Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Stalker Jailed For Planting Child Porn On a PC 368

Posted by samzenpus
from the how-do-I-love-thee-let-me-plant-the-ways dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An elaborate scheme to get the husband of a co-worker with whom he was obsessed jailed backfired on Ilkka Karttunen, 48, from Essex in the UK. His plan was to get the husband arrested so that he could have a go at a relationship with the woman. To do this he broke into the couple's home while they were sleeping, used their family computer to download child pornography, and then removed the hard drive and mailed it anonymously to the police, along with a note that identified the owner."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stalker Jailed For Planting Child Porn On a PC

Comments Filter:
  • Geez. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:31AM (#31706178) Homepage

    Hasn't this dude ever heard of 4chan? Or dating sims? Or sanity?

    • by Fluffeh (1273756)
      He probably has, but he wants that 'special someone' that those sites can't provide as he has already found his 'special someone' in real life. Problem is that 'special someone' was taken already, so sociopath has tried to "release" that 'special someone' from their otherwise fulfilled life. Enter criminal act.

      At least the good guys caught the bad guy here.
      • Re:Geez. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sznupi (719324) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:03AM (#31706484) Homepage

        At least the good guys caught the bad guy here.

        And do you wonder already how many times that wasn't the case? Sure, this time the perpetrator was sloppy...but it's relatively trivial to frame people like that "properly"

        A witch accusation of our times, it seems.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tomhudson (43916)

          All he had to do was somehow get word to the wife that "your hubby is into child porn". But like all loser nerds, he had to go the overly-complicated route.

          • by MrShaggy (683273)

            Does it make us winner nerds then?

          • Re:Geez. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by dgatwood (11270) on Friday April 02, 2010 @02:13PM (#31708514) Journal

            Well, he still had to plant evidence. Otherwise, the wife would just inspect the computer, find nothing, and conclude that this guy was even more of a screwball than she already probably thought he was.

            That said, if he had been a little bit better with computers, he would have given the person a flash drive with a file called "pictures.ppt.exe" that replaces itself with a file called pictures.ppt and launches PowerPoint, then installs a piece of code that runs automatically at startup and connects to a server somewhere, allowing him to control the other person's PC. Most people would be fooled by that, and as long as it doesn't contain known virus code as a starting point, no virus scanner will ever detect it. Failing that, he could break into that person's house without causing any damage, install the virus, and sneak back out, leaving no evidence of consequence.

            So once he had control over the guy's computer, he could have downloaded as much kiddie porn as he wanted to onto the other person's computer over the course of weeks. For the first several weeks, he would go for sources of content that don't leave a significant trail, using Tor or other techniques if necessary. This would ensure that he got truckloads of material. Then, for one week, he would go to lots of sites that have all the hallmarks of an FBI sting (or that of the equivalent body in the country in question), then would send an anonymous tip to the authorities, delete all traces of the bot, and sit back and watch.

            Not saying that this would get him the girl---chances are, it would just wreck the family's life and he'd still end up alone---but it would be a highly effective and almost completely undetectable way to frame an innocent person. The scary thing is that for all we know, this may have already happened.

            • Re:Geez. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by temojen (678985) on Friday April 02, 2010 @04:30PM (#31709668) Journal
              Problem with that is to know which site is which, you'd pretty much have to either be into kiddie porn yourself or be in law enforcement and assigned to KP patrol.
              • Re:Geez. (Score:4, Informative)

                by dgatwood (11270) on Friday April 02, 2010 @05:34PM (#31710172) Journal

                Depends on what you mean. If you mean that you couldn't identify a honeypot for the purposes of actually getting them caught, you're probably right, but there are many easier ways to solve that part. If you mean that an average geek couldn't avoid the honeypots for the first two weeks, I disagree. The patterns are rather obvious after you've seen eight or ten slashdot stories about kiddie porn stings; the techniques that law enforcement use tend to involve one of the following:

                1. Using chat rooms and enticing people to do something illegal,
                2. Using email and enticing people to do something illegal,
                3. Issuing subpoenas for server logs, or
                4. Looking for downloaders from web servers or connections through Wi-Fi access points that are honeypots.

                The first two are taken care of by just not doing those things.

                The other two are largely unimportant. It takes time to get a subpoena, time to collect evidence, and time to get a search warrant. It's not like the FBI is going to come knocking on the person's door the day after he/she hits a honeypot site. That said, if you really needed to avoid #3 and #4, you could:

                • Use Tor to disguise the actual source of the request.
                • Get the illegal content from a suitably encrypted P2P system with onion routing (e.g. FreeNet).
                • Get the illegal content directly from a cache that has the content stored in it already. Query a Google image cache server (using carefully written HTTP queries), a random Squid proxy server (using ICP), a USENET server (using NNTP), etc.

                None of those techniques are perfect---none would prevent detection by a determined enemy monitoring your every move---but they would keep your activity well outside the "low hanging fruit" territory that stings tend to go after, which should be sufficient to allow you to plant lots of evidence before you disclose the person to the authorities.

                The hard part. of course, is figuring out a way to report it that will actually be successful in convincing people. One possibility would be to take over the person's email client and masquerade as that person, sending child porn out to a lot of people. Another possibility would be for your trojan to replace recently opened files on flash drives with custom versions of itself that contain the original files, much like the .ppt.exe file I suggested earlier. This could be very effective at compromising the target's work machine, which would allow you to plant evidence in more easily accessible places, making it far easier to drop an anonymous email message to an IT manager, for example.

                Aren't you glad I'm not the sort of person who would try to frame someone? :-)

  • by Mikkeles (698461) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:32AM (#31706188)

    He's also out the postage to mail the hard drive.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:35AM (#31706208) Journal

    >>>"then removed the hard drive and mailed it anonymously to the police, along with a note that identified the owner."

    You don't provide proof that you broke into a private house.

    Instead you go home, wait a few weeks, and then send an anonymous tip that the homeowner has been asking for underage photos on the net, and you suspect he downloaded child porn too. Let the police take it from there. THEY will do the breaking-and-entering, remove the drive, and investigate.

    • by TheMeuge (645043) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:43AM (#31706280)

      Exactly.

      It's trivial to ruin someone's life at this point using child pornography. Cracking a WPA password isn't nearly that complicated.

      Also, note how the guy he was trying to frame was still arrested, and still barred from seeing his children, after someone sent the police a hard drive they claimed belonged to the guy. Of all the obvious frame jobs, this was dead sloppy, and yet the victim was STILL victimized by the authorities. I'm surprised they aren't summarily castrating people without proof these days. After all, won't someone think of the children...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DrgnDancer (137700)

        It is a difficult situation for the police. On the one hand, it has "frame job" written all over it, on the other hand, what if it isn't? Arresting him was probably overkill, but limiting contact with children until the whole thing is cleared up makes some sense. The police clearly made more than a usual effort investigate at least, but still. I dunno what you'd call the "right" answer is here. (Except, obviously, don't have a sociopath break into your house and frame you for a difficult to defend agai

        • by ckaminski (82854) <ckaminski&pobox,com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:13AM (#31706572) Homepage
          Not sure about in the UK, but innocent until PROVEN guilty used to mean something across the pond.

          It's just the dumb-ass media castrating police departments the world over. The media is all about front-page spreads ruining someone's life, but they're never about front-page spreads about what they printed ended up turning into blatent libel.

          Fucking hypocrites.
          • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:44AM (#31706890) Journal

            Not directly related, but another very interesting (if disappointing) article [bbc.co.uk] from the BBC today about knee-jerk media reaction forcing the hand of the justice system, this time in terms of the drug trade.

            Choice quotes from the latest expert resigning from the government's drug advisory board:

            "We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour.

            "Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure."

            He added: "As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

          • by DrgnDancer (137700) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:50AM (#31706958) Homepage

            "Not sure about in the UK, but innocent until PROVEN guilty used to mean something across the pond."

            As I've already said elsewhere, that axiom relates to conviction, not arrest (on either side of the pond). Always had, always will. Half the time evidence required for conviction isn't found until after arrest. You can be arrested on any strong suspicion backed by reasonable evidence (like a hard drive which is clearly yours and clearly full of kiddy porn). It's not the job of the police to convict you, it's their job to collect evidence and arrest you once a sufficient amount exists. Does it suck? Yes. You got a better idea? No arrests till after conviction should work very well I'm sure.

            One of the big problems with the current system is the assumption by many people that arrest is the same as conviction. This leads to: 1) People like you assuming that people can't be arrested until they've been proven guilty and 2) People who have been arrested for crimes that they were later found innocent of or even found to have had no involvement in at all becoming social pariahs. That's a completely separate issue though, and not related to this story.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ckaminski (82854)
              I understand that - I think my point was that the media then takes this arrest, parrots their latest "ZOMG child molestor" and when it turns out there's nothing there to substantiate the claims, they aren't forced to eat their words, while the victim (the original suspect) is now burdened with his name forever being linked to every google search on child pornographer.

              I understand and support the arrest process, on reasonable suspicion, but there has to be suitable repercussions for people involved in fuckin
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Gabrosin (1688194)

            Interesting. We could pass a law requiring that any time a newspaper is forced to print a retraction (not a simply typo clarification, but a real retraction for cause), that it has to take the same amount of space on the same pages as the original story/stories. That might make them a little more careful about what they run.

        • by Migraineman (632203) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:26AM (#31706708)

          Arresting him was probably overkill, but limiting contact with children until the whole thing is cleared up makes some sense.

          So let me get this straight - if someone broke into your house and swiped your car keys, then sent them along with an empty whiskey bottle to the cops, accusing you of DUI, you'd be just fine with having your driving privileges suspended while the cops investigate? I mean, after all, this completely circumstantial evidence *might* be true, right?

          Law Enforcement's "chain of custody" is a tremendously important concept. The "evidence" the police received is horribly tainted, and shouldn't have merited more than a knock on the door and a conversation with the man being joe-jobbed.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:33AM (#31706782)

            Mod parent up for car analogy.

          • by Ykant (318168) on Friday April 02, 2010 @02:47PM (#31708804)

            if someone broke into your house and swiped your car keys, then sent them along with an empty whiskey bottle to the cops, accusing you of DUI

            How can I DUI? I don't have my car keys.

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          How about running a SECURE system at home? simply having the PC with logins and auto lock-out would have stopped this idiot sociopath in his tracks. Yes you can crack the passwords with physical access to the machine but I highly doubt the idiot had enough time to crack it without getting caught.

          Better solution is to have drive encryption on and home security cameras that record.. Good luck getting access to the security hive or password files to start cracking a password before the owner wakes up. and

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sjames (1099)

          Barring him from seeing his children was absolutely NOT appropriate. Now, his children have had the trauma of seeing the police come and take their dad away for no reason (as far as they're concerned, after all, he didn't do anything wrong) and being kept from even seeing him after. They will never again feel as secure as they did before the incident.

          As for the evidence, they did have cause for concern, but they also had nothing like an intact chain of evidence. They had a hard drive that was in the possess

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        I'm surprised they aren't summarily castrating people without proof these days

        They are working on that. They did not get it passed in the last Jobs bill...Next time though...

      • by Froboz23 (690392) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:55AM (#31707024)
        Child porn is small potatoes. If he really wanted to ruin his rival's life, he should have used the computer to download movies with BitTorrent. [slashdot.org]
        • by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday April 02, 2010 @12:13PM (#31707218)

          I don't want to downplay the financial threat that the MPAA (and other copyright enforcement organizations) could pose, but they're nothing compared to the threat a child porn lawsuit would pose. I'm a married man with two kids and a respectable job. If the MPAA accuses me falsely of downloading/uploading movies, the worst that can happen is that I need to declare bankruptcy. Yes, that's bad, but my family might be able to survive it.

          If, however, I'm accused falsely of possession of child porn, my reputation would be ruined with friends/family, I'd likely be fired (and nobody else would hire me), I could be forbidden from seeing my kids, my wife might even divorce me (though I'd hope she'd believe I was innocent). And that's even before I'm convicted of anything!

          If the MPAA realized their mistake, I might get legal fees back. Otherwise, I'd be out my own legal fees. A hefty bill, but not something insurmountable.

          If the child porn charges were dropped, I'd have still lost months of time with my kids, my job may or may not rehire me and people in my community would still think of me as "that guy that had child porn" (regardless of my acquittal). In short, my life would be in shambles and I'd have to rebuild virtually from scratch.

          Yes, the MPAA/RIAA/etc can do great financial harm, but they can only dream of the "whole life" harm that a child porn charge can carry.

    • Except the police aren't going to be able to get a warrant based on "some anonymous dude told us this guy was like totes harboring child pr0n"

      I suppose I am assuming that they need warrants in the UK. They must, right?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by stonewallred (1465497)
        Not when the children are involved. A mere phone call, anonymously made in NC, is enough to get child welfare/SS, and/or the police knee deep into your ass, oops, life, if the phone call alleges child porn/sexual abuse. Unless of course it is a catholic priest being reported. As a licensed counselor you get to make a judgment call about a client threatening violence upon another person or suicide, but any mention of sexual exploitation/abuse of a child, even if it was 50 years ago, is a mandated report. Eve
  • by characterZer0 (138196) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:35AM (#31706212)

    The difference between for you getting put in jail and separated from your children for a week and you getting put in jail and separated from your children for a decade is the sloppiness of the guy framing you.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:44AM (#31706296)

      I am a forensic investigator and it terrifies me that most people I meet in my field don't seem to care who goes to jail as long as somebody goes to jail.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Manip (656104)

      Exactly.
      I bet almost everyone in Slashdot could frame someone in such a way so even a police "expert" (who basically looks at modified, accessed, and created dates) couldn't tell it was fake. I've watched some of the computer crime cases on the Crime Channel and to be honest I find it scary that people can be convicted on such easily faked evidence.

      e.g. Boot into Linux, mount the NTFS partition, add illicit images, and child porn sites to "index.dat." Then manually change the dates on the files (very trivia

      • by characterZer0 (138196) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:51AM (#31706374)

        It is not even that hard.

        1. Turn on computer.
        2. Download illegal material.
        3. Turn off computer.
        4. Wait a few days.
        5. Call police.
        • Unless... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by leuk_he (194174)

          Suppose you have a password on the PC. You see, without that linux "hack" it would be impossible to to the downloading. And the timing would be off also, since the owner might be able to prove show he was not at home at the time of the downloading. Then there is always the point that you will have to make a reasonable gues who was behind the keyboard at the time of the offense.

          Last point "call the police" is not anonymous as well, since the telephone company keeps log who called who (and in case of a cell p

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by stonewallred (1465497)
            Duh. There is child porn on drive. Drive is the framed person's possession. You faked the date to show it was downloaded when suspect was at home, which is trivial as you can see he was home on "x" day and make the date/time match that. America, we don't have cameras at every phone booth and street corner. And there is child porn on computer. Grand slam conviction of a child molester. What DA is going to spend any time trying to discredit anonymous tip, and what jury is going to believe Mr.Computer Expert w
          • Several possibilities there:

            • Sadly, there probably isn't a password. Most users can't be bothered.
            • Install a physical keylogger, then come back the next day.
            • Boot Linux, but use it to reset the password, so that you can boot Windows and use standard Windows tools to plant the evidence -- then boot Linux again and restore the password (by hash). I'm not sure the tools exist for that last step.
            • Boot Linux, use it to remove the password. User probably won't notice. Then boot Windows and do all the same stuff.
      • by zappepcs (820751)

        Not only that, but you could do it with a virus which is very picky about which computers it makes such changes to. Indeed, you could have a virus out in the wild today that is just waiting to find its way to your hard drive where it will find your name or some other piece of information before it begins doing what it was programmed to do. Since the virus is essentially a static file (non aggressive) on all other computers, the chance it would get wiped by antivirus software is much less.

      • Worse yet, to get around this situation and protect your Windows data, you could use an encrypted hard-drive. Now it won't prevent someone from adding a new hard-drive nor hacking your system from the Net. But a 'properly' secured system with an encrypted file system would leave you in a really bad position. You'd now have to reveal your password. And I'm willing to bet, they'll make an excuse of finding anything, simply because if you're using a password - then you must really be hiding something.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Yup I can easily fake a hard drive that will pin you to a desired time and even put in "old" history that even the best Computer forensics person would not be able to detect was fabricated. That's the cool part about computers, the clock can be set to ANYTHING.

        It blows my mind that computer evidence is admissible because it is so easily faked by anyone.

      • Don't worry man, the media will rescue us! Just yesterday the self-proclaimed "geek" on Fox News was showing the world the new iPad and he mentioned that it's "so fast because it's all RAM". Then he said, "Yeah, RAM, Rapid Access Memory". I was on the treadmill and nearly fucking killed myself.
    • by digitalhermit (113459) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:33AM (#31706774) Homepage

      Back in college we used to prank each other by sending in requests for magazines and advertisements. We sent in subscription cards to bondage and fetish magazines and had them delivered to the victim. Apparently this also gets you on a lot of lists because when the junk mail started arriving, it never abated. To this day there's probably some poor sot getting a weekly ad for "Chihuahas and the Men Who Love Them".

      Nowadays these things are delivered via email so can't do that much anymore. Looking back though, it was an acute thrill to see your roommate start to dread the arrival of the mail carrier. I miss those days..

      "Dude, your mail's here."
      "F* you."
      "I'm just saying."
      "F* you."

  • by Cowclops (630818) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:36AM (#31706216)

    The answer doesn't seem to be in the article, but why would they search Karttunen's house after arresting the guy he was trying to frame? I understand how he would have been implicated after they searched his computer, but how did they figure out that they needed to search his house in the first place?

    Either way, guy is an idiot for copying the guy's hard drive to his own. And an idiot for trying the whole scheme in the first place. And an idiot for getting caught when it seems like it would be hard to trace that back to somebody.

    • I wondered this as well, I am assuming that there was some previous action from Karttunen. This event seems a bit escalated so he had to have done something in the past.
  • by HeckRuler (1369601) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:38AM (#31706230)
    I believe the only thing saving the family was the investigation of the stalkers house (and shed). Without that search warrant into a third-parties house, or without the retardedly self-incriminating evidence stored on his computer, the man accused would have been devastated.

    Wait, this is UK, do they even need a warrant?
    • "I was walking my dog, and I heard some strange noise and when i looked up I saw a computer thru his window, and you cant believe what horror i saw"

      That will get you your warrant.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      This is true, they could have used their wonderful camera network and saw the perp break in and leave. Oh wait, their camera network really does not work and is ineffective.

  • It is too easy! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:38AM (#31706238)
    It's too easy to have someone's life ruined. Even being cleared of charges this person will still have a stigma attached to them. Poor family. To be ripped away like that from your family, your home because some psycho wanted a go at your wife. Investigation wise, they didn't find the hard drive with the man or trace any wrong goings online directly back to him, yet they still charged him with the crime. This seems out of whack to me. Grey area to be sure but to just take the anonymous at their word seems scary.
    • Re:It is too easy! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by idontgno (624372) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:49AM (#31706346) Journal

      Investigation wise, they didn't find the hard drive with the man or trace any wrong goings online directly back to him, yet they still charged him with the crime. This seems out of whack to me.

      You're not THINKING OF THE CHILDREN! Why haven't you turned off your critical thinking abilities yet, we're talking about kiddy pr0n here! KIDDY PR0N!

      Now, less hyperbolically, it's a bad situation. If there's really child abuse involved, most sane commentators want the situation dealt with as soon as possible. That's what drives the impulse for a snap arrest, just to freeze the situation and "save the kids". But the urgency works against "innocent until proven guilty", and spills over in a policy sense into thinking that prevention is even better than rapid response. (Think "pre-crime".) I think that's the psychological basis for the push against simulated kiddy pr0n. "No real children are harmed, but who knows what real children WILL be harmed which Sicky Sickington decides to act on his perverted fantasies."

      It's a bad deal, and the only bright spot is that loltard planting kpr0n on an innocent man's PC has earned the special wrath of The System, which really really hates it when you play It for a fool. And maybe someone can start the rumor in prison that he really is a kiddy-fiddler; I hear tell those guys get "extra special" treatment.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        If there's really child abuse involved, most sane commentators want the situation dealt with as soon as possible.

        I'm sane and I don't think that. Personally, I'm sick of hearing people moan on and on about child porn. If some guy has CP on his computer, I honestly couldn't care less at this point. I'm jaded of the hysteria past the point of cynicism.

        I think people need to adopt this attitude if we are ever to get back the (relatively) sane and sober society of the 1990's where people's rights actually mean

    • Indeed. And the punishment should fit the crime. If you are convicted of something like this -- intentionally ruining someone's life -- then you should never see the light of day again. I'm tired of all this pansy treatment of criminals. We need to send a message: You want to mess up somebody's life? Go for it, but if you get caught, WE'RE GOING TO CUT OFF YOUR BALLS.
  • by Manip (656104) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:41AM (#31706256)

    Unfortunately in the UK they publish names of anyone accused of sex crimes in local newspapers so you can bet even with the husband in this case proved entirely innocent he might need to move house, have his car set alight, stones thrown through his windows, and have his name google-able to child porn charges. Plus the child services and new child protection scheme use just rumours to judge people so if he applied to, for example, because a football coach he might be denied (*you need a licence to talk to a child in the UK).

    One question - Why was the wife or anyone else using the "family PC" not arrested? Or are only males arrested for child porn?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tim C (15259)

      Unfortunately in the UK they publish names of anyone accused of sex crimes in local newspapers

      Really? I've not heard of or seen such a list - unless you mean in a "local man Joe Bloggs was arrested on Friday on suspicion of $crime" type story?

      you need a licence to talk to a child in the UK

      Bullshit. There have been controversial rules passed recently requiring anyone who has regular, official contact with children to register, yes - so a football coach teaching minors would indeed be affected. A licence to t

      • by Manip (656104) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:00AM (#31706450)

        Those are exactly the type of stories I'm talking about. If Bob Smith is arrested for rape, then he is a rapist, even if he is entirely innocent. If John Smith is known as a kiddie fiddler then no amount of innocents will rub that off of him in a society obsessed by paedophilia and child safety.

        A little bit of hyperbole to make my point (*I guess that doesn't translate on the internet) but, yes, you only need a licence if you want regular contact with kids. But frankly the way society is going we're getting closer and closer to the point when some man talks to kids in the park and is arrested as a direct result.

        Do you think it is really reasonable to have to have a licence if you want to be a football coach? The statistics don't even really suggest it will help given that most assaults are conducted by family or friends.

        • Well, actually a story like this might be enough to clear him as the popular interest level is probably higher than the original case.

          People will see it and think that the dude who actually planted the evidence is a sick bastard and feel bad for the victim.

        • by DriedClexler (814907) on Friday April 02, 2010 @12:12PM (#31707202)

          If John Smith is known as a kiddie fiddler then no amount of innocents will rub that off of him in a society obsessed by paedophilia and child safety.

          Um, if you're a kiddie fiddler, then your problem is the fact that "innocents" are "rubbing off on you".

          *ducks*

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      May never get a job again either.

    • by Duradin (1261418) on Friday April 02, 2010 @12:02PM (#31707084)

      "One question - Why was the wife or anyone else using the "family PC" not arrested? Or are only males arrested for child porn?"

      Don't you know? Women can only be victims of sex crimes. A woman would *never* commit a sex crime against anyone.

      Yes, that's sarcasm, but most people don't want to think of women (or children) as being capable of bad things (even though they are just as able as men).

  • by celibate for life (1639541) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:42AM (#31706274)
    "Finnish Pedophile Immigrant Terrorist Threatens UK Citizen"
  • by smchris (464899)

    Unless jail goes down really hard, he isn't quite a Darwin -- and a little too convoluted for Leno's "Stupid Criminals."

    I suppose if his jail mate has a crush on him, there could be some award for bad relationship choices.

  • by Kiuas (1084567) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:44AM (#31706300)

    Although this is slightly off-topic, I'd just like to point out to all /. readers who might be wondering about his name: Ilkka Karttunen is actually a Finnish name. I have no idea if the guy has moved into the UK from Finland or if his parents/relatives have come from here. Well, idiots like him are pretty evenly split between nations anyway, so his nationality doesn't really make a difference. But I know there are people out there who went "What kind kind of name is that for a guy from Essex O.o?".

    • by nomadic (141991)
      Although this is slightly off-topic, I'd just like to point out to all /. readers who might be wondering about his name: Ilkka Karttunen is actually a Finnish name.

      Yes, we already knew that.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Xunker (6905)

      Most of us are Americans(TM) anyway, and have no idea where this "Essex" or "Finnish" you speak of is located. Likely they're both next to other countries we don't know the location of, like Myanmar, Quebec and Idaho.

  • It is probably just a matter of time before the stalked gets thrown in jail for possessing child pornography as well. After all, we can never be too hard on people with child pornography, right? It's okay to murder people that have been accused of it, right? No? What's that? You're in favor of leniency for awful child rapists?

  • Strict Liability (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:48AM (#31706342)
    Since the UK has "strict liability" laws (which IMO are exceptionally unfair and should be changed) he should have left the hard drive in the system and tipped of the police anonymously. In the UK, simply being in possession of child porn or a gun is enough for a conviction regardless of how it came to be in your possession.
    • by Tim C (15259)

      Not true. Strict liability means you can be prosecuted for the result of your actions, etc, even if you did not intend for any harm to be done. It does not mean that someone can frame you and you have no defence, and there have been cases in the UK where people have beaten a charge of being in possession of child porn by demonstrating that it was downloaded by a virus without their knowledge or consent.

      Of course, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.

      • Re:Strict Liability (Score:5, Informative)

        by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:15AM (#31706596)

        IANAL either, but these guys are:

        Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

        Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

        Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

        emphasis mine

        My understanding that possession of child porn is basically the same as possession of a shotgun - For the most part you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and there are very few, if any, defenses.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Trying that sort of thing in the US is quite likely to get one's hide peppered with lead.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Since they were sound asleep while this was happening who was going to be "peppering his hide with lead"? The gun fairy?

  • So this crazy dude goes to extreme lengths to get a husband put behind bars to have an adulterous relationship with the fellas wife? One of the big flaws was taking the hard drive out of the PC and mailing to the authorities. I think an anonymous tip would have been just fine.

    Regardless, it's really amazing what mental states people can put themselves into and trick their own mind into thinking their crazy actions are somehow good in nature and worth pursuing. However, I can't help but realize the wife's

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Improv (2467)

      Why would you assume the wife did anything at all? A lot of guys are just crazy and let wishful thinking go to extremes. Likewise, it's sometimes easy for people to misread a friendship as something else.

      Given that this guy was nuts enough to try a scheme like this and the woman is married, I'd assume that the guy is entirely in the wrong.

    • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

      Yes, no doubt she was 'Asking For It'(TM)...
      [/sarcasm]

    • by Grygus (1143095) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:30AM (#31706744)
      My way of thinking about this is that if the wife was open to an adulterous relationship in the first place, he didn't really need to frame the husband to start that. His actions only make sense if she spurned his advances and he was trying to remove a real barrier: not her husband, but her love for her husband. He didn't murder the guy or set him up as a thief; he set him up as something a wife might reasonably be shocked into rejecting completely. To me, she seems very likely to be blameless.
  • by elucido (870205) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:02AM (#31706464)

    If someone does not like you, whether they be informant, stalker, or corrupt law enforcement, they can plant the gun, the drugs, the child porn into your possession and then arrest you for possession. This is why all laws which involve possession of an object, are fundamentally flawed because it does not make a difference is the possession is voluntary or involuntary.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Actually not strictly true, the federal law against gun possession by a convicted felon actually says that the possessor has to knowingly and willingly possess a firearm, meaning that he has to understand that the item in question is a functioning firearm and know that he actually has the item and to have done both willingly.

      Furthermore, possession itself is legally defined as having control and dominion over an item. Fleeting contact (such as simply touching an item someone else has) is not considered pos

  • So you write a Trojan, get the PC infected and have it do the downloading for you then report back. Then you leave an anonymous tip.

    No breaking and entering at all.

    Scary thing, is for revenge against people you don't like you can just drop those anonymous tips all over the place and have innocent people harassed and their stuff taken for review and their face all over the evening paper.. And if they just happen to have something they shouldn't, like say a MP3 they downloaded, they might get ruined financial

  • This is soooo clearly an April Fools joke. It's nowhere to be found except on blogs and only on April 1st. The name is clearly meant to be bad English for "I like cartoons", becomes "I lika cartoonen" becomes "Ilkka Karttunen".
    • The original story was actually dated March 31st..
    • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

      The name is clearly meant to be bad English for "I like cartoons"

      Yes, that is very clear. I'm smacking myself for not seeing that earlier. It is abundantly obvious his name isn't just in another language.

  • by Rhaban (987410) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:22AM (#31706664)

    Anyone else think it's weird when you see a story on /. front page title "Stalker Jailed For Planting Child Porn On a PC", to have to click a link labelled "View picture"?

  • This story is broken (Score:3, Interesting)

    by glebaron (737206) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:22AM (#31706666)
    He stole the hard drive and the family didn't notice that it was missing and report a burglary?
  • Well, seems that if you don’t have the brains...

    I would have made the guy a friend, and in a not watched moment, put a USB stick in the computer, waited a few seconds for autostart to plant the stuff, pull it out, and be done with it!

    On the other hand, I wouldn’t have tried to get a women that way anyway! How delusional can one be?
    You know what they say: The cure for one-itis, is FTAG(N): Fuck / Flirt with Ten Other Girls (NOW)! ^^*
    Or in other words: She is not special! EVER! Period. :)

    P.S.: Now

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Friday April 02, 2010 @01:28PM (#31708020)

    He not only committed burglary. He not only possessed child porn. The stupid knave DISTRIBUTED child porn--in addition to perverting justice.

    Hope he gets a few years to think about it!

Computers will not be perfected until they can compute how much more than the estimate the job will cost.

Working...