Utah Bill Would Require IT Workers To Report Child Porn (ksl.com) 391
Mr.Intel writes: A Utah lawmaker wants computer technicians to face jail time if they don't immediately report child pornography they discover on someone's computer. The proposal would require computer technicians to report child pornography to law enforcement or a federal cyber tip line if they encounter the material, but they would not be required to go searching for it. If they find it and don't report it, they could be given up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. It would mirror laws already on the books in at least 12 other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Where is deniability? (Score:2)
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary does say the professional is required to report it IF THEY ENCOUNTER IT, but are not required to search for it. In other words, if in the process of doing work on a computer he/she discovers it (see is and knows what it is) and doesn't report it... that is a crime.
It is a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Insightful)
why would anyone NOT want to report it?
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Informative)
why would anyone NOT want to report it?
Blackmail for one.
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Insightful)
why would anyone NOT want to report it?
Possession of child pornography is a crime with severe penalties. The justice system does not care about how you acquired it. If a client hands you a laptop to repair that contains child porn, at the moment of transfer you become a criminal without even knowing it. Why roll the dice on the human decency of the local prosecutor by letting law enforcement know you are in violation?
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you bet your freedom on it? In this day and age? For that crime?
There is no sense and logic in laws concerning sex, drugs and copyright. They are not based in logic but in the three most basic human emotions: Anger, fear and greed.
Re: (Score:3)
What happens in a courtroom and what gets reported are usually two vastly different things.
And sometimes, you get the occasion to go and watch such a trial first hand, and you see that the reality is actually much worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why the appeals court exists.
By which time the defendant has likely used up all resources and funds; we've reached the point where the process is the punishment and, with respect to child port, the accusation is the conviction.
It's really only a matter of time before political enemies start throwing this around and we see random (read: republican) politicians eliminated. cf. Circle, The.
Re: (Score:3)
You ARE aware that the burden of proof is reversed in appeal, right? YOU have to prove that the verdict is faulty.
Good luck there.
Re: (Score:3)
why would anyone NOT want to report it?
Re: (Score:3)
Or vice versa [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
You report a crime, then you yourself can be detained and/or brought in and confined/imprisoned for questioning, even if you yourself are not suspect of any wrongdoing: it can be very stressful, bothersome, and inconvenient to spend days in police custody answering questions
That doesn't sound right. I reported a felony exactly two weeks ago and an officer just handed me a witness statement form. Filled it out, went down to the station to hand it in. Took about 20 minutes. I might have to testify if it goes to trial someday, but I think it's more likely they'll just plea.
As to the main topic, I thought it was already the law that IT workers were to report CP, much the same as doctors are required to report certain things. I don't fix PCs, though, so I don't really know.
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't sound right. I reported a felony exactly two weeks ago and an officer just handed me a witness statement form. Filled it out, went down to the station to hand it in. Took about 20 minutes.
I think that is probably representative of what normally happens, BUT of course people who have done nothing wrong can still be afraid of law enforcement, and law enforcement DO have the authority to lock up witnesses, there are some legitimate uses for detaining, AND law enforcement departments sometimes abuse that power.
I might have to testify if it goes to trial someday, but I think it's more likely they'll just plea.
This is the other thing.... if you're a small business owner, for example, and you start needing to take totalling days or weeks off to appear for depositions, and investigator interviews, and as a witness in court; this can cost you a heck of a lot of money, money which you won't be reimbursed for by the defendant or anyone else.
Or as an employee it can cost you paid or unpaid leave time ---- which can mean suddenly you cannot pay your rent, or for transportation or other basic necessities.
This is also one of the reasons people don't want to take on jury duty or go to court to fight a small lawsuit or traffic ticket, and will essentially accept default guilt..... pay a $50 ticket, versus take a couple days off work, and possibly put your job at risk while losing much much more in wages.
Re: (Score:3)
I would never cooperate voluntarily with the police as you did because as an individual citizen I have no legitimate interest in helping them to solve crimes.
Well apart from them taking poeple off the street who could possibly harm you you mean? I'm not quite sure you know how things work...
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Insightful)
why would anyone NOT want to report it?
Maybe for the same reason why they wouldn't want to report evidence of witchcraft if they encountered that?
Personally, I'd only report it if the owner was a right-wing politician, a judge in bed with shady building contractors, or a forensic expert bragging on facebook about his fondness for the Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to other comments, I will add this unpopular but absolutely true fact:
What constitutes child porn is subjective. The laws that define it require an opinion when the facts are tried. Some people think that a picture of a naked kid in a tub is child porn, while others think it is a cute picture of the sort that normal parents commonly take. The law in many states require that someone determine obscenity based on some vague notion of "the standards of the community," which are impossible to determine objectively and are impossible for any small group of people to know anyway (since none of them are personally acquainted with every member of "the community," and all their opinions will still differ).
So, rather than ruin someone's life by making an accusation based on pictures that may very well not qualify as porn (since the accusation implies guilt in the minds of most, there is no clearing one's name once the accusation is made), it is easier (and safer) to just ignore it (when it is in that gray area).
Requiring people to make that judgment on pain of jail time will just increase the number of people prosecuted who are actually innocent.
And also, people might not know that their hard drive is being used as a proxy for porn archiving and distribution by criminals (or they may be victimized by Anonymous members putting the porn there just to incriminate them), but the law holds them guilty anyway. In my opinion, the law is wrong to do that, and I would feel like I was complicit in injustice if I accused someone of harboring porn that they didn't even know about. But this law makes me a criminal for not perpetuating that injustice.
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they don't like the concept of thoughtcrime.
Child pornography is not a thought crime. (Score:2)
Maybe they don't like the concept of thoughtcrime.
It is again rather a pity that Orwell didn't live long enough to see the geek in full flight.
The crime is defined as the possession of child pornography. That is an act not a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
why would anyone NOT want to report it?
I think everyone would WANT to report it. However, there is legitimate fear that law enforcement might try to pin it on the one reporting it. I can understand hesitation, especially in the light of corrupt law enforcement and prosecution.
Lupe Fuentes case is one reason not to (Score:5, Interesting)
If a person finds a collection of child porn, they should of course do the right thing. Having said that, I would think about a couple of things before calling the cops.
I would think about the guy who spent a couple of months in jail amd nearly spent years in prison over a DVD with 19-year old Lupe Fuentes. Lupe was a popular porn star ten years ago, with a wikipedia page about her, etc. A doctor and a police investigator both testified that the model in the video was "definitely" under age, when a five-second Google search would have told them she was 19 when that video was made.
The model, flew out to Puerto Rico to show her driver's license amd passport to the court, yet the defendant still was not released right away. I would not want to initiate a situation like that. Remember the doctor thought she was definitely underage, so I could make the same mistake.
I might also respond differently to finding a large, organized collection pf 8-10 year olds than I would to one picture that appeared to be about fifteen or sixteen. I imagine there might be some situation in which I would simply remind the person that child porn is felony carrying a hefty prison sentence, so they shouldn't go anywhere near it, or anything that might look like possible child porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice additional fact: Because there are now quite a few refugees coming into Europe that claim to be underage (and if they are they have quite a few advantages), a larger European newspaper looked into how precisely a medical professional can determine age when having full access to the person (i.e. _not_ just pictures or video). Turns out that even with the person standing right before you and all modern medical equipment at hand, you can still be off and regularly will be by up to two (!) years. With just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where is deniability? (Score:2)
It really doesn't matter to the argument why someone wouldn't want to report it. The issue is the state making it a crime to not report it. Of course the majority of sane people would be very likely to report something of this sort. However now the state has taken away your freedom of choice to do so (or not) and will subject you to severe punishment for not reporting such content.
However as someone has already pointed out, this is virtually unenforceable anyhow. That doesn't excuse the state for passing a
Re: (Score:2)
That's kinda my question.
"OMG I FoUND CHILD PORN"
????
Re: (Score:2)
fucking /. removed the "inserts usb drive.. unzips pants" part of the snark.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they're trying to update the 1990s travesty in which families were broken up by social services for taking baby photos to the drugstore for printing and some over-zealous checkout operator reported them for child porn. Now it's baby photos on laptops that will land you in jail.
Having someone say "This looks pretty bad, perhaps I should report it" is one thing, but saying "If you don't report anything that someone else might at some point consider bad, goto jail" is going to lead to the same mess
Re: (Score:3)
If I were ever in that situation, there are three main reasons I might not want to report it:
1) I don't trust the police and prosecutors to do a competent job.
2) I fear that police and prosecutors may pressure me to be dishonest and threaten me if I'm honest.
3) I have philosophical objections to the idea that there can be information that it is illegal to merely possess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:4, Insightful)
Case in point, I know a guy who ended up with "something" on his computer (he never actually was officially informed about what exactly that "something" was supposed to be, even after the trial). He ended up being convicted, despite our child porn law saying that it is an offence only if you knowingly and deliberately possess it, which was not the case. As proof for the "knowing and deliberate" part, the judge simply used the fact that the guy was a computer professional, and a professional just knows whatever is going on in his computer...
Re: Where is deniability? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah right. If someone goes around with pictures of child porn taped to their car, everyone who sees the car drive by is a criminal. If you think that is how it works you are a dumbass.
Unfortunately, in many places, this is indeed how it works. But fortunately, the car owner goes to jail too (and will get a higher penalty for being a distributor), discouraging any such "pranks".
But beware of cases where the owner of the metaphorical "car" cannot be easily determined. MAFIAA supporters has been know to booby trap music and movie files in peer-to-peer networks to contain child porn just in order to get downloaders into bigger trouble than mere copyright infringment...
Re: (Score:2)
It is a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Unless the worker goes digging around in their files and grabs a coworker, and tells them "Hey, look what I found!"
Or views a thumbnail in file explorer..... Or sends an email..... or makes a copy of it....
Or does any of a number of other thousands of possible actions which will create evidence they encountered it.
Also, if they double click the picture, Windows recent documents' functionality will conveniently record forensic information indic
Re: (Score:2)
It is a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
That's the problem. There would be only one way to enforce this type of law and that would be through sting operations. An undercover officer would bring a computer in to be repaired with illicit images somewhere obvious, like the desktop background screen. If no report is filed, the worker is arrested.
Re: (Score:3)
>"That's the problem. There would be only one way to enforce this type of law and that would be through sting operations. An undercover officer would bring a computer in to be repaired with illicit images somewhere obvious, like the desktop background screen. If no report is filed, the worker is arrested."
But just because a tech worked on the computer doesn't mean he/she actually was aware of any porn on there- unless the sting made it so it is nearly impossible to miss (like making it a background image
Re:Where is deniability? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, this strikes of a feel-good, circle-jerk law. Computer service technicians are already going to make such a report if they find child pornography to be abhorrent, and there isn't a good mechanism for identifying who opened or looked at a file long after service was performed or even who had custody of the computer at that time. Unless a computer is seized and investigators manage to connect-the-dots right after it's serviced I don't see this law ever being applied. Instead by passing this law that won't ever do anything it makes the legislature feel warm-and-fuzzy and gives them the ability to tell their constituents that they did something, when in reality they did effectively nothing.
The bigger worry is that this may give muddy the ability to prosecute the owner/user of the computer. If the computer was serviced and if time/date stamps indicate that the files were accessed while in the care of that outside business, the defendant that owns the computer might be able to claim that he wasn't the one that put the files there, but that the person(s) that serviced it did, as the timestamps match that time when the computer was not in the owner's control. If the case against the defendant is strongly reliant on these files that case might be irreparably damaged. If the prosecution brings up that timestamps can be changed, then the defendant could use that to further make a point that the computer professional (ie, the service tech) would be in a better position to manipulate timestamps than the ignorant user (ie, the defendant) such that the history of the files themselves is completely unverifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
More significantly, this will probably have the opposite of the intended effect. Rather than risk losing good employees who accidentally discover something and fail to report it, most companies will strengthen their policies to ensure that their employees do not discover anything.
virus / malware / disk / etc scaning software can (Score:2)
virus / malware / disk / etc scanning software can make it seem like a file was viewed.
Also what if in a sting a system per loaded with some CP gets wiped and there is no report?
Re: (Score:2)
Wiped? Nothing. You can wipe a disk without looking at the contents....
Re: (Score:2)
If I am working on a specific problem someone is having, I won't really look to see what image thumbnails are showing unless it's actually relevant to the problem. It's called being a professional.
The question is do the cops really know that (especially when they get a lot more headlines is they "don't know" that)? Professionalism in police work is in many ways the opposite of professionalism in IT. Do they know that the "un-missable" wallpaper on a user account is totally missable if I log in as Administra
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly if you don't log in as that user (assuming the system logs bear that out), then you can't see the user's wallpaper. So presumably you'd be okay.
With that said... somebody setting child porn as his/her wallpaper? Really? That would take a special kind of stupid.... I mean sure, someone somewhere might do it someday, if only because two things are infinite and all, but....
And I thought I had a dim view of humanity....
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that a cop (and/or a DA) who thinks his OS is either Firefox or Internet Explorer will know that and not cause me several really bad days and a stink that won't wash off.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that a cop (and/or a DA) who thinks his OS is either Firefox or Internet Explorer will know that and not cause me several really bad days and a stink that won't wash off.
It has been rumored that during the Casey Anthony investigation and trial, the investigating authorities only submitted evidence of web-browsing history from Internet Explorer, and that there was only very minimal circumstantial evidence of searching for things that could be interpreted as criminal. After the trial and acquittal, supposedly, it was able to be demonstrated that evidence of browser history for Firefox existed that showed someone used the computer to search for techniques to dispose of a body
Re: (Score:2)
Which is actually a very good result protecting innocent people from all manner of privacy invasions as well, so yay for the law I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that it was wrong to dig through a customer's files without reason, and possibly in-itself illegal to do so, even if it is a widespread practice.
... and in this particular case, it would not only be against privacy protection laws but also against other parts of child pornography laws.
Indeed, while digging through customer's files for this reason would be knowingly searching for child pornography which is itself illegal...
So, do that to a customer who knows the judge better than you, and it would be you, the PC repair technician, that would be doing jailtime for child pornography, and "they" sure as hell would make sure that your jailmates would k
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that it was wrong to dig through a customer's files without reason, and possibly in-itself illegal to do so, even if it is a widespread practice.
Maybe that's the whole point. Get other people to do the illegal searches the police can't do themselves.
Everyone stay vigilant for suspicious activity! Report your neighbor and be wary of everyone. That's how we breed our culture of fear and keep you under our thumb.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that it was wrong to dig through a customer's files without reason
Of course it is, a decent person will pay due respect to their customers privacy, but that same decent person won't go so far as to ignore evidence of a serious crime in the name of privacy. If everyone was a "decent person" there wouldn't be any need for laws, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What if someone brings you their PC and they just want an upgrade (say second HDD or new video card)
Then you don't go looking at their pictures/documents. D2D copy, And give them the old hard drive with the new one.
No problems, unless their wallpaper is CP, or something.
How big is this problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should require them to report that they are not reporting it.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many child porn enthusiasts are blithe enough about the egregiously criminal nature of their "hobby" to hand over an unencrypted volume of illegal material to an IT repair person? It's not like forgetting that you had an IM conversation about drugs or something that's saved in a logfile somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One by the name of G. Glitter, Esq.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that (statistically speaking) most computer users are borderline computer illiterate, you'd also expect most child porn enthusiasts to be borderline computer illiterate. Now maybe they're more paranoid than average, and are more likely than average to take steps to hide content that they know is illegal, but even if they're twice as likely as an average person to use encryption, you'd still have 60% of them keeping child porn in an unencrypted volume....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What percentage of IT people who discover child porn look the other way?
One person's family photos of children in the bathtub is another person's child pornography. How does a computer technician discern the subtle distinction?
Re:How big is this problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine you're an IT professional, and you report your client for having what turns out to be (after the court case) harmless pictures of his children, maybe get your ass fired. Or perhaps you don't report it because they seem like harmless pictures, then you end up spending half a year in jail with a nice, no-more-jobs-for-you criminal record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What percentage of IT people who discover child porn look the other way?
Most workers of any type aren't interested in snooping through people's private things and reporting what may or may not be illicit activity. (Is that topless girl 17 or 18? Are those kids in a bathtub innocent photos of the client's children or something more sinister?) Just like your typical plumber wouldn't ordinarily report that possible meth lab in the basement, your typical computer repair person doesn't want to report suspected copyright violations, irregularities on income tax files, or possible
Re: (Score:2)
Act? Which act? I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't see anything happening...
The idea seems to be... (Score:2)
This will discourage normal IT nosiness. This will make sure that more with such pictures get away without being detected.
Is that the intended consequence?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
This can be a huge can of worms... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was doing a PC refresh project at a local hospital when my coworker transferred user data from the old PC to the network when he noticed some odd file names flashing on the status window. After the transfer got done, he checked the file names and discovered that the files contained child pornography. He informed the I.T. director, who informed security. That started a very uncomfortable process for everyone involved.
Security did a recorded interview with the coworker and I.T. director in the presence of the hospital legal counsel. Security then confiscated the hard drive from the old PC and the new PC from the desk without any notice to the employee. The employee freaked out for three days straight because he didn't have his computer with the incriminating content, couldn't do his job, and everyone from his management to I.T. to security couldn't tell him anything. Nothing screams like guilt than someone screaming, crying and running in the back hallways for hospital staff. He was quietly removed from his job as a tax accountant without the incident hitting the newspapers or landing in court.
The last thing the hospital wanted was a child pornography scandal just before the annual fundraiser.
Re: (Score:2)
You're overlooking the fact that my coworkers and I were following hospital policy by informing and cooperating with security. If we haven't followed policy, we would have face immediate termination and possible legal action. We did our jobs within hospital policy, our contracts and under existing law. I have a clear conscience regarding this matter. If the law required mandatory reporting, that responsibility should lie with the hospital administration. Hospitals, like many corporations these days, will ha
Re:This can be a huge can of worms... (Score:5, Informative)
The first question is: Were you and your coworkers following hospital policy by investigating the contents of user files when it appears you were tasked with as you say a "PC refresh project?"
A PC refresh project is replacing old PCs with new PCs. In this case, it was replacing 1,500 PCs and deploying 3,000 flat screen monitors. If the user's Windows profile wasn't already pointing to the network share, we would change it from the C: drive to the network share and Windows copy the data to the network. We monitor the copying process to make sure that the files are copied over to the share. We keep an eye out for any large collection of personal music, videos or picture files that aren't supposed to be on the PC per hospital policies, which users are reminded of three times in email prior to replacing the PC. If personal files are found, users are requested to delete their personal files and reschedule to have their PC replaced. My coworker noticed a series of unusual file names — "jenny_does_daddy.jpg" — during the transfer process that prompted his curiosity and the child pornography collection was found. He reported it as required by hospital policy.
The second question is: If the files had contained normal (legal) pornography would you still have reported it?
Yes, as required by hospital policies. Many Fortune 500 companies also have similar policy requirements for both legal and illegal pornography.
The last question is: If the files had contained HIPAA protected client/patient information, would you and your coworkers reported yourselves for violating HIPAA privacy laws (and most likely been fired)?
We had no reason to look at any HIPAA-related data that belonged on a PC. If I caught a coworker browsing for patient data or taking home a hard drive that wasn't wiped and destroyed, I would report him to my supervisor as required by hospital policies. Security made the determination that files were child pornography prior to confiscating the hard drive from old PC and the new PC.
I would guess that any future employers would read your story and make damn sure not to hire your company if you or your coworkers are going to take it upon themselves to 'investigate' the contents of a customer's machine because some filenames were 'odd.'
What I did was fairly routine in IT. If suspicious activity occurs during the course of my job, I'm obligated to report it and let management decide what to do. That's why employers hired me for the last 20 years. The people who don't follow policy are the ones who shouldn't be hired.
This is the rub of the story and the legislation.
If you think that's bad, my current job has PCs with HIPAA and classified data. HIPAA can send you to jail. Classified data can get you the death penalty. As long as I follow policies, I don't have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
HIPAA allows for confidential patient information to be shared with certain other people in the course of their professional responsibilities. Doctors consulting with colleagues, nurses checking charts, hospital billing staff writing up bills, etc. Hell, even orderlies and janitors could be privy to some personal information. IT staff must be included in that category, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This can be a huge can of worms... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think accidentally finding this would put such a person in a guilty position instantly because it was on his system and he observed it.
Not necessarily. Some forms of spyware will drop child pornography files on your PC, incriminating the user without their knowledge. The hospital required "intent to possess child pornography" as a reason to terminate the employee. That employee made a huge scene in the back hallways over a three day period — which security recorded on their surveillance cameras — provided the "intent" needed. A regular user would have a requested a loaner laptop until the mystery of the disappearing PC got resolved.
They want to make us all into police (Score:5, Insightful)
The real point of the law is to strengthen the idea that people in non-law enforcement professions can be forced into acting as police. Next, teachers who hear students talk about violence are forced to report the student to the authorities. Librarians who lend out books about Islamic extremism must notify DHS.
It's a path to curtail civil liberties, and of course it starts with child pornography. Because who's for child abuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Next, teachers who hear students talk about violence are forced to report the student to the authorities.
You must not be a regular /. reader. An article from earlier this week was about a UK Muslim boy being questioned by authorities after his teacher reported that he mistakenly wrote that he came from a "terrorist house" for a school assignment.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/16/01/20/1245216/10-year-old-muslim-boy-probed-for-terrorist-house-spelling-error [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not that your concerns aren't legitimate, but they aren't congruent with what the summary claims, which is that nobody will be compelled to go looking for dirt on anyone else.
So this is similar to the "mandated reporter" laws in other situations where someone's safety (particularly minors) is at risk. For example in many states if you are a doctor or teacher and discover signs of physical abuse or neglect you are legally bound to report that information. In roughly half of US states clinical psychologists a
Re: (Score:2)
In practice this is a minor and pointless change - almost anyone who sees evidence of child pornography will already be inclined to report it voluntarily if given an easy and anonymous way to do it.
The real point of the law is to strengthen the idea that people in non-law enforcement professions can be forced into acting as police. Next, teachers who hear students talk about violence are forced to report the student to the authorities. Librarians who lend out books about Islamic extremism must notify DHS.
It's a path to curtail civil liberties, and of course it starts with child pornography. Because who's for child abuse?
I'm assuming it varies state-to-state, but in California I'm already a mandatory reporter as an EMT for abuse, teachers are already mandatory reporters in many places, as are certain other professions. Although I certainly understand the search-and-seizure concerns around this, frankly I see it as a positive for IT professionals. Congratulations, guys, "IT" is growing up and is expected to be Doing The Right Thing. Maybe in a few more years "Software Engineering" will have some requirements too, like any ot
Re: (Score:2)
CP is easier to define then pirated movies and software.
Can't wait for the training! (Score:5, Funny)
HR: Please complete your mandatory child pornography identification training before the end of the month .. if you get prosecuted, then you might sue us because we hadn't given you the required training to meet the legal requirements of you job. .. OK .. what does this training consist of?
Worker Bee: What?!?!?! Why do I have to do that?
HR: Because if you don't complete your training and you encounter child pornography and don't report then you could be subject to prosecution
WB: So I have to know what child pornography looks like, so that if I "accidentally" look at some image or video I will recognize it.
HR: Yep
WB: and if I don't?
HR: There'll be other consequence.
WB: Like what?
HR: Well
HR: And we can only employ fully trained staff.
HR: You do want to stay on staff don't you?
HR: So it's a win-win for everyone if you do the training.
WB: *sigh*
HR: Looking at child pornography.
WB: How the fuck is that even legal?
HR: Don't worry, all your training will be given through an FBI approved course.
Why that's a real issue (Score:3)
That law puts decision making burdens on the wrong people and there are no end of debatable cases.
The police department of a nearby city told an employer that the picture of a young boy in his underwear on an employee's computer was actionable.
On the other hand, if an "IT technician" gets too sensitive, people with bathtub photos of their kids are going to have their lives ruined.
Then there's the issue of whether it's even safe to report things. Right here on Slashdot, someone who runs a porn hosting busine
Re: (Score:3)
Working in the hosting industry you end up for a few standard scenarios.
The rather tasteful pictures often from photographer parents of naked toddlers etc. The crazy anti porn people with flag it and report it and the cops are smart enough to ignore it. Sure some pedo might enjoy it but it's obviously not the intent. The cops do not care unless they have an ax to grind.
The late teen about the same, the actual porn and most photographers people have photo ID showing them to be 18+ at the time. Again the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so glad that I am not a WB! WAs FTW! ;)
"The Utah bill would require computer technicians" (Score:2)
The definition of a "computer technician"? Whaddabout when you install something on Uncle Frank's lappie at home?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, define a "computer". Is an iPhone a computer? What about those electronic picture frames? A television? Televisions now have enough features, on board storage, and such that the distinction is getting foggy. A digital camera? Not a computer in common usage but it certainly contains the ability to gather, process, store, and output data.
If people fail to report child porn upon seeing it on a device not typically considered a "computer" could they be prosecuted under this law? What makes
As an IT tech worker in Utah (Score:2, Informative)
We already do this, the law is more a formality than a change of any kind. Every company in this state will fire you on the spot if you fail to report child pornography. In terms of what constitutes "knowing about it," it's if you actually are exposed to child pornography while working on someone's computer. Moreover, if you do report it, you can get recompense for being sexually assaulted, so there's a bit of financial motivation to do so as well.
Also, when you call into Dell tech support, that's here,
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Do they have a clear definition of Child Porn? (Score:2)
And no, "You'll know it when you see it" isn't enough,
I foresee an uptick in cases of children being ripped from their parents because Mummy or Daddy took a picture of their child playing in the pool.
Re: (Score:2)
selective enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the 1990's, one of the Kennedy's was accused of having sex with his kid's babysitter. For a while, this became a news story, only to disappear into the background.
When the government wants to make a example out of you, they just fabricate evidence to frame you. Look at Nixon and the case of the pumpkin papers. Evidence will be planted to make you look bad. This is especially useful against dissidence and anyone who disagrees with the state. After all, if you are not for us, you are for the "enemy".
Re: (Score:3)
Naw, that's legit, if a bit bureaucracy-speak-y.
My own disquiet lies in the fact there appear to be Slashdotters who will mod a post Insightful for referring to the "pumpkin papers"...
One Amendment (Score:2)
The 10th.
This is a Really Bad Idea (Score:3)
Even leaving aside the undertones of Nightwatch [wikipedia.org]-ian tyranny, this is just a very covertly nefarious law.
We already know that child porn includes pictures that you yourself took of yourself, while you are a minor. Most high school students have pictures on their devices that can be defined as child pornography, hell most parents have pictures on their devices that might be classified as child pornography. And now it has been made illegal to practice best judgement.
They shouldn't need a law for that. (Score:2)
I mean, you would report sexual child abuse anyway, wouldn't you?
Cartoons? (Score:5, Informative)
Do we have to report cartoons too? What about furry hentai? Does a cartoon drawing of an anthropomorphic animal boy being forced to suck the tentacle of a squid monster equal child porn?
I'm pretty sure those making that bill have never been into the dark corners of teh IntarWeb.
And the proof is? (Score:2)
How do they propose to prove that the IT Tech knew something not reported?
Re: (Score:2)
It's an affirmative action program (Score:2)
It's intended to encourage hiring blind IT techs. Being blind is a convincing defense against having looked at child porn.
Hardcore Mormons wont like it. (Score:2)
AS it seems that most of the ultra Mormons are all for marrying and abusing multiple children. Is the tide turning against the mormon church's death grip on Utah? Typically any laws that go against anything that the church condones is frowned upon and drummed out of legislation.
It's worse than it sounds.... (Score:3)
It's worse than it sounds....all the comments are about what if you find it, could you be liable, etc etc etc. That's one side of it, but here's the other side of it:
But what if someone else claims you found child porn on a computer and then says you didn't report it? How do you prove that you didn't find something?
"He had that laptop for weeks and was digging around in it, looking at all the files and directories...how could he have not seen it? He MUST have seen it but didn't report it..."
What if someone borrows/steals/buys a PC from you, puts child porn on there and then "discovers" it...and then they go, "...it was his PC, how could he have not seen it?"
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this Utah Bill?
He's the Marvel version of Yosemite Sam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP leadership allowed Florida's Mark Foley to chase Capital teenage Male Pages. They did NOTHING about it.
The Democrats also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
The Green Party people also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
The independents also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
In other words, people, regardless of party, allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Green Party people also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
How many Greens are in Congress?
Re: (Score:2)