Slashdot Log In
Fighting Porn Vs. Ruining Innocent Lives
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jan 15, 2007 07:36 PM
from the overzealous-is-an-understatement dept.
from the overzealous-is-an-understatement dept.
After news of the conviction of a substitute teacher for endangering minors — because porn popups, possibly initiated by adware, had appeared on her computer during class — comes the even sadder story of 16-year-old Matt Bandy. His family's life was turned upside-down when he was charged in Arizona with possession of child pornography, even though the family computer was riddled with spyware and Trojans. After the intervention of ABC's 20/20, Matt finally was allowed to plead to a lesser charge (namely, sharing a Playboy magazine with friends) and just barely escaped being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Related Stories
[+]
Teacher Found Guilty of Endangering Kids Due to Spyware 597 comments
nursegirl writes "Norwich, Conn seventh grade teacher, Julie Amero has been convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor after her classroom PC displayed pornographic pop-ups in class. While an expert for the defendant said he had discovered spyware on her PC that had been downloaded from a hairstyling site, the local police investigator claimed that the spyware had been downloaded from actively visiting porn sites. Amero testified that she had told four other teachers and the assistant principal about the popups, but received no assistance. The school's internet filtration software was not working because it's license had expired. Amero faces up to forty years in prison."
[+]
New US Computer Forensic Institute 131 comments
Quincy writes "The DHS and Secret Service are setting up a new computer forensic institute in Alabama. Set to open in mid-2008, the new National Computer Forensic Institute will be able to train over 900 law enforcement officers per year. 'It will initially be staffed by 18 Secret Service agents and will feature classrooms, a forensic laboratory, an evidence vault, and server rooms. Courses will be offered in the investigation of electronic crimes, network intrusion investigation, and computer forensics... [T]he Secret Service says that it will help to bring judges and prosecutors up to speed as well.'" Maybe over time we'll see fewer botches of justice like those in the news recently.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Save me from my internets (Score:5, Informative)
Oh here's my personal favorite quote from TFA:
Admittedly the prosecution's behavior in this case is excessive, especially the part about pleading to an obscenity charge for a Playboy magazine, but it doesn't have to be another excuse to spread FUD about the evil "here there be dragons" internets.
Re:Save me from my internets (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Save me from my internets (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Save me from my internets (Score:5, Insightful)
More percisely, how can you tell if she's turning 18 tommower or turned 18 yesterday? One of those makes you a sex offender for life, the other is perfectly legal. Both are equally moral in the eyes of the majority, but try to get the laws changed in any way other than more harsh and people think you're some kind of kid rapist.
And if you wanted a real answer, look for 18 USC 2257 compliance. It at least gives you some kind of plausible denial (not that that will get you far in court). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and
On a related note, if you google for "18 usc 2257" like I just did to find the wikipedia link, you find plenty of sites like met-art and all the other legal-but-looks-like-jailbait sites. Funny how those are legal, but a 17.999 year old who looks 25 is illegal because "pedophiles get enticed by it" or some such drivel.
I should post this anonymously, but meh, more people need to speak out.
Re:Save me from my internets (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows Cost Of Ownership (Score:5, Funny)
Sex offender label... (Score:5, Funny)
Coming into your computer?? (Score:5, Funny)
Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door? If you keep your doors locked, then it's really not too hard to figure out who's coming into your computer. Although, I've got to say that coming into one's computer gives new meaning to Intarweb porn. Maybe she should teach her son that there are safer places to come.
Re:Coming into your computer?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course! But Windows only comes with a screen door, and very few people realize they need a better door, let alone know how to install one. And even if they did manage to get a better door installed, they wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate the lock!
Re:Coming into your computer?? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the risk of the infamous lousy analogy, consider this:
- You have a Masterlock brand deadbolt on your front door.
- You head out for Las Vegas Friday night at 9:00 pm, lock your door.
- Unbeknowst to you, at noon on Saturday a guy with a lockpick breaks in -- turns out your lock is easily cracked in 30 secs by anyone with a pick and 3 minutes to spend on google.
- From the moment he breaks in up till 10:00 pm Sunday night, the guy sells crack to anyone who walks in the front door.
- At 10:00 pm, he cleans up and clears out -- you'd never he had been there.
- You arrive home on Monday at 7:00 am and lounge about resting before heading back to work the next day.
- Tuesday afternoon, you come home from work and are arrested -- it seems some kid got pulled over for speeding and during the course of the traffic stop, the cops found the crack. Kid "cracks" in fear and fingers your address as the place where he bought the drugs.
The question is, should you be convicted based merely on the fact that your house was used without your knowledge and permission to perform illegal activities? Sure you locked the door but any luser idiot would know that a Masterlock isn't true security. Why should it matter that you didn't actually sell crack -- it's plainly your fault for keeping such an insecure home.What we're talking about in the real case, is someone whose property was used to commit a crime and faced life in prison (9 consecutive 10 year sentences) merely because their property was used without their permission or knowledge. That's flat fricken wrong.
Re:Coming into your computer?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'm not defending the well-known security holes in Microsoft's operating systems. And I have no problem with the creator of a shoddy product being held liable for direct harm caused by their product. I do, however, have a problem with Entity A being held responsible for the actions of Entity B, under any circumstances, no matter who those respective entities may be -- individuals, corporations, whatever. Should Microsoft be held liable for the known security holes in their operating systems? Absolutely. Should they be held liable for how others with malicious intent exploit those holes? No.
Addressing products that are less than 100% secure does not address the underlying problem: Human behavior. Obviously, if everyone were honest, there would be no need for physical locks, computer firewalls, and so on. However, because of the malicious actions of many people, we do need those security measures. And those measures can never, ever be perfect. No padlock, no steel door, no software firewall, no router -- anything that is designed to let "some" stuff through and block the rest -- can ever be 100% secure.
If, as you state, "a software company can be shown to be grossly negligent about the security of their operating system software", then they should certainly be held liable for their own negligence, but not for the actions of others. Ever.
Just unplug (Score:5, Insightful)
Unproportional (Score:5, Insightful)
As for computers, things like this show why we need better education. Make sure people know to keep things updated. Tell them about Firefox, suggest that they get a Mac next time. They're not going to be 100% safe this way, but at least when you add it together with common sense safety measures then they're going to be significantly safer. Like it or not, the fact is all these people who get computers have been given the impression that it's so easy but they get the least secure system out of the box. People need educating about the dangers plus knowledge of the alternative choices.
Re:Unproportional (Score:4, Insightful)
your country is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. You USAians really live in a fucked up country if you can be charged with showing your mates a playboy.
Totally fucking agree (Score:5, Insightful)
We crazy-ass Americans have such bizarre hangups about sex... Jesus, folks, get over it. We all think about it, most of us do it fairly often (/.ers excepted, especially those of us old married
The liquor laws piss me off enough (whaddaya mean it's a dry county?), but all the puritanical sexually-repressive moral crap that's in law has just got to go.
American == USA citizen (Score:5, Informative)
In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor (Score:5, Insightful)
Until TV news anchors show up at your door demanding to know why you're hiring a convicted sex offender, and both of you get fired because protesters are making your company lose money over your decision. Watch TV some day, fucking up everyone's lives is quality prime time material!
Arizona just undermined itself. Be ridiculous with labels, and you end up only labeling yourself.
Pfft. The label has been ridiculous from the start. Public indecency in many states is a sex offense, and you're added to the registry on the second time, whether a minor sees you or not. Alabama will register you for "obscene bumper stickers" (what about those popular truck mudflaps sporting a woman's silhouette, are they "obscene"? Miller test time! Who wants to ruin their life to see whether shitty beer is shitty or not?) Googlized version of pdfd version of an excel spreadsheet (yay!) listing registrable offenses by state. [64.233.167.104]
Add to that the fact that as far as "being a sex offender" goes, raping 3 year olds is apparently just as heinous as having sex with your 17 year old girlfriend, or taking home a 24 year old who didn't seem drunk until she woke up and had no clue where she was or who you were, and the whole thing turns out to be a horrid mess, but somebody has to think of the children! No matter how ridiculous it gets, no politician will touch it, because anyone who does would be opening the floodgates for monsters to rape your little girls.
The forensics are tough (Score:5, Interesting)
Did a user to to a porn site that downloaded spyware that brought down kiddie porn, or did somebody intentionally go to a kiddie porn site?
I've never found pictures of kids on a customer's PC (thank God), but I have done some investigations on "porned" and infested PCs: it's hard enough for an IT pro to figure out which came first. When the cops are doing the investigating, I expect they'll come to whatever conclusion makes the suspect look guilty.
With proper forensic procedures and analysis... (Score:5, Insightful)
It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth.
As a forensic computer examiner, I'm not always given the opportunity to come to the correct conclusions based on evidence because that's not what I'm asked to do (and if I go beyond what I was asked to do, the client just won't pay for the extra work.) The legal system in this country rewards those who win, who are not always those who tell the truth.
Funny.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, but noboby gets labeled a "murderer" for life. Murderers are released from prison every day. In fact, hundreds of them. They serve their sentence and move on. No reporting themselves to their neighbors. No exclusion zones. No "registered murderer" lists.
I'd actually rather live next door to sex offenders rather than next to convicted drunk drivers. Why am I not notified when a convicted drunk driver moves in next door? Probably a lot more dangerous to me and my kids. Right?
The really weird thing is that neither side of the political spectrum dare oppose the whole "sex offender" legal agenda thing. Its a bit like global warming. Groupthink.
"Think of the children!!" Wait, I didn't mean it THAT way.
Re:Funny.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You got it backward. Global warming is contested by politicians, but accepted by the brains in the field. Sex offender registries are contested by the brains but generally accepted by politicians.
Furthermore, you don't seem to know what 'groupthink [reference.com]' means. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but it had to be said.
Re:Funny.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maricopa county prosecutors (especially Reichsmarshall Andrew Thomas) use this fact to extort harsh plea bargains (with this, among other crimes). So if you want to protest your innocence, you have one of two choices: Risk a trial where a loss means you never see the light of day again, or cop a bargain, regardless of your guilt, which will usually still keep you in prison for 10-25.
Re:Funny.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's really a matter of group think. Some of it is, of course, and some more of it is the fact that you can score cheap political points by saying "let's torture all sex offenders to death, huzzah!"
The problem is you, and me. It's the public. If a politican said something like, "I think we should re-think our sex offender laws," can you imagine what would happen? Pundits, talk show hosts and everybody in the opposing party would instantly paint them in a way that basically amounts to "they have nothing against somebody raping your child." It doesn't matter that that is not what he said. It doesn't matter that he might have been talking about cases like two 16 year olds who videotaped themselves having sex being brought up on child pornography charges or something similarly absurd, rather than legitimate sexual predators. Once he's hung with that label, he's in deep trouble.
"Senator Jones doesn't care about your children. He proposed a re-examination of the laws that put child sex offenders behind bars and require you to be notified if one moves in next door. Vote for Bob. He knows exactly where he stands on sexual predators. (Paid for by Parents Who Love And Protect Their Children.)"
And it would work. Partially because people get hysterical whenever they hear the words "sex offender." Partially because people are so horribly uninformed that if they saw an ad like that, they wouldn't bother to see what the other side of the story was--they'd just figure their Senator needed a new job. Partially because it's good television to skewer the Senator by bringing his most rabid opponents in with his official spokesperson to give "fair and balanced" coverage--conflict sells, and always has.
There are lot of places where blame can be placed, but it ultimately has to be placed right at the feet of the voters. Voters who don't vote at all. Voters who don't care to see two sides of the issues. All of the things I mentioned are horrible, and they come from different sources--tv networks, politicians, political action groups, etc--but the bottom line is if it didn't work, it wouldn't be done.
We, as a collective voting body, don't allow free thought. More importantly, we don't allow complex opinions. Your opinion may not be any more complex than you can fully explain in a 10 second sound bite. This is, very unfortunately, the attention span of the average American voter as it relates to the people who will be representing them in government.
As sad as it is for me to say so, when so many people act like that, we deserve the politicians we get. We deserve the stupid laws we get.
Re:Funny.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, sexual assault is not the worst thing in the world. A serial child killer who tortured every single child (in non-sexual ways) before killing them would, upon release, not be stuck with such a label and preemptive notification. A college student who got drunk and had sex in the bushes at a local park (after hours, when there weren't any kids around) WOULD be stuck with the "sex offender" label and preemptive notification (at least in some jurisdictions. There is a difference between "sex offender" and "sexual predator", but regardless, both are still subject to additional restrictions not faced by "conventional" criminals.) T
This might seem like an especially radical thing to say, but being raped is NOT the end of the world. It is completely possible to recover from being raped or molested and go on to live a happy life. However being murdered IS, by defintion, the end of (your) world.
I might be missing something (Score:5, Insightful)
Next they'll be prosecuting young mothers breastfeeding their kids on sexual molestation charges...
Re:I might be missing something (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I might be missing something (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the law makes absolutely no distinction between pictures depicting an 8 year old, and pictures depicting a 16 year old.
There's a reason for that: it is not relevant.
The purpose of sexual hysteria laws is to cause hysteria - by causing hysteria, you turn otherwise healthy, normal people against each other. People who fight each other are easier to control, manipulate, and tax. Injecting "sense" or "reason" into such laws is counterproductive for the most vocal mouthpieces who support them (in their current state).Re:I might be missing something (Score:5, Interesting)
You are correct about a few states, though - particularly California, where the AOC is 18, and two 17 year olds who have sex with each other are both "sex offenders". Kinda puts this whole outrage over sex offenders into perspective, doesn't it? Everyone wants the real child molestors to go to jail, but the language they use ends up also covering kids who really haven't done anything wrong, other than being born in the wrong state.
Re:I might be missing something (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the logic of these laws, we should charge any child who has seen him/herself naked with possesion of kiddie porn.
Rather than posting a comment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it WAS intentional.. (Score:5, Interesting)
These things should be looked at with relativity. And some lawyers and politicians need to remember that they were kids once. Rediculous, "possession of a playboy." I can understand cigarettes or alcohol, but it's illegal to be curious now?
Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Prohibition caused much more crime then it stopped, and always will, just look at the "war on drugs" and people killed in gun fights or because of drugs laden with toxins every day. When there is a demand for something, making it illegal to produce it in an ethical way will simply make it's production non-ethical, this has been proven many times in history and isn't changing any time soon.
You can say that some 14 year old can't make an informed decision- maybe they can't, I can't speak for them and nether can you. But I can say that it's certainly the lesser of evils.
*Waits for down modding and FBI to show up at door*
Interview with the District Attorney in the case (Score:5, Interesting)
Very interesting read.
Quote:
"JIM AVILA: So there was a huge amount of evidence that in fact, this kid was not involved in a sex crime. And yet, your office and
you yourself continue to believe and put him through two years of hell, because you continue to believe despite lie detector
tests, court psychiatrist reports, a report from the computer expert who said it could have come from anywhere...you
continue to say..."
NDREW THOMAS: (Overlap) Well...
JIM AVILA:
ANDREW THOMAS: Well, I...again, I...I'm not sure that that's totally right. But you gotta...
JIM AVILA: (Overlap) Halfway right?
"
Let me tell you a lil story (Score:5, Interesting)
Many moons ago I went out to meet this gal I met online, I knew she was under 18 but I was early 20s and stupid so I went out to meet her and I got busted as I walked in the door, tossed in jail and got a lawyer and got out on probation.
5 years, 2 lie detector tests, 2 years of mandatory therapy, tens of thousands of dollars spent out of mine and my families pocket, 1 career, 1 fiancee all lost along the way because I never really did anything but I thought with my love whistle insetad of the head on my shoulders.
So now I'm labeled a pure hardcore sex offender. I'm on the website here in my state, my glorious picture is up there, they put posters all around my white color suburbanite neighborhood, my neighbors who knew me couldn't believe it, the ones who didn't' saw me and pulled their kids aside like I was going to eat them alive when it was the farthest thing from the truth. I've had people spit upon my father who has a lawn business, mom who gets harrassed at her school from other teachers cause of it, my friends got hassled and dropped me like the plague. I got to see who my true friends and people were. People who were still there, still loyal, looked past my stupid mistake and realized "Hey, he did something really dumb, but he didn't rape some kid or kidnap a school bus full of girl scouts."
So here I sit here after I got all my ducks in a row, got a consulting job because companies hire business' not people so no background check, going to school out of state because they don't require registration or signup stating that some kiddy raper is attending their school, I live in a place that's in a decent area but the county is trying to squeeze people like me out because the community thinks we are all 'horrible representations of society' or some nonsense. I had to grow up alot along the way and I learned alot about the legal and criminal system and know there are thousands upon thousands of guys like me that are out there that really won't be able to be 'themselves' for 20yrs or so until it's all cleared up in the system and maybe a pardon for the governator.
I'm sorry for what I did to my family, to my friends, and to that lil child whom when I saw her in court I would've never done a thing to as she looked like my lil 12 yr old sister.
Do I feel my debt to society has been repaid? You be the judge on that. I'll let you know in 10 more years.
Re:Let me tell you a lil story (Score:5, Interesting)
If you mean society owes me nothing then all I ask of society is to stop treating those of us that have did our time, understood our punishments and crimes, and want to reenter society as citizens as all of those that have done know wrong take for granted every day.
I for one miss having the ability to vote for elected offical, have the ability to protect my family by having a fire arm in my house, have to be monitored like i'm a walking ticking time bomb waiting for me to snatch some little girl off the street and devile her in inhumane acts. All I ask is that they stamp my letter saying "Welcome back Citizen, now behave this time OK?" and you will see a grown man break down in tears.
Yes it means that much to me to have back what most of you have and throw away every election day. No matter how much support I throw for the candidate of my choice I can't go there and say "Thats my chosen one!" and be done with that.
I couldn't even volunteer to reroll as an officer in the military. Nope they wouldn't take me back, I asked about being demoted down to enlisted "Come talk to me when it's off your record!" they said. "My family is over there fighting as we speak and buddies are dying as well, yet you won't let me back with a full college education yet you are taking people who can't qualify for GED's?" "You are a criminal, they aren't". I just shake my head.
It makes me sad in many ways and I could rant on how I could get away with voting or owning a gun or many other ways around the system that are found to be completely flawed, but what's the point in defying the very system I so desperately want to rejoin?
If you mean I still owe a debt to society, then by all means I'm more than eager to repay it. Trust me.
Purpose of the Legal System (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's think about the purpose of the legal system for a while. Why do we want laws at all? Why, we want to make sure people can just live their lives, without being robbed, killed, raped, and whatnot. So we make robbery, rape, murder, etc. illegal. Now we have two categories of people: innocents and criminals. The innocents are the people we want to protect, the criminals are who we want to protect the innocents from. So we must arrest and convict the criminals. A legal system that does not result in criminals getting caught is useless. But a system that results in innocents getting punished is worse than useless, because it does exactly what it was intended to prevent: harm innocent people.
From what I've heard, the whole crackdown on child pornography is mostly punishing (severely!) a lot of people who are not harming anyone, while the people who do harm others (the criminals _and_ the law enforcers) mostly run free. That can't be good.
I've seen similar ~3 years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
At my old University, they required everyone to buy a computer through them. So, every numb-nuts had a computer hooked up to the network. There was no default AV or firewall installed, or even Auto-updates, as this was early WinXP days (and Win2k and 98 the years before that).
Well, he of course got infected with ungodly amounts of crap. I ran Adaware on it once, and it came up with 500-600 pieces of garbage, with approximately 50 - 60 of those being actual installed software. As the school had on-campus service, I just told him to bring it to them, and they'd reinstall all the school software for him.
So, he brought it in, and they found "child pornography" on it. Now, this was absolute news to him, and everyone else. As this was at my old Fraternity house (owned by the school, network owned by the school, was run similarly to other school-owned residencies), they threatened everyone at the house, and God knows what else. Eventually they looked around the house, and to their surprise, did not find a projector and child porn laying around. Apparantly this is what they thought they were housing a child porn theater of some sort. Amazingly, they dropped the case right there, and were very nice about it all, considering what was involved.
As for the original poster, was it this student's fault anyway? He was forced to use this computer, was given inadequate software with no training, and was only using the services given to him. I realize he got away cleanly, with no lawyers involved, but can we really expect this to not be a problem? Many in law enforcement do not understand what's involved in these cases, nor do many in the field of law (though this is getting better as the younger generations are entering these fields.)
Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
More quotable than Gerald Ford: Zappa (Score:5, Interesting)
Eventually it was discovered
That God
Did not want us to be
All the same
This was
BAD NEWS
For the Governments of The World
As it seemed contrary
To the doctrine of
Portion Controlled Servings
Mankind must be made more uniformly
If THE FUTURE
Was going to work
Various ways were sought
To bind us all together
But, alas SAMENESS was unenforceable
It was about this time
That someone
Came up with the idea of TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
Based on the principle that
If we were ALL crooks
We could at last be uniform
To some degree
In the eyes of THE LAW
Shrewdly our legislators calculated
That most people were
Too lazy to perform a
REAL CRIME
So new laws were manufactured
Making it possible for anyone
To violate them any time of the day or night,
And
Once we had all broken some kind of law
We'd all be in the same big happy club
Right up there with the President,
The most exalted industrialists,
And the clerical big shots
Of all your favorite religions
TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
Was the greatest idea of its time
And was vastly popular
Except with those people
Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws,
So, of course, they had to be TRICKED INTO IT...
Which is one of the reasons why
Music
Was eventually made
Illegal
http://www.lyricsdomain.com/6/frank_zappa/scrutin
Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
It is also perfectly possible that the images the teenage boy had on his computer was of someone approximately the same age or even older than himself. Child pornography is defined as sexualized pictures of anyone below the age of 18. In fact it would be illegal if this child distributed nude pictures of himself, something that should give you a hint about the rationality of charging minors with child pornography offenses at all.
Even if the pictures was of children much younger than him, the whole idea of trying to convict him to 90 years in prison is just ludicrous. Any competent psychiatrist can tell you it is perfectly normal for children to be curious about all aspects of human sexuality, even those that falls outside the accepted norm. He