Man Barred From Being Alone With Daughter After Informing Police of Porn On PC 777
First time accepted submitter robably writes "A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months. Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November. As a result social services said he 'should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.'"
Bottom line: never cooperate with the authorities (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all.
I've said it before... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'll say it again. Never, ever, under any circumstances, contact the police unless your life is in danger and they are your only hope. NEVER
You will only end up much worse off than you were before you called them.
To be blunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Never talk to the Pigs. There is never, and has never been any interaction with the police that will ever benefit you in any way.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished.
Re:Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep the police are not there to protect you, they are there to punish people, and keep the rabble in line. Sure sometimes some people need punishment but the police operate from the standpoint that everyone needs punishment and if they punish you wrongly well the court system is there and it will be taken care of.
It basically all comes back to the saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
Re:I've said it before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Call them only if:
1) You can accept that someone will be arrested, and
2) The situation is so bad that you don't mind if that someone is you
If being arrested isn't better than whatever's happening, don't call them. Period.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably. They might run out of leads and try to pin it on you.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:1, Insightful)
How about we wait and see what the result is here before we make wide generalisations. The guy isn't under arrest. The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why. The guy does have child pornography on his laptop; it's not like a reasonably likely cause of that isn't himself. There is a chance, I couldn't guess on odds, that the guy had looked at child pornography and was concerned his details may have gotten to the police. I think it is pretty reasonable for the police to want to make sure that isn't the case and I can see why they are concerned about him being left alone with a child in the meanwhile.
The other option he had, assuming he is innocent, is to delete it and hope that the police don't come knocking about the fact his laptop was used to download some child porn. Having deleted it isn't exactly in his favour if that came before a jury. Obviously the odds are small. Finally, clearly the child pornography was there because someone put it there. Either he did it by accident (which may be possible if he was downloading something else shady) or someone else is using his laptop to do it. They might do it again and they won't get caught if he didn't report it.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2, Insightful)
A man who turns to the law grabs a wolf by the ears.
Re:Dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Pascal's wager for cops :
A) Guy's a pedophile
Do nothing: a child gets abused, serious reputation damage for police
Do something: child is OK
B) Guy's not a pedophile
Do nothing: child is OK
Do something: minor reputation damage for police
Not difficult to see which option the police should be choosing there.
Re:To be blunt (Score:4, Insightful)
But you still don't do it then. You have your lawyers do it.
Re:bad guys (Score:2, Insightful)
See this is the wrong approach to IT in the same way that it is the wrong approach to policing. The job of IT should be to prevent problems from happening in the first place, you know being proactive instead of reactive.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy isn't under arrest. The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why.
So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.
The guy does have child pornography on his laptop; it's not like a reasonably likely cause of that isn't himself.
So he reported his own child pornography to the police?
There is a chance, I couldn't guess on odds, that the guy had looked at child pornography and was concerned his details may have gotten to the police.
So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
I think it is pretty reasonable for the police to want to make sure that isn't the case and I can see why they are concerned about him being left alone with a child in the meanwhile.
So why even bother with courts and trials? If the police suspect someone is guilty, we should immediately start procedures to protect everyone else from that dangerous person! Presumption of innocence? System of laws? Why bother?
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't even appreciate why this was done. If someone was found to be looking at adult porn, would you forbid them from being alone with adult women? What about their adult offspring?
He man not have had a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
``Honey, what's this on your computer?''
`What's what? Oh! That!'
``How did it get there honey?''
`Uh, I don't know. It must have gotten downloaded when I was downloading music or something.'
``We should call the police.''
`Uh, yeah, we should do that.'
Re:Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Logical Conclusion:
Arrest everybody for being a pedophile. Just in case. You can always establish your innocence later.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I would have securely deleted it, then reported that I was trying to download some music and it was a CP site, report it that way. Likely it is a techonophobe ruling that because it was on your PC then you intentionally put it there.
By saying you saw it elsewhere you are dutifully reporting it as mandated while not admitting that you were in possession. I doubt they'd make the connection that to see it you copied it at least to your browser cache.
-nB
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why.
You're not a parent obviously. Not being able to be alone with my daughter would be devastating to me and my family. Not only is it unwarranted, unjust, and probably unconstitutional, it is also massively disruptive to the day to day workings of the modern family. This isn't the freakin 60s, I have an active and important role in my child's life; I get her out of bed in the morning, take her to day care, take off work when she's sick... etc etc. There is a chance that he looked up child porn, but this 'precaution' is being implemented on essentially zero evidence and without any due process.
Also, 4 months? They're worried about him spending 5 minutes alone with his own child and it's been 4 months without any decision as to whether he's a violent sexual predator or a good, (overly-)responsible parent. So which is it? Is he so dangerous he can't be trusted with his own flesh and blood or is he so innocuous that there's no need to actually, you know... investigate him?
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
the social services worker made a judgement call that there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself.
I'm glad an underpaid bureaucrat can destroy my life and my hurt my family based on a "non-trivial chance", that's... that's just awesome.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you denying that he and his daughter would both be much better off right now if he had just deleted the files and kept quiet? Perhaps he should have just re-installed and if asked, said it was acting up and he didn't know why but the re-install got it going again.
Arguably, by depriving the daughter of a normal relationship with a loving parent, child services is endangering her welfare right now.
not following ur logic... (Score:2, Insightful)
why is the possibility of getting blamed for something you had no part in not better than the certainty of it?
my sister-in-law's brother is a victim of law enforcement stupidity in this area - he bought a USED computer off e-bay in '02 running XP (pause & think about that for a minute - how many exploits have been found/patched in last decade?) that turned out to be a pron zombie but he was (then) 19, single & still living at home so OBVIOUSLY he was a perv! there's a whole lot more detail (some interesting technical stuff if we weren't talking about ruining an innocent kid's life) to his story - short version is that while it's not possible to 100.0% exonerate him to say there's reasonable doubt would be an understatement of biblical proportion but if you think for a SECOND that opportunistic cops and/or prosecutors are going to let that get in the way of their photo op you're probably still waiting for your hope & change...
one thing I learned from his case is you're a damned fool to assume/expect good faith from law enforcement in this (or probably any) area...
Re:Another rube will self-identify (Score:5, Insightful)
Non sequitor.
One of the problems in the US and UK (and to some extent, Australia and Canada) is that they have privatized prisons, which has lead to BILLIONS of dollars in lobbying made to increase sentencing and decrease judicial and police discretion about "minor crimes".
Your faith in (and I may be putting words in your mouth here) "privatize everything" is misplaced. People in power, by their nature, are corruptable and seek to increase their power.
I am just as frightened by it being financial and business hegemons OR government untouchables. The difference is that in our system of government, we can remove those in power, we can demand (and even vote for) transparency in their actions and we can lawfully pursue justice where they fail to do it.
In business, many of those recourses are lost. I'm all for small business, but in an anarcho-libertarian society (the obvious extreme example of your position), global multinationals would become de-facto islands of government, just as they began to do in the 1880s, before the US federal government asserted the people's desire to put controls in place to regulate gross misuse of marketplace domination and monopoly. Things improved for almost all people (except the handful at the top of the business) when those businesses were regulated so they could no longer take gross advantage of the workers, the economy and the environment.
So I just caution you that your particular tollway, also, may be paved by your best intentions, but I assert it doesn't necessary avoid taking us to a the same destination any less directly.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that so many things are suspicious to the superstitious and uninformed. Your arduino board looks an awfully lot like a bomb to some laman. I mean there are wires and a circuit board. I saw that on NCIS once, it must be a bomb!!!
Re:I've said it before... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say never contact them no matter what. Better to die.
Or, defend yourself.
Catch 22 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds pretty dumb if no-one had actually noticed that a getaway had ever taken place.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
Never EVER trust the police. Any police.
And above all, never EVER, talk in absolutes.
what do you do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say precisely where things went wrong, but it does look like the system goes after the "easy" cases rather than dig into the ones where children are genuinely in danger. Now we have parents who are trying to do the right thing being routinely badgered by the powers that be (not necessarily the police, who are only the arms of the bureaucrats) while we continually read of kids who were killed or severely traumatized in situations where authorities were aware of the situation but did not pursue it. It really seems like they tend to pursue the easy things. Is this to push up statistics?
When my daughter was young (single digits, don't remember exactly) she got a rug burn at daycare that became infected. I took her to the doctor, who sent me across the street for x-rays. When I came back, there were police waiting. After much hilarity and trauma, they decided they didn't have enough evidence to arrest me and let us go.
So, what do I do the next time she gets injured while playing? Not take her to the doctor?
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't even appreciate why this was done.
Guilty until proven innocent. Duh. Think of teh children!
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
The basis for this story is the man's own testimony. Why should we believe him?
Disclaimer: I hold no opinion one way or the other. Not enough facts are known.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:2, Insightful)
I know everyone around here instantly jumps to the defense of the person conceived to be wronged...
If you're looking for an explanation - American children are indoctrinated, beginning at an early age, to believe that all persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty.
What a crazy concept, huh? What's next, requiring the state to present evidence before they can convict? Where does it end???
/sarc
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that retaining a lawyer can be expensive whereas reporting a crime to a police officer is relatively free.
The article doesn't make it clear whether he went to his computer to perform some task and then found pr0n or if he was performing some task and was then inundated with pr0n. If he was trying download music from an sketchy source (e.g. bobsultrasuperlegalandfreemp3s.com) verses amazon.com or itunes, he was probably out to pirate music and those sites are usually filled with viruses. Did he deserve to get pwned? No, but that's besides the point.
It's disparaging that a man who hasn't even been charged is basically being treated like a criminal. I guess when it comes to kids, it's guilty until proven innocent to everyone's satisfaction.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
The SECOND children become the subject or even a tangential consideration to a criminal investigation, Children Services are called in and the police wash their hands of the matter. That is a fact. Same as if a complaint is made of a criminal nature and subsequent filings are made to a county court, it is immediately referred to Family Proceedings and the CAFCASS Guardian is called in. That is also a fact.
The problem with Family Proceedings is that no matter the nature of the claim, it is treated as a civil matter. The burden of proof is shifted away from those making the claim (in the case of the Local Authority) to those who have to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE (ie the natural parents). And when the standard of proof goes from "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to "Balance of probabilities", if the claim made is some witchcraftian prediction like "risk of future emotional harm", such claim is impossible to defend because THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION. As a result, in such cases where the Local Authority has a stiffy for the blue haired, blonde eyed little munchkins, they end up taking the kids for forced adoption because they also have the judge, every solicitor present and their legion of so-called "expert witnesses" (witnesses? What, exactly, did they witness?) in their pocket.
I have seen it so, so many times. If I told you, your toes would curl and your hair would turn white. Children Services and the Family Legal System are the embodiment of EVIL. If you EVER find yourself in the crosshairs of these... untermenschen... run. Far and fast. Just pack an overnight and take your kids and LEAVE THE COUNTRY. The only winning move is NOT TO PLAY THEIR GAME.
Same mistake... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same mistake made by Google in the Wifi scandal and the US military in the accidental Quaran burnings.
You see something illegal on your own property that has hurt no one so far and no one knows about, and will cease to exist and continue to hurt no one if you destroy the evidence of it and cover it up? DESTROY THE EVIDENCE AND COVER IT UP.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids get injured at foster care, or abused at foster care, or even molested at foster care? Too bad. No apology, no recourse, and Social Services is still waiting for the parents to clear themselves of the allegations. They're 'thinking of the children' so anything they do is a-ok.
The accusation itself does the damage (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are cleared, there will always be those who think that you are some sort of pervert who "got off".
Also, if you are convicted just because there was porn on your computer, there will be (hopefully) be some people who will recognize the miscarraige of justice..
Once accused -- guilty or not -- your live is forever changed. I will likely cost you your retirement savings to pay to a lawyer to mitigate the damage.
Therefore, do not be your own accuser.
If you find anything incriminating on your computer, delete it irretrievably -- if you don't know how, find out.
Then ever afterwards, stfu.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to claim that I'm aware of exactly what was said or tone of voice used, but it seems a police officer, in the normal course of duty, saw something suspicious, investigated, verified the presented story, and found nothing wrong. Isn't that their job?
That's why they're so dangerous.
There are many cases, some of them on Slashdot, of the cops or firemen coming into somebody's apartment, seeing some chemistry equipment, leading to a whole criminal proceeding.
One retired chemist in Massachusetts had a home laboratory, and the local town confiscated it (probably at greater risk than if they had left it alone). He knew the risks better than they did. The striking thing was the stupidity and ignorance of the local town people, who didn't understand anything about chemistry. Meth labs use chemistry equipment. This is chemistry equipment. So this is a meth lab, right?
The fact that they're doing their job is no consolation to the innocent victims who wind up defending themselves sometimes from criminal charges sometimes at great financial cost. To add insult to injury, a lot of DAs don't even want to dismiss charges when they turn out to be wrong, but want the victim to take a plea bargain and conviction.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know how anyone in this day and age could think it was a good idea to have more dealing with the police those that are forced on you.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Insightful)
You are screwed either way, so personally id take the safer route of just deleting it. If anyone asks, 'it was offensive, and i didn't look that closely before i deleted it to even know it was underage'.
Why ASK for trouble?
Re:Careful with anecdotes (Score:5, Insightful)
When I worked for IT at the state we often had memory and hard drives (small and valuable back in the 90's) disappear. My boss always made me report it to the cops (state police, in this case) rather than having anyone else in the department do it.
Every single theft I reported I was hauled in for intense interrogation. The cops ALWAYS went with the assumption that I alone did the crime because I reported it, even though there were dozens or even hundreds of people in the department with the same access to the missing equipment. Once I was cuffed to a chair for an hour and questioned for reporting a theft. They will question you about every aspect of your life, financial, personal, professional, sexual, anything. Every time I felt like I was going to end up in prison for reporting the crime. But I did the reporting because my boss asked me to do it and she was a nice lady. She was also black, so I understood why she had me do the reporting. I was the most innocent looking, nerdy, white male in the department so they probably went easiest on me.
Another anecdote: My wife once reported a reckless driver who ran us off the road, license #, make, model, everything. Because she admitted driving onto the shoulder to avoid him, she got a ticket for unsafe driving.
So no, unless your life is in danger and you have no other options, do not talk to the cops.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter where you are and how much about how they might whine "it will hurt your defense later", you still probably should not go out of your way to incriminate yourself.
This issue goes far beyond American notions of Miranda.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds pretty dumb if no-one had actually noticed that a getaway had ever taken place.
Here's a hypothetical
1) Man collects child porn, or just browses occasionally
2) Wife finds out
3) Man denies all knowledge - "it just appeared there, someone must have broken into my computer"
4) Wife doesn't believe him
5) Man reports it to the police to prove how serious he is
6) Police and social workers see right through it, but lack concrete evidence
7) We get to this situation
I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a theory that fits the (very few) facts that have been reported.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the cops are doing the wrong job. The CORRECT job description for a cop is to ensure that society (and, by extension, the individuals within it) suffer least harm on aggregate. Clearly, it is impossible to follow a least-harm doctrine if a cop is only trying to maximize their "clean-up" rate by arresting the innocent and allowing the guilty to go free.
ANY police force, doesn't matter where, doesn't matter when, that follows a doctrine of "look good" rather than "DO good" is a police force society is better off without. The problem is never with authority or government, the problem is with ILLUSION of authority and ILLUSION of government. The failure to tell reality from illusion is why corruption exists at all.