like, it sounds like he was railroaded.
Edit: unless something big is left out of the story, which it may well be
The UK and Canadian stories are stupider, but the US one is scarier since, like people have said, p2p downloading is a crap shoot. I don't believe I've ever downloaded child porn, but I've definitely gotten things I never looked for. This could really happen to anyone.
Holy shit people, never let the cops search your place/computer/car. Make those motherfuckers get a warrant or at least come of with some kind of probable cause. If the cops are investigating you for something don't ever fucking talk to them without a lawyer.
my issue with the US story is the inherent mystery it sorta suggests
why the FBI were at his house in the first place looking to seize his computer vexes me
that is not like, something they just do randomly
Federal agents currently have an incentive to not get search warrants for data stored on computers because of a recent case which placed the validity for warrants for the search of electronic data, such as child pornography, in an area of uncertainty in the 9th Circuit. The en banc court of appeals in August decided a case that set up Miranda-type guidelines for the issuance of search warrants for electronic data. U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 579 F.3d 998. The guidelines recommend:
1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases. 2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized personnel or an independent third party. If the segregation is to be done by government computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application that [they] will not disclose to the investigators any information other than that which is the target of the warrant. 3. Warrants ... must disclose the actual risks of destruction of evidence. 4. The government's search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may be examined by the case agents. 5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and what it has kept.
Several US Attorneys and the US Solicitor General have asked the 9th Circuit for a full en banc hearing with all 27 circuit judges, because federal agents are chilled from asking for search warrants for electronic data. The warrant application process has now become much more complicated and costly. Violation of these rules may exclude any evidence obtained and it is expensive to require third parties to screen the information. Rather than apply for a warrant, the validity of which is certain to be questioned, I would ask for a consent search.
Posts
Either
(a) you're for civil liberties and protecting the ritual exploitation of children (these two are always intertwined, never forget that)
or
(b) you have a soul and will gladly waive your right to demand a warrant from some jackbooted thugs before they haul your ass away for hentai, real or suspected.
Easy answer: move out of the house before you turn 22
According to federal law, I think that (1) you have to knowingly download the material and (2) it's an affirmative defense that the person who downloaded the pictures possessed less than three images immediately deleted them.
So the law is fine and his attorney is dumb.
Yes and no. Virtual child pornography is not the equivalent of actual child pornography. What this means is that adults have the legal right to possess virtual child pornography in their homes. Additionally non-obscene virtual child pornography (say a nude drawing of a non-existent minor) retains it's First Amendment protection. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
However obscene virtual child pornography (drawings of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct) may be criminalized in the same manner as obscenity. Persons may be liable for transmitting obscene virtual child pornography through interstate commerce (i.e. the internet) and may be liable for possession with intent to distribute obscene virtual child pornography. Because such material are "obscene" and therefore retain no First Amendment protection, a person may be charged criminally. What is cause for concern is that the punishment for distribution of this specific type of pornography is the same for possession of actual child pornography and references the same penalty statute. 18 U.S.C. 1466A; U.S. v. Whorley; U.S. v. Handley.
"The Family" probably includes the suspect as well. Might have been a situation where it was "Well, you were using their bandwidth, soooo..." and he wanted to prove his parents didn't have anything to do with it.
Anyway, shit like this is why you keep a copy of DBAN handy, and why you never ever submit to searches unless you have no choice. Most people don't realize they have an option, and can damn well tell the officer he can't come in, etc. Assuming no warrant, of course.
I honestly can't decide whether this or the UK thing infuriates me more. I might give the slight edge to the US case, since I'm pretty numb to idiotic weapon / self-defense stuff involving the UK. There's just so much of it.
Except, they apparently had no warrant to seize his computer and seemingly preyed on his family's naive nature and ignorance in order to find evidence that they didn't even find on the first pass.
You are siding with the FBI in lieu of evidence to do so. You're assuming they seized the computer of a known distributor and traced people who downloaded the pictures... except P2P services do not really work that way. Websites do, yes, but the IP record-keeping of P2P services are laughably non-comprehensive. With services like Limewire, this isn't a bug, it's a feature! Limewire, even though it makes a big contractual song and dance of "don't use our service to download illegal material" knows good god damn well that's what people use it for and have all but provably designed their software to make locating users over their network extremely difficult.
So, you're making up excuses for the FBI and then saying they did nothing wrong. The only truth is we don't know why the feds came knocking at his door one day, why (if they had evidence linking him to a known distributor) they didn't have a warrant and why his family happily handed over his computer without such a warrant.
The FBI is known for these sorts of shenanigans and nobody should give them the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is an important component of the justice system, as is due process and proper arrest and investigation procedures. If the FBI suspects someone of doing something illegal and is investigating them for doing so, the onus is on them to show how they came to this conclusion.
And I hate to get into vague psychology bullshit, but don't you think it's weird that he said "it didn't appeal to me"? If I saw real child porn and I was on TV for it, I would be using stronger words than that. But then again, for all we know it was a 16 year old.
Unless the FBI kicked their door down and confiscated the computer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who voluntarily waive their rights. There's nothing inherently wrong with law enforcement showing up at someone's house and asking to check out their computer (or look for a gun, or whatever). I honestly don't care how the FBI obtained their information. We're not talking about pirated software here, we're talking about child pornography. There's nothing preventing him from mounting a vigorous defense if he's innocent, and there's nothing illegal about law enforcement preforming a consensual search.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I accidentally downloaded child porn, you better believe I'd be calling the cops so that they could try and track down the fuck distributing it.
The only reason the FBI and Police try this is because the public is woefully misinformed about their rights. They wouldn't have shown up if they didn't think they could trick or pressure the family into showing them incriminating evidence.
I mean, swindlers are well within their legal rights to use reverse mortgages to steal from old ladies, and homeopaths are well within their legal rights to sell sugar pills to a gullible public. It doesn't make any of these actions less despicable.
Yes, the FBI asking to search a computer they thought child porn had been downloaded to is exactly like someone ripping of old ladies.
They could have gotten a warrant, just to avoid issues with consent and third party consent. Of course the fact that search warrants for electronic data are currently in a very controversial state, see U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 579 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (officers should waive reliance on plain view doctrine for electronics searches and seizures), may exclude a lot of evidence that would be admissible under the broad scope of a consent search. Plus most people consent to searches anyway since consent to search doesn't require any strict waiver (they have to know they have the right to say no and the consequences of waiver) of rights.
I'd be more scared of being arrested for having possession of it then worried about whoever was distributing it.
And I don't know how many of you remember the days of kazaa, but there was a lot of crap that was named wrong on purpose that people might download.. bestiality with normal porn names, etc... And then of course your computer automatically starts uploading it to other people before you've even looked at it, so yay, then you get a distribution charge against you as well.
This is also exactly how Bit Torrent works.
Download a file from Bit Torrent and you are distributing the file before it is even complete and you have a chance to view it.
So, you could be charged with distribution without even knowing you distributed it.
Internet issues need better designed laws than what we apply to other issues.
Yeah, most people don't consider the idea that by calling the cops to report it they're exposing themselves to a non-zero (very non-zero) chance of being arrested and prosecuted for the possession of it. I imagine if you run into a prosecutor looking to be a dick (or just looking to pad his numbers) you could very well find yourself glad that all you had to do was enter a guilty plea and register as a sex offender, instead of heading off to jail for a few years.
Unless, of course, you feel confident in a jury of your peers being reasonable and understanding that when you searched for "teenage porn" you really meant 18 and up. Because people in this country are so reasonable about such things.
Actually, knowledge is an element of the crime.
This is just me, but if I accidentally downloaded evidence of child rape I would turn it over to the police rather than delete it and pretend I never saw anything.
i've never accidentally downloaded child porn, although if i did i am pretty sure i'd like
take that entire hard-drive and light it on fire until it is melted nothing
and then just buy a new hard-drive
the very non-zero chance of getting my balls busted by an overzealous legal system deters me from ever going to the police about something like that.
A couple months back here in Houston, I remember watching the news and seeing a story about how authorities arrested a man in the area who downloaded more than 600 movies of child porn. My immediate thought was wow, why didn't they catch this guy after 200 movies? Or 400 movies? Because 600 is a lot!
yeah, well, it really could have reasonably taken that long to track a man down if he just then (at 600 or so) blipped on their radar, so to speak
to take a year to track down a guy for downloading one movie and not even show up with a warrant is highly dubious to me
like, was he part of a much larger operation where they used the connections list of a known distributor to find him, or what?
you don't just spontaneously show up on the FBI's shit-list for downloading child porn. something has to happen. you either have to get stung as part of an operation, or someone else catches you, or they catch someone else and you get connected to it, or what.
this is, from the information we are given, like some kind of spontaneous search without cause and uh
that's screwy
Well, one possible answer is the FBI was not looking for year old deleted child porn. Maybe they were looking for something else and the suspicion of porn was a pretense to get their foot in the door. Maybe they were a family of terrorists!
I have to stop you here, maybe its a social issue but over here if the cops showed up at my apartment and asked to look around I wouldn't even think of a warrant. I'd just say "sure whatever, what can I help you with?"
warrants exist for a reason
people should never waive their rights.
they're rights for a reason!
Which is why law enforcement love consent searches. Not only do most people, even guilty people, usually consent to searches, but the scope of a consent search is very broad. Unlike with a warrant, where law enforcement may only search places that have probable cause of incriminating evidence, consent searches allow law enforcement to search areas they have no PC for. Also a person does not have to know they have the right to say no to a consent search, nor do they have the right to know what the police are searching for, or the consequences of consent.
I don't think you're allowed to kick the cops out after you consent either
this is correct in Canada and the US
once you've consented to the search, you don't get to go "takesy-backsy!" and kick them out just before they stumble on your weed stash or something
i will say this
in my experience with local and federal law enforcement showing up at my house here in Ontario, at no point did they ever even ask to come inside, let alone search the joint.
generally speaking cops up here recognize how fucking dangerous and stupid that can be and prefer to talk to you outside your house where everyone is nice and safe and you don't get to bitch about anything later
You can withdraw consent at any time, actually, which ends the search. It's just that doing so may give the police reasonable suspicion or even probable cause of incriminating evidence. Law enforcement may now have the option of all sorts of warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests that have been carved out as exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.
"Hey officer, I was trying to pirate this new DVD and someone else is doing crime, please track them down and arrest them without messing with me or confiscating my computer. Thanks."
Yeah the odds of them actually bothering to go after the uploader vs arresting you for piracy/kiddie porn are really not in your favour
Beat
SCOTUS struck down the laws against "virtual" child porn.
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.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
the most gaping of which being why the FBI showed up at his house in the first place
that doesn't just happen
not to white people, anyway (ho ho!)
Edit: unless something big is left out of the story, which it may well be
why the FBI were at his house in the first place looking to seize his computer vexes me
that is not like, something they just do randomly
Federal agents currently have an incentive to not get search warrants for data stored on computers because of a recent case which placed the validity for warrants for the search of electronic data, such as child pornography, in an area of uncertainty in the 9th Circuit. The en banc court of appeals in August decided a case that set up Miranda-type guidelines for the issuance of search warrants for electronic data. U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 579 F.3d 998. The guidelines recommend:
1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases. 2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized personnel or an independent third party. If the segregation is to be done by government computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application that [they] will not disclose to the investigators any information other than that which is the target of the warrant. 3. Warrants ... must disclose the actual risks of destruction of evidence. 4. The government's search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may be examined by the case agents. 5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and what it has kept.
Several US Attorneys and the US Solicitor General have asked the 9th Circuit for a full en banc hearing with all 27 circuit judges, because federal agents are chilled from asking for search warrants for electronic data. The warrant application process has now become much more complicated and costly. Violation of these rules may exclude any evidence obtained and it is expensive to require third parties to screen the information. Rather than apply for a warrant, the validity of which is certain to be questioned, I would ask for a consent search.