Stalker Jailed For Planting Child Porn On a PC 368
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."
Geez. (Score:4, Funny)
Hasn't this dude ever heard of 4chan? Or dating sims? Or sanity?
Re: (Score:2)
At least the good guys caught the bad guy here.
Re:Geez. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make us winner nerds then?
Re:Geez. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Geez. (Score:4, Informative)
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:
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:
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? :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since when are lobotomies considered minimally invasive?
Out more than gaol time (Score:5, Funny)
He's also out the postage to mail the hard drive.
This would have worked except for This mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>"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.
Re:This would have worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:This would have worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This would have worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
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)
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.
Re:This would have worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This would have worked... (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent up for car analogy.
Re:This would have worked... (Score:4, Funny)
How can I DUI? I don't have my car keys.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Evidence is a tricky thing. I'd have to say from what I know of the law (and IANAL), that drive is worthless as evidence, or even as a hint to start an investigation on anything but a B&E charge. The computer may have the guys personal information on it, but even that can be faked.
The chain of custody isn't always quite so cut and dried. At one point, there was an investigation where I showed up to work where I found a man with a federal badge. He wanted to know about a
Re: (Score:2)
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:This would have worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you're blaming the victim. *Should* they have run a more secure system? Probably, but that's neither here nor there. Running an insecure home system is not a crime. breaking into someone house to take advantage of that lack of security is. This is all completely incidental to whether they should have arrested him or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re:This would have worked... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This would have worked... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose I am assuming that they need warrants in the UK. They must, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AC does a lot of things that are strange, but he has just proved he is not very observant. Commodore64 may or may not be a wife, but I don't think she has a wife.
Or, was AC trying to make a pass at Commodore64?
Hmmmm - I couldn't hear the inflection of the keys being hit while he typed . . . .
Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
That matches my experience. A disturbingly large number of people in law enforcement seem to think that their job is to bust people, as opposed to busting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Nor is it necessarily born out of malice, though there's that, too; most of the time, it's just tunnel-vision and sloppy thinking.
Re:Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we should do away with the IQ caps for police?
Re:Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Informative)
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores [nytimes.com]
Re:Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Google 'new london police IQ Jordan'.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/19/weekinreview/ideas-trends-help-wanted-invoking-the-not-too-high-iq-test.html?pagewanted=1 [nytimes.com] ... He says he was curtly informed that he did not ''fit the profile,'' which litigation revealed was a score of 20 to 27.
" In 1996 Mr. Jordan scored 33 out of 50 on the exam,
''Bob Jordan is exactly the type of guy we would want to screen out,'' said William C. Gavitt, the deputy police chief"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I work in forensics too, and I have somewhat the same experience with people in police forces. However, the place where I work is independent from the government, and only does the research. Law enforcement officers are regularly 'pissed off' that we can't do some facial recognition from 20x20 pixel faces, etc. However, the experts at our company always refrain from that practice
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LE don't have "guilt" as a rule of engagement.
They base their actions on "evidence," "probable cause," and "reasonable suspicion."
It's the job of the courts to determine if the suspect is guilty.
Too often, they all do it using muscle-memory rather than logic.
Re:Moral of the story. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. So often, once an investigation is started there is a need to find a perpetrator somewhere...ANYWHERE...to justify beginning the investigation.
Even worse is juvenile court. They use the justification that the "record is wiped clean" when they turn 16. So suddenly a note from a principal somehow becomes "evidence", and is sufficient to sentence a child to 9 months of probation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not even that hard.
Unless... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
So deal with the passwords. (Score:2)
Several possibilities there:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in the UK all you would need to do is place an encrypted volume on the system and the software on the machine (don't need to worry about a weak or strong password.) or it's contents:
1) The police ask him for the password. :D
2) He refuses because he does not know the password and asks for a Solicitor.
3) Police think he's lying due to CP allegations
4) ???
5) Police charge him with withholding passwords
6) He spends up to 2 years in jail...
7) Stalker wins
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moral of the story. . . (Score:5, Funny)
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."
The article wasn't clearly written... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What an amazingly scary story (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, this is UK, do they even need a warrant?
Warrant? (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:It is too easy! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Not the end of the story... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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
Re:Not the end of the story... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
People will see it and think that the dude who actually planted the evidence is a sick bastard and feel bad for the victim.
Re:Not the end of the story... (Score:5, Funny)
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*
Re: (Score:2)
May never get a job again either.
Re:Not the end of the story... (Score:4, Interesting)
"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).
Re: (Score:2)
Love you too.
If it was a Daily Mail article: (Score:4, Funny)
Loser (Score:2)
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.
FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (Score:3, Informative)
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?".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we already knew that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Give my regards to the Doctor (Score:2)
Most of us are Americans(TM) anyway, and have no idea where this "Essex" or "Finnish" you speak of is located.
Essex? Oh, that's over by Manchester, Gloucester, and Ipswitch [google.com]...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait.. (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
too little risk for breaking into a home in the UK (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, no doubt she was 'Asking For It'(TM)...
[/sarcasm]
Re:What crazy people do in the name of disparity (Score:5, Insightful)
Possession laws are stupid for this reason. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Trojan instead (Score:2)
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
"Ilkka Karttunen"? Sound it out people! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
./ link label (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Re:This story is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they did?
OTOH, who do you report it to? Officer, my HD is missing, please send someone right round. Thank you.
FAIL! (Score:2)
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
Really, really, REALLY stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just leave him a giant package of oxycontin. He'll just off himself.
Re:1st April (Score:4, Insightful)
The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.
Which is part of the reason why I object to serious news outlets participating in April Fool's jokes.
Re:1st April (Score:4, Insightful)
The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.
Which is part of the reason why I object to serious news outlets participating in April Fool's jokes.
No shit. I love how everyone says "oh just lighten up, it's only one day for jokes". Except that the Internet doesn't work that fucking way. Everything released into the wild on April 1 stays out there forever, it doesn't just evaporate on April 2.
Not to mention the fact that on April 1, you have no damn idea what stories are real, or just clever fakes.
Re: (Score:2)
B) Because he actually did knowingly and wilfully download and possess it (d/l on victim's PC, copied HDD to his own PC). Whether he actually "enjoyed" the collection is a separate matter.
He is a risk to the rest of society. Framing someone for kiddie porn is not a victimless crime. He may or may not be a pedophile, but consider that he is well-informed enough to know where to find kiddy porn. I don't know how easy it is to find that sort of t