Child Porn As a Weapon 774
VoiceOfDoom writes "Want to get rid of your boss and move up to his position? Put kiddie porn on his computer then call the cops! This was the cunning plan envisaged by handyman Neil Weiner of east London after falling out with school caretaker Edward Thompson too many times. Thankfully, Weiner didn't cover his tracks quite well enough to avoid being found out — earlier boasts about his plan to friends at a BBQ provided the police with enough evidence to arrest him for trying to pervert the course of justice. Frighteningly, however, between being charged with possession of indecent images and being exonerated, innocent (if 'grumpy') Thompson was abused and ostracized for eight months by neighbors and colleagues. With computer forensics for police work often being performed by 'point 'n click'-trained, nearly-retired cops, or languishing in a 6-month queue for private sector firms to attend to it, the uncomfortable question is raised: how easily might this trick have succeeded if Weiner had been a little more intelligent about it?"
How do you know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anonymous prosecutions/defendants. (Score:4, Interesting)
Recently there was a big stir caused here over proposed plans to make the defendants in rape cases anonymous [bbc.co.uk]. For some reason it was decided that this would be terrible, as anyone accused of rape is obviously guilty and so deserves no protections... Something about this strikes me as simply wrong - and it applies in this case as well.
The way our society is geared up we don't just have trial by court, but trial by media; if the media decides someone is guilty, then it doesn't matter what the court decides, the defendant is screwed. In my opinion, defendants should have the right to anonymity especially in "socially disgusting" cases such as most sex-based crimes.
Of course, these days child porn over here could consist of stick figures, so the actual laws themselves could do with a serious overhaul - remind me again why mere viewing of material should be illegal?
Why privacy laws matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:very (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it really so different that the offending items are electronic than if they were physical?
Consider this scenario:
(1) Disgruntled person A wants to get person B in trouble by planting child porn in B's work desk.
(2) A calls the cops on B.
(3) Cops find the porn in B's work desk.
Do the cops automatically jump to the conclusion that B owned the child porn? Or do they try to investigate further to establish how the material likely got there? If yes to the latter question, then perhaps the basic problem is that cops don't get the desktop metaphor: anyone who has access to the desk can put stuff on it. There isn't an invisible shield permeable by only the desk's owner. Computers are literary no different and thoughts of equivalent magic shields around the computer's hard drive only impede justice.
Re:well... (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't even take any particular malicious action. Operation Ore in the UK fingered all sorts of people, including The Who's Pete Townshend, who were in fact innocent and victims of online credit card fraud. Once you get the name "kiddie porn lover" it's very hard to get rid of.
The problem here is that the cops and the media have created a mad child porn frenzy completely out of proportion to the problem. Innocent people are railroaded through a system that cares more about showing large numbers of accused flowing through than about quality of evidence.
The fact is your average cop doesn't have the know how to analyze forensic evidence. Any competent IT forensics expert is first going to check to see if the computer has been rootkitted, is going to check to see if the credit card has been stolen, etc. and so forth, but between the missionary's zeal to stamp out all child porn and incompetence you don't get that. Operation Ore was a good example of how things can go terribly wrong, and shines a light on how innocent people can even be manipulated into admitting guilt if they are given the choice between jail time and a lesser sentence.
In other words, cops are often moronic bastards, and anyone accused of anything, or taken in for questioning on anything should not say a goddamned thing to them and refuse any co-operation until a lawyer is present.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you (Score:1, Interesting)
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:First off... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:how to stop this from happening? (Score:1, Interesting)
You know, that may be even worse. One of these days you're going to forget to lock your computer/logout/etc., and then proving "Yeah, it was on my encrypted drive that only I can decrypt -- but it wasn't me!" will be hell.
Sex Offenders Register (Score:4, Interesting)
According to The Independent [independent.co.uk], the judge has added Weiner to the Sex Offenders Register for the specific purpose of causing the general prison population to identify him as a pervert and make him suffer, even though there is no indication that Weiner possessed this material for any purpose other than to screw up Thomson's life.
I think Weiner is a scumbag who deserves to go to prison, but he is *not* a sex offender and does not need to be kept away from children's playgrounds when he is released. I certainly don't agree with this tactic by the judge - surely placing people who are not sex offenders on a list of sex offenders renders the list meaningless for any monitoring or preventative purpose? And since when was justice about eye-for-eye revenge in this civilised society?!
My Experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) [stallman.org]
Re:First off... (Score:5, Interesting)
This [huffingtonpost.com] actually just happened in my home state. Senators were blackmailed with child porn placed on their computer through malicious e-mail attachments, apparently in order to sway their votes on some legislation.
Child porn is messed up, but the reaction to it, and the effects stemming from those (over)reactions can be equally messed up.
Re:jurys most of the time are to dumb to think of (Score:1, Interesting)
Posting anon so my mods aren't wiped.
In cases like that where there's an emotional element that may cause a jury to overlook the facts, one would be well advised to waive one's right to a jury trial.
A bench trial (judge only, no jury) works best in these cases because the judges are less likely to overlook the facts and the law for simple emotional arguments.
Re:First off... (Score:5, Interesting)
So walking around with a bomb strapped to your chest is ok? Or carrying a machine gun into a bank? There have to be limits, silly. :p
Carrying a gun into the bank should be OK. Using it to rob the bank, on the other hand, is a different matter.
But it would be tough to do that if everyone were open-carrying, anyway. Hello, we can end the cycle of victimhood already.
Commie Pinko, Gay, Terrorist, Pedophile, Witch (Score:3, Interesting)
Calling your enemy a witch or whatever and making it stick has always been a way to ruin his life.
In the 1990s calling your spouse a child- or wife-beater or a child molester was a too-common* ploy in divorce cases.
1600s and earlier, and today in some 3rd world areas - witch
1950s - gay or commie
1980s and later - pedophile
2001 and later - terrorist
Throughout history - traitor
*I don't mean to imply that it was numerically common or anywhere a close to a majority of the divorce child-custody cases, only that there was a spike during that time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:First off... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is so true. Back in my high school days, we had some bomb threats that got called in to the school. Then a couple of students "came forward" and accused another student of calling it in and planning an actual event (this was shortly after Columbine). The student was arrested and everyone in the town heard about this. It was front page news in local newspapers for a few weeks.
After a few weeks, I hadn't heard anything new and the whole thing slipped from my memory. A few years later, I read in the local paper that the student had committed suicide because of him being constantly ostracized by the town. Turns out that he was cleared of all charges, but this was never announced in the media and most people in my town still thought he did it. When confronted, he would tell people that he was cleared, but most people didn't believe him because his credibility was destroyed by the original media coverage. There was no trial verdict for him to point to since it never went to trial.
It's not too late to correct your action (Score:2, Interesting)
Assuming the firm still exists in some way, shape, or form, a letter to its HR department apologizing and explaining what you saw may get this guy off of their "not eligible for rehire" list.
These days, with past-employers not willing to give out anything other than the dates of employment and a yes/no to eligible for rehire, removing this black mark from this guy's work history will help him.
If you know how to reach the guy a letter of apology to him would also be helpful.
Re:How easy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Double-plus good, my brother.
State of Computer Forensics (Score:5, Interesting)
In most departments the forensics investigator is the poor bastard who has some computer skills.
He gets selected to take a couple of encase or ftk classes and then they use a confiscated computer, add a write block to it and there you go.
Now lets say you get a CS degree, work for a while and decided that you want to do forensics. The odds of you getting a job is next to impossible.
In fact you will be specifically told that they do not want you around. There is a hatred of "nerds" in the law enforcement community.
Not only will you have to go back to school to get an associates in criminal justice, you will have to go through the police academy
and then work as a beat officer for several years before you will even get a chance to touch a computer.
Now lets look at requirements for other kinds of forensics. All of the other forensics fields have lab type people who are specifically trained in their field of expertise. for example, an dna specialist will have at least a masters in biology, a forensic pathologist, has an MD, a ballistics specialist usually has a degree in physics, or engineering. But a computer forensics specialist usually has a high school degree, maybe an associates degree in CJS, and must meet all of the active physical requirements as a patrol officer.
Note. I work in infosec and perform forensic investigations for private, defense cases, and the university level.
Every time I go to a continuing education class, encase/ftk, or other. There will be several leos in there that have no clue on even the basics on how a computer works. As a result the majority of the training is "point and click" as mentioned in the article.
In the days when everyone ran dos, this was doable.
At these classes I will point out the above issues and ask why computer forensics is differnet than any other forensics field.
I will point out that computers have gotten much more complex and standard procedure for most law enforcement agencies if they run into anything but a standard unencrypted windows computer is hand the case to the state police, or the feds, since they lack the skills to even process a linux box running reiserfs. Hell, what am I saying, most of them can not process a macintosh since the tools out there are windoze based and have very limited mac capability. So in order to investigate a mac, one must have core unix skills and treat the case as they would treat any other unix system. Yes there are newer tools to macs, but they suck. So be prepared to go through plists and file system attributes.
Their usual comment, you have to pay your dues son.
Re:First off... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a friend who works with children who have extreme behavioral issues, and she had a situation similar to this that was just resolved last week. A girl claimed she was touched inappropriately, and my friend was suspended without pay for the last 4 months while the investigation was ongoing. This girl has a long history of fabricating such stories.
Unfortunately, she's also currently engaged in a nasty custody fight where the allegations (of which she was completely cleared last week) are being used to support a claim she's a danger to her own children.
Re:First off... (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>What is it about you that makes people escalate what seem to be incredibly mundane disputes
I look like I'm easy to push around. People are more likely to do "evil" things to other persons, if they think the victim won't defend him or herself. The Motel 6 guy thought he could kick me out simply because he didn't want to honor the 10% sale price (and he was right). The Boss figured I wouldn't fight an unjustified termination (and she was right too).
Re:First off... (Score:3, Interesting)
P.S.
I can also show the Credit Card Dispute where Discover Company sided with me AGAINST the Motel 6 manager, sucked $130 away from him, and refunded it back to my account. Still think I'm lying?
Re:How easy? (Score:4, Interesting)
This stems from the completely broken Christian concept
How do you figure it's a Christian concept? Or are you just inserting a small rant against Christianity?
These laws aren't created to protect children, they're made to control the people. Children are just the excuse.
Re:First off... (Score:3, Interesting)
True Story (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is, shit can show up on your computer completely by accident through no fault of your own. Telling people "It's on your computer, therefore it's your fault!" is a pretty naive reaction.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:First off... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which media? This sounds like the sort of thing parents could sue over.
Re:First off... (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a boss like that once. She came in as a touchy-feely Technical Director, and disliked me because I told off some girl for forwarding spam around the company (not in a rude way). She tried to fire me on all kinds of flimsy grounds. Tried accusing me of resisting any kind of QA (I forced the company to set up the QA department), of sometimes arriving after 9am (er I did every day as I cleared it with my line manager to do 10-6 rather than 9-5 to avoid rush hour), and random other things in the hope something would stick. She even suspended all work going to me, so I was 'forced' to spend months sitting around doing whatever I wanted (awesome). It worked out well for me in the end.
Don't worry comm64, for every one of you that gets pushed around by bullies, there is somebody like me to give them grey hairs :-). As for the motel guy, he would have a crowd, the police, and myself all camped there going mad in short order. I've caused a scene in a bar because their clock was a couple of minutes fast and they tried charging me a non-happy hour price!
It's not a bad thing being a nice guy, you just need to have a good friend that has a complimentary character. He can stand up for you when you are being too nice, and you can reign him back when he is being a dick.
Phillip.
Re:Interesting that you mention teachers (Score:3, Interesting)
My friend isn't a "quick learner"? How is he supposed to "learn" how to keep kids from bald-face lying about where he was and what happened while he was supposedly there?
You're right about the crushes, though -- all three accusations were from girls who had a crush on him and wanted revenge for him "rejecting" them.