Man Gets 12-Year Jail Sentence For Planting Child Porn On Enemy's Computer 448
An anonymous reader writes with an update to a story we discussed in August about Neil Weiner, a man who sought to ruin the life of a school caretaker by planting child pornography on his computer. Weiner has now been convicted on two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of perverting the course of justice. He was sentenced to 12 years in jail.
"The judge told Weiner that his plot to have Mr. Thompson sacked and prosecuted very nearly succeeded. Police had been careful not to make public their arrest of the caretaker and only informed those at the school who needed to know, he said. 'But you gratuitously and spitefully informed the local press so that he and his wife suffered the distress of the unwelcome publicity which followed.' Mr. Thompson's health and that of his wife suffered. The judge said: 'There are still those who believe, and probably always will, that he is a pedophile. I am wholly satisfied that Mr. Thompson is innocent.' ... Weiner had discovered the caretaker's password by looking over his shoulder one day and been caught doing so. When Mr. Thompson was asked why he did not change it, he said he wished he had, adding: 'Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?'"
Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
What an appropriate charge. Also, this guy can rot.
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fired, for kiddie porn, is something else entirely.
Simply being accused is enough to ruin your life.
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
In before slippery slope assholes who believe that every person who looks up heroin online is destined to be a junkie.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At the very least, since a child can't give informed consent or be legally responsible for contracts, any sale of porn involving real children is just like a case of commercial non-porn where the photographer failed to get a model release. Basically, it's frequently illegal to distribute content at all where the model's release doesn't exist (There are, of course, some exceptions, such as photos of a public figure, but unless the child in question is Brooke Shields or some such, those wouldn't apply). As to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>and ignoring that order would still escalate the matter to criminal levels
There you go. Possession isn't illegal, ignoring the court order not to delete it is. Simply having a picture on your computer where the model failed to sign a release won't ever land you in prison. This is a workable system that avoids the complications of ruining innocent people's lives.
I've been falsely accused of things although never had to fight the justice system for my freedom, and I've known plenty of people whose live
Why CP is illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Am I the only Slashdot reader old enough (and a porn consumer for long enough) to know the history of child porn laws?
It's amazing how many times I've needed to post something like: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1790178&cid=33671018 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. In my previous linked post, I gave just a couple of lines to explaining that. There is no *rational* reason to outlaw *mere* possession. However, we're dealing with the law, here. Laws often appear irrational.
In the case of CP possession, it was made illegal before the internet made it possible to distribute the stuff widely for free. Thus, if someone was in possession, they could lead LE to sellers if only LE had some leverage on them. The easy solution was to make mere possession illegal
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, you were a contractor - you can be let go for any reason, even including "I don't like you". All I have to do is call the agency and say "Hey, XXXX is not working out, he's not a good cultural fit here...can you send someone else?"
If you don't like the instability of being a contractor, don't do it - become a permanent employee instead. (possibly for less money, but hey everything in life is a tradeoff)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In nearly all cases, the company only needs to have the headhunter replace you with someone else for the remainder of that contract.
I know this because that's how I got my current position - my employer set up a 6-month contract, the first guy was a dumbass (I spent three weeks cleaning up his mess). The company nearly threw the guy out literally, and the headhunter asked if I'd fill out the rest of the contract term. I was getting nowhere with the contract-to-hire gig I was doing at the time, so I said 'ye
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're a moron. There's only one way that your story can be true. IF you own your own contracting company and are the sole employee, any contract signed by your client that you will deliver a certain result by a certain time means that you, personally, have to do it. If you are working for a consulting company doing contract work, you are a completely expendable cog. Anyone can fulfill the contract, and the client can ask for anyone to do the job. It's up to your employer to agree to that request.
Seems to m
Wow. Vindictive much? (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, you were a contractor. Your choice. And this is your side of the story, I'm sure it leaves out some details. If you had an actual case, you could go to court. But you don't, do you? And so you daydream about ruining someone's entire life. Did you know the idea of "an eye for an eye" was originally not seen as harsh,because it was meant to replace "Your life for an eye." Of course nowadays, even "an eye for an eye" is seen as unjust. But you seem to think that even "an eye for an eye" is not harsh enough.
If your boss had a problem with you watching Fox News, it sounds like you were simply not a good fit. Why stay at a place you are not wanted, especially as a contractor? Do you not feel confident in your abilities to find work? If that's the case, perhaps you should not be a contractor. She did you a favor, enabling you to look for a job where your political views would not be an issue. If you were a real employee, you might have a case. If you had some sort of protections written into your contract, you might have a case. But that is not how contractors generally work, they generally work at the whims of those that employ them, and can be let go for any reason or none, at any time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not insinuating it was right. I'm saying it was the company's right to do so, and if he wanted a different bargain he should have asked for it. He agreed to the contract, and has no one to blame but himself if the contract did not protect his rights.
Personal responsibility is something that Fox News viewers seem to only want for other people. When it comes to their own life, they blame everyone but themselves for their problems, and they fantasize about utterly destroying anyone who slights them in the
Re:Wow. Vindictive much? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, as I said, I never said it was the "right" thing to do. I said it was the company's right to do so.
As an example, if a woman dumps you and I say, "Bitch did you a favor," does that mean I think she did the right thing? No, it means, I think it is better you are no longer with her. And no one would argue her right to dump you, obviously she has that right.
My observations about Fox News were coincidental to the discussion at hand, meaning, it is perhaps a coincidence that both Fox News viewers and the poster are hypocritical and vindictive,
He was not fired for having the wrong political beliefs. He was let out of his contract for reasons we can only guess at. Contractors can not be fired, they were never employees. If he'd wanted protection, he should have asked for it. He didn't, and now he wants to ruin this person's life because he made a mistake when bargaining for the position. He is stupid, for not asking for what he wanted. He is hypocritical because I have seen him castigate others for not taking personal responsibility, but does not do so here, and he is vindictive because he fantasized about putting kiddie porn on his ex-bosses computer.
His boss would not merely be fired if he planted kiddie porn on her computer, and you know it.
And once again, I must point out that he wasn't fired. As a contractor, he was never an employee. He was a supplier of services, an independent business that did work for another business. If he wanted the protections that come with being an employee, he should have become an employee, not a contractor.
I have no sympathy because, and this bears repeating, commodore64_love fantasized about putting kiddie porn on his ex-bosses computer for revenge.
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, some assholes deserve to be framed. Like my previous boss who fired me because "you were eating too much food at lifetime"...
That's worth 12 years in prison?!
This is why vigilantism is frowned upon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I should watch nothing but the pro-"make government bigger" bias of the other channels.
Yes, Republicans are truly the not "big government" type. Yeah, that's why Ronald Reagan started us down this path of financial ruin with his, for the time, record deficit spending? The same people who want to use the government to legislate their morality? The same people who were totally for spending 100s of billions on wasted wars so that Dubya could get back at mean old Saddam for making his daddy look bad? Since when has the Republican party since the 1980s ever done anything to shrink the governme
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans have been out-spending Democrats since long before the 1980s. Their hypocrisy goes back several generations.
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Interesting)
In fairness, that's not all GOP'ers, it's primarily those that come from the bible belt or need their electoral votes in Presidential elections.
Yes, but they are the most vocal and active of the party and are routinely referred to as the "base" of the party.
They haven't done much,
You mean nothing. What little they have shrunk has been far outweighed by their gross spending.
hence the rise of the Tea Party.
Tthe party of "keep the government out of my Medicare!!", right?
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me, but DHS is larger than any three previously existing departments combined. At one time it was in danger of becoming half the executive branch's manpower. And that dept was the brainchild of the groups which still have sway over FOX News. They tell you they stand for smaller government, but they really only want to cut the regulatory agencies, and grow the others.
Drilling regulatory cuts really worked out well for us (no pun intended), and with the salmonella poisoning of Spinach, Peanuts, and Eggs in the recent three years, I would say that the FDA cuts must have worked out just as well. Bank regulatory cuts seem to have helped us tremendously, and I shudder to know what cuts we haven't heard about yet.
Perhaps FOX is just for all out unregulated economies. Maybe that's fine by you, but a truly unregulated economy works like a mugging. There's no protection for those who honor agreements under such a system, they are at a disadvantage to those who wield their money and power in unscrupulous ways.
As far as exposing myself to ideas, there's the daily drone of FOX on the lunch room TV. I would be glad to expose myself to any new ideas on FOX, but there aren't any. It's the same ideas we've heard since the late 80's.
By the way, FOX consistently rallies against the deficit, yet they rally against raising taxes. They think we can "starve" our government down to a smaller size by just denying them money. It's not a bad plan, if you are into surface level thinking. Try using their logic with your local bank concerning your mortgage; see how far it gets you.
We borrowed our deficit. The terms and agreements made to obtain that money are not going to un-write themselves because we're starving our loan repayments. In addition, if we even hint at weakening our resolve to honor those commitments, our national loan rating will slip. That will make this market crash look like peanuts as we watch the interest rate on 13 Trillion dollars hike up a percent.
You're smaller government plea falls on deaf ears when the graphs look like this [colinandrews.net]. Naturally, you'll vote for the propaganda party, and I shudder to think what will happen to the debt then.
By the way, yesterday it was reported that if we just repealed all the Bush-era tax cuts, the budget would be very close to being balanced. Sure, you might call it a spend-and-tax plan, but it's better than a spend-and-borrow plan.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, liberals should be exposed to conservative views. (And vice versa, for that matter.) I read commentators every day whose views I disagree with but who are nonetheless able to coherently put forth an argument for their position.
FNC is a lot less about that and a lot more about fearmongering.
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Interesting)
What an appropriate charge. Also, this guy can rot.
The truly sad thing is that he very well may be rotting alongside victims of the more successful (weren't caught) perverters of justice. Unless, of course, we just assume this is the first time someone has ever attempted this.
It'd be interesting to see what percentage of those convicted of possession of child pornography claimed they were framed/had-no-knowledge-of-the-pornography, and how much effort law enforcement spent in checking the validity of those claims.
I suspect that the numbers would be pretty damn disappointing/terrifying.
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:4, Informative)
It'd be interesting to see what percentage of those convicted of possession of child pornography claimed they were framed/had-no-knowledge-of-the-pornography
Part of the problem is that virtually everyone in the penal system insists they are innocent, especially those who are most guilty. Case and point; within the last few years here in MA, there was a convicted rapist who insisted for years that he was innocent. Eventually enough people supported him that he got enough attention and legal representation to have DNA tests done that were unavailable when he was convicted. The result? The tests confirmed beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that he was the rapist.
...
Why would he demand a test that he should have known would prove his guilt? Who knows. Maybe he was protesting his innocence so much for so long, that when someone offered to get the tests done, he either had to play along, or 'fess up that he had been lying about his innocence. Either way, he's not alone. Given what I've heard about how pedos/rapists/kiddie porn collectors are treated in prison, insisting on one's innocence may be the only survival strategy many of them have. Bottom line: regardless of actual guilt, your survey would probably return 99.99% claims of innocence before and after conviction (not counting plea bargains).
That being said, actually knowing the numbers (assuming we had the appropriate crystal ball) you are looking for would indeed likely be interesting and terrifying. I'm sure it has happened. I've heard a few different people mutter something to the effect that they would like to plant something similar on someone's computer to get back at them. Each time, I've taken it as someone simply venting anger (if I had killed someone every time I said I'd like to, I'd be worse than Ted Bundy), but it's the kind of thing that sticks in the back of my mind sometimes. Just in case I see the intended victim's name in the paper someday
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(if I had killed someone every time I said I'd like to...)
There's a great short story about this that I read many years back...I don't recall the name but basically
11 of the 12 Jurors immediately want to vote guilty...
The 12th is actually interested in the case/process etc. and begins to convince some of the others of his "reasonable doubts".
In the climax the 12th juror provokes one of the others into saying "I'm going to kill you!" ...echoing a statement made by the defendant. This was a key part of the case against the defendant so demonstrating that that statem
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're talking about 12 Angry Men [wikipedia.org].
Re:Perverting the course of justice. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand I know of at least two cases where DNA proved two murderers were innocent. They lost 25 years of their lives, because the government stubbornly refused to do a simple test..... they could have been released ten years earlier.
Just got a call from my wife (Score:4, Interesting)
One of her best friends just called her. This woman's house was just raided by the FBI this morning. Turns out that her boyfriend was into child porn. I've hung out with them, he seemed like a regular guy. I liked him. Now I don't know what to think, or feel. I know I feel a little dirty just from having hung out with him. But I also feel some sympathy, because I know the guy, and before I found this out, I liked him. I can't imagine what his girlfriend is going through. Can you ever take enough showers to feel clean after that?
I know he had a screwed up childhood. I guess I just didn't know how screwed up. And now I can't help but contemplate his future. It isn't pretty. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, kiddie porn is inexcusable. But his life is over now. If I were somehow in his position, I know what I'd do. I know the man owns guns. There aren't many situations where suicide might just be the best answer, but along with painful terminal illness, this is one of them.
I just feel sick now, I could barely eat lunch today. The wife and I offered to help clean up after the mess the FBI left, tearing up the place. But cleaning the physical mess is only the first step.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Soo, are we talking Barely Illegal, or 8 year olds dude?
Re:Just got a call from my wife (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have any evidence that he's guilty, or are you just convicting him because the FBI raided him? Because you're sure acting as if he's guilty.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the above combined
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Funny)
The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.
Poor Michael Jackson died too early... He would have loved that idea!
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean he was found to be not guilty by a jury of his peers and the evidence was never particularly strong anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no indication MJ liked playing with children naked.
And even when brought to trial, the court declared him innocent. So why does everyone automatically label him "child molester"? It would be wiser to say, "I don't know if he molested children or not," rather than treat him like a pariah. You are really no better than those persons in the Salem Witch Trials (assuming guilt upon mere, unproven gossip).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Flying naked children are perfectly OK weapons of war.
However, 8X10 glossies of same are classified as illegal WMDs.
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Insightful)
The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.
If you give those children MP3 players filled with pirated music this weapon might just be capable of destroying the world.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.
If you give those children MP3 players filled with pirated music this weapon might just be capable of destroying the world.
Now we know how people will get their music in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Boohoo. The guy was attempting to destroy the life of someone else and get them sent away to prison for a long time. He better start loosening his ass up now so it hurts less when he hits the cell block.
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the point. The social stigma and legal punishments for what amounts to a thought-crime (mere possession of child pornography, not the creation of it) is above crimes that cause real, tangible harm to other people.
Instead of pinning child porn on the caretaker, he could have just outright shot him and suffered a more lenient fate*.
* Assuming, of course, GP is being factual in the list of crimes that have more lenient punishments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of pinning child porn on the caretaker, he could have just outright shot him and suffered a more lenient fate*.
* Assuming, of course, GP is being factual in the list of crimes that have more lenient punishments.
Except none of what he states is relevant to either murder (which is a mandatory life sentence in England) or attempted murder. Both of which are far more stringently punished then what happened here.
Re: (Score:2)
Both of which are far more stringently punished then what happened here.
Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. Point withdrawn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GP doesn't say shot. He could rob the caretaker at gunpoint, put not shoot him.
I'm sure if you took a shot at a kid they'd give you at least 12 years.
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:4, Insightful)
He was done for perverting the course of justice. Which is not a thought crime in any aspect.
It causes real harm to other people, undermining the justice system itself. I'd argue it is a more serious offense than murder - not for the person being murdered or their families/friends, but for society in general.
And in the UK all those listed offences (and perverting the course of justice as well) have life in prison as their maximum. of course you don't usually get the maximum. But in a country where the general duty police don't carry guns I'm pretty sure you are getting more than 12 years in prison if you use an AK-47 to commit armed robbery...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But then again, why let reality get in the way of a ZOMG gubmint abuse post.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your right to wank off over Miley Cyrus is not what's at issue here. It's photos of children being abused, i.e. real harm to real humans demanded by those who are just "harmlessly" looking at "harmless" photos.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah. By pirating child porn and not buying it you are actually HURTING the child pornagraphers. Think of all the lost purchases they are incurring due to PIRACY! They should join forces with the RIAA's legal teams and push for harder copyright infringement laws for pirating child porn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In any situation in which you aren't paying for it or viewing advertising, in what way are you supporting the aforementioned scum?
For example, you download a video/image/whatever from a randomP2P system, in what way does doing so support anyone in any way? Specifically, if it supports child pornographers, why doesn't it support musicians/moviemakers?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, and i suppose it is worse than ACTUALLY destroying someone's life, permanently? As in, you know, KILLING them?
Yes, the tool definitely deserves to be punished, but that sentencing is messed up, regardless of how much of a dick he was.
You're the kind of mob-mentality that probably stands outside "convicted" pedophiles doors throwing stuff at them.
The whole "taboo", witch-hunt of the 21st century over child porn, pedophilia and so on is pathetic.
You can have your entire life ruined for being a moderato
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and i suppose it is worse than ACTUALLY destroying someone's life, permanently? As in, you know, KILLING them?
No. Nice strawman, though. If he had murdered the guy he would be facing a mandatory life sentence rather than this 12 years.
BTW, I'm not a "think of the children person". The fact that he tried to destroy this person's life with child porn is irrelevant. He could have tried to frame him for any other number of things and I still wouldn't feel a lick of sympathy for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Which was what was going to befall his victim had the person not been cleared. It's only fitting that he now gets put into that spot himself.
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Insightful)
Which was what was going to befall his victim had the person not been cleared. It's only fitting that he now gets put into that spot himself.
Correction, that's exactly what's happening to the person anyway. Just as the judge said, there will forever after be people who are likely going to believe the man is a pedo even after the judge cleared his name. I doubt the press will publish the results of the trial as front page news since it will show that they were fooled by the man. At best perhaps a small article at the bottom of page 18.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Interesting)
There's 3 homicides of prisoners in prison in the UK a year, so clearly they aren't doing a good job of the butchering you expect.
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Insightful)
causing temporary emotion distress
Yeah, no one ever has lifelong emotional issues stemming from being sexually abused. No, once the person stops raping you you just magically get over it and it's like nothing ever happened at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really thought that being dead is better than living with lifelong emotional stress would they still be alive to beg to differ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm surprised the allusions to prison rape persist. It still happens, though not as common as it once was
I'm not familiar with how common prison rape once was, but it's definitely still [salon.com] a problem [salon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:5, Insightful)
It will also get you a longer sentence than abusing hundreds of children as in the following case [bbc.co.uk]
The above case seems to be remarkably lenient, given the sheer scale of the abuse I would have thought a life sentence would have been more appropriate.
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:4, Insightful)
As it should, IMHO. Were you attempting to shock us into thinking this should be otherwise?
If you commit armed robbery with an AK-47 (or whichever weapon you choose to wield?), you've presumably been successful in taking some money that wasn't yours -- but this charge, alone, doesn't mean you physically harmed anyone.
If you shoot into a crowd, again, you put people at RISK of injury or death, but again, if you actually injured/killed someone, the crime wouldn't simply be "shooting into a crowd" any longer.
If you sell heroin to children? Well, you're not likely to get off too easy for that one .... but at least you were simply conducting a business transaction with an illegal substance. Without looking into each individual circumstance, we know little to nothing about the long-term effects that sale had on the kid(s) who did the buying. Maybe they were just paid something to buy it for an adult family member who knew kids wouldn't serve time for such an act?
If you plant child porn on someone's computer or other property with successful intent to frame them for collecting it? You *definitely* ruined that person's life/reputation. There's really no "potentially" about it! They're going to go to prison for a long time for that crime they didn't commit, PLUS after they get out, they're stuck "checking in" with probation officers on pretty much a weekly basis, are restricted as to where they can buy or rent a home, and will have a really tough time getting respectable jobs. Many jobs will be illegal for them to obtain, period (such as a handyman or construction worker doing any work for schools or day-care/child-care centers). Even if you were DIRECTLY responsible for getting a person hooked on illegal drugs, at least that person could go seek treatment and get back off of them. There is no "cure" for someone's sexual interest in underage kids, so nowhere the framed individual could ever go to prove he was no longer a risk.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lethal Weapon VII (Score:4, Informative)
Add the noose if anyone dies.
Not knowing much about UK sentencing, I could have been convinced you knew what you were talking about until I got to the above.
Rather than mod it offtopic, which it clearly is, I figured I'd post this as response so that other mods can mod it offtopic without getting the hell meta-modded out of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was using American sentencing. Uniform Criminal Code, q.v., plus a goulash of state laws. "The noose" is a figure of speech; "the needle" just wasn't distinctive enough to make my point as distinctively as I wanted.
The fact is, the crimes OP listed come with longer sentences on a count-by-count basis than CP does. And this case is not a single count of CP, it's two counts of CP plus one count of making the police chase the wrong guy. Interestingly, it omits any counts that directly speak to the offens
12 Years, not enough (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinking that if the penal code were written by random people on the Internet, we'd guillotine more people than Robespierre.
Re: (Score:2)
Sentences almost always run concurrently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you should check your comprehension, because concurrent sentences means served in parallel. Consecutive sentences means served serially.
But more interestingly is that sexual predators (I have no idea whether this guy fits that or not) more or less have a life sentence because after their prison time is up, they can get administrative detention forever if no one believes that they have reformed.
Live and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
This clearly illustrates that until lay persons learn to think otherwise in terms of privacy and security on systems and networks; nothing is going to get better.
Re: (Score:2)
After having seen what people with Personality Disorders are capable of, I could've thought that they would've stooped even lower than this.
Re:Live and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?
This clearly illustrates that until lay persons learn to think otherwise in terms of privacy and security on systems and networks; nothing is going to get better.
Hello??? If you people go out sometimes (you know, the big blue room with the bright light) do you always wear your bullet-proof west, keep your back against the wall at all times and look for cover points in case somebody around you is a raving psychopath looking to stab someone or lurking with a sniper rifle? No, I don't trust strangers but if you think this should be "expected" then you must have serious problems functioning in a society with other people. If I realized someone saw my password and thought "hey, maybe they'll plant child porn on my computer, report it to the police and alert the media to ruin my life and send me to prison for god-knows-how long" then I'd be an hermit living in a cave far, far away from everyone else.
Not suprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is, in several senses.
Re: (Score:2)
From a personal point i would much rather prefer to be laid by Mrs Thompson while in 3rd grade, and if i instead had to chose between Mr Weiner the Butt-rape-bandit and Mr Manson the maniac-murderer, the cho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We in the US have retarded attitudes towards sex and we are the twisted ones. If you think nude pictures of child are pornography,
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on which definition [wikipedia.org] of the word you are using.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Waaaaaah. I'm so broken up inside over people getting in trouble for possessing pictures and videos taking of people being raped. Oh how sad it is for them.
Re:Not suprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the parent may have been flamebait, but it seems like the natural conversation for this story.
What a Happy Optimist Mr. Thompson Is... (Score:5, Insightful)
'Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?
When I was growing up, my dad once told me something along the lines of, "Boy, think of the worst, meanest, most downright, terrible thing you would be willing to do to someone that you truly hated. Now, you can safely make the assumption that someone else out there could come up with something worse if you give them enough reason. Remember that."
I always did.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sad for you, if you always expect the worst to happen. Even when you cross the road, do you think what someone might do to you?
This particular AC is completely missing the point. The moral is to treat others well because if you are not nice, people will be more vindictive than you imagine.
You fail at nightmares (Score:3, Insightful)
While I can understand some naivity, it's not like computer kiddie porn is the first witch hunt.
Whether criminalizing kiddie porn is a good idea or a bad one (I can understand the viewpoint of the porn enabling the crimes / creating the demand), when you have thoughtcrimes on the books, everyone really should be expecting that sometimes innocent people will be harmed. I think that when someone says they can't believe it would happen, they probably really mean that they think it'll probably never happen to them. Probably.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowhere in the law does it require the acquisition of said child porn to have been intentional.
This would have worked (Score:2)
More than anything else, this is the single best reason for keeping your security tight and your password secret - especially from caretakers, who will have free, unfettered and prolonged access to your work computers after you've gone home..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's technically infeasible (maybe even impossible) to secure a computer at your workplace from coworkers, even if you're an expert. Sure, you can make it harder for them, but in the end they can always get to you - be it with the OS install disk or a simple keylogger.
Good job! (Score:3, Insightful)
Police had been careful not to make public their arrest of the caretaker and only informed those at the school who needed to know, he said.
Good for them, exercising a bit of restraint while the suspect was not yet proven guilty!
A word about "shoulder surfing" (Score:5, Informative)
If you catch somebody at work doing it, report it to their manager immediately! I've had people fired for this, at IBM we are trained to swivel 180 degrees when a client is entering a password. This is non-trivial, DO NOT ALLOW THIS!
Re:A word about "shoulder surfing" (Score:4, Funny)
That is actually good ethical practice in any environment when one is dealing with someone else entering passwords, PINs, etc. I've had quite a few of my customers in the field ask me why, when I ask them to enter their password for something, I turn around and walk off some feet away, and keep my back turned. The action itself seems to be a lot more effective in teaching them password control than just explaining it to them does ;-)
SB
Re:Mr Weiner (Score:4, Funny)
I'll tell you inmates one more time, quit playing with Mr. Weiner.
Re: (Score:2)
what makes you think this guy is going to be in jail any time close to 12 years?
As for hyperbole, it may have been an exageraiton, and it is not as bad as many other things in life, but if it happened to me I would freak out too.
Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (Score:5, Insightful)
If you RTFA, you'd know both the man and his family were subjected to months of abuse while the investigation proceeded, and the abuse occurred because the guy framing him leaked the charge to the news media. Yes, he should have changed his password, but that just puts him in the same category as the overwhelming majority of people who don't keep their office computers sufficiently secure.
And yes, for many people, being accused of pedophelia IS worse than being charged with murder. I know a man who lost his job, his house and his family while his case dragged through the courts. The whole town thought he was guilty. He was beaten twice, once very severely. The kids who accused him eventually recanted their stories, but the damage was done. So you can take your self-righteousness and shove it straight up your ass.
Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (Score:5, Insightful)
"So you can take your self-righteousness and shove it straight up your ass."
I agree, I'm troubled by what more people than me are calling the 21st century equivalent of the Salem witch trials, made even more cogent by these frame charges. Every one of the supposed "witches" were simply accused of witchcraft by a group of four bored teenagers. The lives of the entire family faculty of McMartin PreSchool were destroyed because one child lied. Mere possession can land you in more hot water than murder? That's ridiculous. I'm not condoning pedophilia, but I think people & media are caught in a sensationalism that rivals yellow journalism from the 1900's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why, when cases like this come to the media, the media has the responsibility not only to emphasize that the charges are alleged, but to PUBLISH RETRACTIONS AND/OR PUBLISH THE RESULTS OF TRIALS THAT RESULT IN A VERDICT OF INNOCENT.
Unfortunately, too few media outlets do that - scandals sell, innocence doesn't. Perhaps the judges in such cases should make it a requirement that the local/involved media publish the results- and not buried in two lines somewhere on the back page.
Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (Score:4, Insightful)
i have no problem with anything until the victim attempts to exploit the media to further harm a convicted and sentenced man.
that is a hypocritical act of malice and vengeance, and can only serve to discredit the justice system.
we'll all see how the show ends in <12 years, and whether or not continued agitation of the situation was the "good" move.
So even though he's been exonerated and the true criminal was successfully convicted, the innocent has no right to publicize his innocence? He was FRAMED for crying out loud. Who, if not he, should be allowed to vilify his attacker?
You'd be just as well off asking a rape victim to be respectful and grateful to her rapist.
So, how long HAVE you and the convicted been chums??
Re: (Score:2)
Usually both. It's a state/local crime to posses it, and a federal crime if they can prove you moved it across state lines (including electronically). In this case it's a UK law though, because that's where this particular story happened. I'd venture to guess that there are a *very* small number places in the Western World where it's not a crime, if any at all.