• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Man faces 20 years in prison for accidentally downloading child porn

Status
Not open for further replies.

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
Ferrio said:
It's not even suspicious then. You people have fucking warped minds.

For an example, if an adult goes into chat rooms and seeks out children to talk to in private, that's pretty suspicious, enough worth monitoring. As an adult I don't see why there's a reason for behavior like that. Obviously like I said there are countless harmless ways, like forums and such.
 
worldrunover said:
Why is that insane? What possible reason would you as an adult have to talk to a child online that you didn't know?

When I was younger and played Yahoo Checkers, I talked to adults frequently.

I might have missed it but I didn't notice any part of that law that stated that the minor had to be a stranger. Frankly, the law overreaches.

Where do laws like this stop? That's the problem with laws like this; you could go back from any crime and likely identify some typically harmless behavior that comes before it. That doesn't mean the harmless behavior should be targeted.
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
worldrunover said:
Why is that insane? What possible reason would you as an adult have to talk to a child online that you didn't know?
forum friends?

i have alot of people on my msn from an art community and a few of them were underage when we started talking.
 

KHarvey16

Member
I had a number of older internet friends when I was around 11 and 12 years old. We shared a common interest and I never had a problem with any of them, ever. Such a law would be completely ridiculous.
 

Ferrio

Banned
worldrunover said:
From the article:



You're for adults and children carrying on anonymous conversations, regardless of content?

I'm for a simple conversation not being illegal. If you automatically assume an adult talking to an adolescent is sexual/predatory in nature, then you have a fucked up outlook on life.
 
Pandaman said:
forum friends?

i have alot of people on my msn from an art community and a few of them were underage when we started talking.

If you're 25 and they're 16, then yeah. But if the child is under say 13, you should probably not be talking to them anyway if you're that old.
 
worldrunover said:
If you're 25 and they're 16, then yeah. But if the child is under say 13, you should probably not be talking to them anyway if you're that old.

What if I'm a parent and one of them is trying to speak with my child? How would it be wrong to speak to children that are friends with my child?

There are any number of situations that could legitimately explain why a fully-grown adult may need to interact with a child.

This type of thinking is dangerous.

*Edit*

Past that, there are any number of children that I've encountered on Xbox Live while playing. Conversing with them makes people child-stalking pedophiles now?
 
Ferrio said:
I'm for a simple conversation not being illegal. If you automatically assume an adult talking to an adolescent is sexual/predatory in nature, then you have a fucked up outlook on life.

Do you also promote children going up to strangers, especially if they promise candy? There's no reason for adults to talk to children online. And when I say children, I mean 13 and under.
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
worldrunover said:
If you're 25 and they're 16, then yeah. But if the child is under say 13, you should probably not be talking to them anyway if you're that old.
i rarely ask tho.

i just recently learned a guy i've been talking to for years is only 15 now.

speak of the devil, i just got lucky. xD

Jeremy (Deci) says:
Can I get your opinion on somethign?
jeff says:
depends, how old are you?
Jeremy (Deci) says:
Um, what?
17
I was thinking something more along the lines of sigs, but...
jeff says:
>_>
thank christ.
what do you need?
 

Ferrio

Banned
worldrunover said:
If you're 25 and they're 16, then yeah. But if the child is under say 13, you should probably not be talking to them anyway if you're that old.

So I assume you'd want this law applied outside of the internet too?
 

KHarvey16

Member
I always get the feeling in threads like these that people imagine 11, 12 and 13 year old children to barely be above drooling age.
 

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
WickedAngel said:
What if I'm a parent and one of them is trying to speak with my child? How would it be wrong to speak to children that are friends with my child?

This is absurd. There are any number of situations that could legitimately explain why a fully-grown adult may need to interact with a child.

But it's not really saying it's illegal to simply communicate with them. Only to communicate with the purpose of luring or "facilitating the commission of the offences".

I'd imagine something like purposely and consistently seeking out anonymous children to privately chat with would be a good example, but who knows. Probably one of those laws where interpretation could be abused I guess. It'd have to be explained better.
 
You guys should really, like, read the article.

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has expanded the definition of Internet luring to include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child -- even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim.

Justice Morris Fish, writing for the Supreme Court, said physical contact is not necessary for Internet luring because some seemingly innocent chats open the door towards a child being victimized.

"Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics," he said.

He said the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences."

I don't see how this is such a bad thing.
 

Dead Man

Member
worldrunover said:
Do you also promote children going up to strangers, especially if they promise candy? There's no reason for adults to talk to children online. And when I say children, I mean 13 and under.
So really the adults on this board shouldn't talk to you then, right?
 

Ferrio

Banned
worldrunover said:
You guys should really, like, read the article.



I don't see how this is such a bad thing.

Well what is "innappropriate conversation". It's not sexual in nature they already said, so how do you define what's appropriate? We just suppose to guess an innocent conversation is innocent or not?
 
Aurora said:
Possession of child porn is against the law. He has broken the law and therefore must face the legal consequence of this. Explain to me how or why he should walk away from this charge?

Regarding him being a danger to children, this is legally implied by his possession of child porn. Anybody that has downloaded child porn, in theory, poses a risk to children. I don't see how the law can be relaxed on this issue. If he is deemed a low risk (i.e. the risk solely stemming from the child porn on his computer) then it is fair for the judge to reduce his sentence accordingly, but for him to be let off just because he said it was an accident is a ludicrous suggestion. Again, it is for him to prove it was an accident, otherwise under the eyes of the law he is guilty of possession of child porn - simple as.

Edit: I didnt' read the article and will not respond to that.. However black/white interpretation of law with little regard to the situation seems like a bad arbitrary system to me..

Intent is something that should be examined in its application.

What if you were subjected to this virus:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9028516

Would you feel that since you were in possession that you deserved to be prosecuted and incarcerated.

AP IMPACT: Framed for child porn — by a PC virus

* By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Technology Writer - Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:17PM EST

Of all the sinister things that Internet viruses do, this might be the worst: They can make you an unsuspecting collector of child pornography.

Heinous pictures and videos can be deposited on computers by viruses — the malicious programs better known for swiping your credit card numbers. In this twist, it's your reputation that's stolen.

Pedophiles can exploit virus-infected PCs to remotely store and view their stash without fear they'll get caught. Pranksters or someone trying to frame you can tap viruses to make it appear that you surf illegal Web sites.

Whatever the motivation, you get child porn on your computer — and might not realize it until police knock at your door.

An Associated Press investigation found cases in which innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus. It can cost victims hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence.

Their situations are complicated by the fact that actual pedophiles often blame viruses — a defense rightfully viewed with skepticism by law enforcement.

"It's an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse," says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework."

The AP's investigation included interviewing people who had been found with child porn on their computers. The AP reviewed court records and spoke to prosecutors, police and computer examiners.

One case involved Michael Fiola, a former investigator with the Massachusetts agency that oversees workers' compensation.

In 2007, Fiola's bosses became suspicious after the Internet bill for his state-issued laptop showed that he used 4 1/2 times more data than his colleagues. A technician found child porn in the PC folder that stores images viewed online.

Fiola was fired and charged with possession of child pornography, which carries up to five years in prison. He endured death threats, his car tires were slashed and he was shunned by friends.

Fiola and his wife fought the case, spending $250,000 on legal fees. They liquidated their savings, took a second mortgage and sold their car.

An inspection for his defense revealed the laptop was severely infected. It was programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute — an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half.

Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped — 11 months after it was filed.


The Fiolas say they have health problems from the stress of the case. They say they've talked to dozens of lawyers but can't get one to sue the state, because of a cap on the amount they can recover.

"It ruined my life, my wife's life and my family's life," he says.

The Massachusetts attorney general's office, which charged Fiola, declined interview requests.

At any moment, about 20 million of the estimated 1 billion Internet-connected PCs worldwide are infected with viruses that could give hackers full control, according to security software maker F-Secure Corp. Computers often get infected when people open e-mail attachments from unknown sources or visit a malicious Web page.

Pedophiles can tap viruses in several ways. The simplest is to force someone else's computer to surf child porn sites, collecting images along the way. Or a computer can be made into a warehouse for pictures and videos that can be viewed remotely when the PC is online.

"They're kind of like locusts that descend on a cornfield: They eat up everything in sight and they move on to the next cornfield," says Eric Goldman, academic director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. Goldman has represented Web companies that discovered child pornographers were abusing their legitimate services.

But pedophiles need not be involved: Child porn can land on a computer in a sick prank or an attempt to frame the PC's owner.

In the first publicly known cases of individuals being victimized, two men in the United Kingdom were cleared in 2003 after viruses were shown to have been responsible for the child porn on their PCs.

In one case, an infected e-mail or pop-up ad poisoned a defense contractor's PC and downloaded the offensive pictures.

In the other, a virus changed the home page on a man's Web browser to display child porn, a discovery made by his 7-year-old daughter. The man spent more than a week in jail and three months in a halfway house, and lost custody of his daughter.

Chris Watts, a computer examiner in Britain, says he helped clear a hotel manager whose co-workers found child porn on the PC they shared with him.

Watts found that while surfing the Internet for ways to play computer games without paying for them, the manager had visited a site for pirated software. It redirected visitors to child porn sites if they were inactive for a certain period.

In all these cases, the central evidence wasn't in dispute: Pornography was on a computer. But proving how it got there was difficult.

Tami Loehrs, who inspected Fiola's computer, recalls a case in Arizona in which a computer was so "extensively infected" that it would be "virtually impossible" to prove what an indictment alleged: that a 16-year-old who used the PC had uploaded child pornography to a Yahoo group.

Prosecutors dropped the charge and let the boy plead guilty to a separate crime that kept him out of jail, though they say they did it only because of his age and lack of a criminal record.

Many prosecutors say blaming a computer virus for child porn is a new version of an old ploy.

"We call it the SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It," says James Anderson, a federal prosecutor in Wyoming.

However, forensic examiners say it would be hard for a pedophile to get away with his crime by using a bogus virus defense.

"I personally would feel more comfortable investing my retirement in the lottery before trying to defend myself with that," says forensics specialist Jeff Fischbach.

Even careful child porn collectors tend to leave incriminating e-mails, DVDs or other clues. Virus defenses are no match for such evidence, says Damon King, trial attorney for the U.S. Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.

But while the virus defense does not appear to be letting real pedophiles out of trouble, there have been cases in which forensic examiners insist that legitimate claims did not get completely aired.

Loehrs points to Ned Solon of Casper, Wyo., who is serving six years for child porn found in a folder used by a file-sharing program on his computer.

Solon admits he used the program to download video games and adult porn — but not child porn. So what could explain that material?

Loehrs testified that Solon's antivirus software wasn't working properly and appeared to have shut off for long stretches, a sign of an infection. She found no evidence the five child porn videos on Solon's computer had been viewed or downloaded fully. The porn was in a folder the file-sharing program labeled as "incomplete" because the downloads were canceled or generated an error.

This defense was curtailed, however, when Loehrs ended her investigation in a dispute with the judge over her fees. Computer exams can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Defendants can ask the courts to pay, but sometimes judges balk at the price. Although Loehrs stopped working for Solon, she argues he is innocent.

"I don't think it was him, I really don't," Loehrs says. "There was too much evidence that it wasn't him."

The prosecution's forensics expert, Randy Huff, maintains that Solon's antivirus software was working properly. And he says he ran other antivirus programs on the computer and didn't find an infection — although security experts say antivirus scans frequently miss things.

"He actually had a very clean computer compared to some of the other cases I do," Huff says.

The jury took two hours to convict Solon.

"Everybody feels they're innocent in prison. Nobody believes me because that's what everybody says," says Solon, whose case is being appealed. "All I know is I did not do it. I never put the stuff on there. I never saw the stuff on there. I can only hope that someday the truth will come out."

But can it? It can be impossible to tell with certainty how a file got onto a PC.

"Computers are not to be trusted," says Jeremiah Grossman, founder of WhiteHat Security Inc. He describes it as "painfully simple" to get a computer to download something the owner doesn't want — whether it's a program that displays ads or one that stores illegal pictures.

It's possible, Grossman says, that more illicit material is waiting to be discovered.

"Just because it's there doesn't mean the person intended for it to be there — whatever it is, child porn included."
 
xelios said:
But it's not really saying it's illegal to simply communicate with them. Only to communicate with the purpose of luring or "facilitating the commission of the offences".

I'd imagine something like purposely and consistently seeking out anonymous children to privately chat with would be a good example, but who knows.

You're talking about making a crime out of activities that predate the crime. As I said earlier, any number of common activities can come before the commission of a serious offense. That doesn't make those common activities wrong.

Should I be forced to leave a public pool if a group of children come? I mean, what possible reason could a grown man have in swimming with children? Should I have to leave the park where I'm walking my dog if children come to play? Hell, should I have a dog around children? I might be trying to lure them to me.

This is why you don't write laws like this. It makes everyone guilty and gives the authorities an easy way to justify what would otherwise be construed as unlawful search.

worldrunover said:
You guys should really, like, read the article.



I don't see how this is such a bad thing.

Hmm...your quote just barely managed to leave out the reason behind the absurdity of the law. Here, I'll help you;

Article said:
But he said the word "facilitating" could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.

That could literally be anything.
 
Ferrio said:
Well what is "innappropriate conversation". It's not sexual in nature they already said, so how do you define what's appropriate? We just suppose to guess an innocent conversation is innocent or not?

Again, from the article:

This includes anything that would reduce their inhibitions or exploits a child's "curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality."
 
KHarvey16 said:
"Reduce their inhibitions" can mean absolutely anything a prosecutor wants it to. It's incredibly vague.

Exactly. Any honest, amiable conversation with a child could be interpreted as an attempt to earn trust and take advantage of them.

It's making a crime of perceived intent before an actual crime has occurred. Basically, it's an endeavor in mind reading and incredibly susceptible to abuse by authorities.
 

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
WickedAngel said:
You're talking about making a crime out of activities that predate the crime. As I said earlier, any number of common activities can come before the commission of a serious offense. That doesn't make those common activities wrong.

Should I be forced to leave a public pool if a group of children come? I mean, what possible reason could a grown man have in swimming with children? Should I have to leave the park where I'm walking my dog if children come to play? Hell, should I have a dog around children? I might be trying to lure them to me.

This is why you don't write laws like this. It makes everyone guilty and gives the authorities an easy way to justify what would otherwise be construed as unlawful search.

Yes I edited and clarified in my post that it could be easily abused or interpreted wrongly and would have to be more clear.

I just meant there are instances where adults specifically seeking out and preying on children should be monitored further. Anyway:

The decision was part of an Alberta man's case who admitted to online sexual chats with a 12-year-old girl in 2003.

At a 2006 trial on two sexual luring counts, the judge called Craig Bartholomew Legare's actions "despicable and repugnant," but said that since he had no intention of ever meeting the child, there was no crime. Legare was acquitted.

I find it funny that no one appears to be offended by that. Just as scary that adults chatting sex with kids is "no crime".
 

Ferrio

Banned
WickedAngel said:
Exactly. Any honest, amiable conversation with a child could be interpreted as an attempt to earn trust and take advantage of them.

It's making a crime of perceived intent before an actual crime has occurred. Basically, it's an endeavor in mind reading and incredibly susceptible to abuse by authorities.

Furthermore this is a scary paragraph

"If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime," he said.
 
WickedAngel said:
Exactly. Any honest, amiable conversation with a child could be interpreted as an attempt to earn trust and take advantage of them.

It's making a crime of perceived intent before an actual crime has occurred. Basically, it's an endeavor in mind reading and incredibly susceptible to abuse by authorities.

So you're suggesting Canada is gearing their younger generation to act out the next installment of the Salem Witch Trials? Where would you draw the line?
 
Those chats were sexual in nature. I can absolutely understand and accept laws that criminalize the act of having sexual chats with minors. That isn't what this law is about, however.

worldrunover said:
So you're suggesting Canada is gearing their younger generation to act out the next installment of the Salem Witch Trials? Where would you draw the line?

It's quite simple...believe it or not, the world does have options that exist beyond the realm of "Black" or "White".

1. Normal, innocuous chats with minors? Acceptable.
2. Chat with minor in which you are attempting to meet them in real life. Unacceptable.
3. Chat with minor that involves descriptions of sexual acts? Unacceptable.
 

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
WickedAngel said:
Those chats were sexual in nature. I can absolutely understand and accept laws that criminalize the act of having sexual chats with minors. That isn't what this law is about, however.

What's so ridiculous is those sexual chats were found to not be a crime but they want to make non-sexual chat illegal. :lol Pretty stupid.
 

Dead Man

Member
worldrunover said:
Thanks folks, he'll be here all night! Tip your waitress.
No, your statement was childish, and can be proven untrue. There are many reasons for adults to talk to kids, in person or online.
 

schick85

Member
Call me old fashion but why would anyone let their 9 year old use the internet in the first place? It's like putting them inside a mall unsupervised.
 
idahoblue said:
No, your statement was childish, and can be proven untrue. There are many reasons for adults to talk to kids, in person or online.

And your statement was right out of a Mensa debate! Thanks for playing.

It's quite simple...believe it or not, the world does have options that exist beyond the realm of "Black" or "White".

1. Normal, innocuous chats with minors? Acceptable.
2. Chat with minor in which you are attempting to meet them in real life. Unacceptable.
3. Chat with minor that involves descriptions of sexual acts? Unacceptable.

That still leaves LOTS of gray area.
 

Dead Man

Member
worldrunover said:
And your statement was right out of a Mensa debate! Thanks for playing.
You have lost the plot, friend. I have no idea what a mensa debate looks like, I'm obviously not as incredibly intelligent as you, with your ability to over simplify, present straw men, and use hyperbole.
worldrunover said:
That still leaves LOTS of gray area.
Not really. Are you trying to meet them, or talking about sex explicitly? No? Then it's not a crime.
 
worldrunover said:
And your statement was right out of a Mensa debate! Thanks for playing.



That still leaves LOTS of gray area.

Then you legislate the gray area. You don't write a law that assumes the worst about every innocuous discussion that an adult has with a child.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
worldrunover said:
From the article:



You're for adults and children carrying on anonymous conversations being legal, as long as the content itself is legal?
fixed, and yes. How fucking retarded do you have to be to think any differently?

How about this, let's make everything except sitting on your hands in the privacy of your own bathroom illegal and punishable with 40 years in prison, that way we're sure to get all the criminals! Think of the children, HOLY FUCK PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Fucking insane what this society's coming to, especially when you see its own citizens supporting it.
 
Perhaps looking at a child should be illegal too. I mean, what possible reason could an adult have for looking at a child that isn't their own unless it is for the purposes of imagined sexually exploitative acts?

In fact, you shouldn't really be within 50 feet of a child that isn't your own.
 

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
WickedAngel said:
Perhaps looking at a child should be illegal too. I mean, what possible reason could an adult have for looking at a child that isn't their own unless it is for the purposes of imagined sexually exploitative acts?

In fact, you shouldn't really be within 50 feet of a child that isn't your own.

Canada seems to be pushing really hard for thought crimes.
 
WickedAngel said:
Perhaps looking at a child should be illegal too. I mean, what possible reason could an adult have for looking at a child that isn't their own unless it is for the purposes of imagined sexually exploitative acts?

In fact, you shouldn't really be within 50 feet of a child that isn't your own.
I support thought policing!
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
WickedAngel said:
Perhaps looking at a child should be illegal too. I mean, what possible reason could an adult have for looking at a child that isn't their own unless it is for the purposes of imagined sexually exploitative acts?

In fact, you shouldn't really be within 50 feet of a child that isn't your own.
Lots of sexual abuse comes from parents.
 
Number 2 said:
Lots of sexual abuse comes from parents.

Good point. You shouldn't look at or touch your children in any way either. Don't talk to them. Don't hug them. Don't even hold their hand to cross the street.
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
schick85 said:
Call me old fashion but why would anyone let their 9 year old use the internet in the first place? It's like putting them inside a mall unsupervised.
Yeah I'm with you there. I'm not letting my potential future child to use the internet until 12 :p Even then, I will actively supervise the internet usage to make sure nothing wonky happens. Kids should be outside playing with their friends. It shocked me when I got a facebook friend request from my 13-year old cousin @_@
 

ajim

Member
WickedAngel said:
A few more symbols might make your point more substantive. I'm being vague for a reason; I use and recommend TrueCrypt. That should have been obvious from my post. I was only arguing against the ignorant assertion that it is unbreakable.
I never said it was unbreakable. I said nothing is perfect, however, TrueCrypt does the best job, and its fault rely on human error more than anything.
 
It's weird how the FBI never seem to go after the sick fucks who make the pics/vids. If they can track a guy for downloading it, Can't they find the original person who uploaded the porn?
 
I love these vague laws.

Some local Jack Thompson moron is trying to create a law to ban violent (yep, the same old bs) and offensive games. And by offensive to the morals and the customs (and religion, obviously) the law says this ____________.

It´s completely subjective since any moron can cry "It offends me! Ban it!" and that´s it.
Animals in games. It offends Peta! Ban it!
Jesus as a villain. It offends christians! Ban it!
Games. They offend me! Ban them all!

Oh did I say that you´ll face 3 years in jail because of this "offence"?

demon said:
Fucking insane what this society's coming to, especially when you see its own citizens supporting it.
Fucking sad and scary I´d say.
 

ajim

Member
Killing_Joke said:
It's weird how the FBI never seem to go after the sick fucks who make the pics/vids. If they can track a guy for downloading it, Can't they find the original person who uploaded the porn?
How? If a producer uploads it somewhere and 50 people get it, and those 50 people share it, it spreads and makes it impossible to track back. The only way they can get the producers is by analysing videos for clues that could lead them to them (names on clothes, accents, places, etc) or if a producer sent a video directly to an undercover police officer.
 

KHarvey16

Member
ajim said:
How? If a producer uploads it somewhere and 50 people get it, and those 50 people share it, it spreads and makes it impossible to track back. The only way they can get the producers is by analysing videos for clues that could lead them to them (names on clothes, accents, places, etc) or if a producer sent a video directly to an undercover police officer.

If they can somehow track everyone who downloads it they can subpoena records to find out who uploaded it.
 

Medalion

Banned
Fairly sure if things keep this way, the world will be divided with adults on one side of the planet, and kids on the otherside of the planet raised by robots to avoid any thoughts of possible contact to avoid possible corruption of youth but sex or sexuality.

And the sad thing is, I believe there will be people that will support this.
 
Medalion said:
Fairly sure if things keep this way, the world will be divided with adults on one side of the planet, and kids on the otherside of the planet raised by robots to avoid any thoughts of possible contact to avoid possible corruption of youth but sex or sexuality.

And the sad thing is, I believe there will be people that will support this.

What about the Robosexuals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom