17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 10:39 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I have zero sympathy for pornographers in general and especially for anybody involved in child porn, but the cure in this case is insane. They could put ANYBODY in prison for this ****; how hard do you really think it would be to manufacture a virus which would place a hundred images on every computer it ever got into??


There been a few known cases where someone else had placed such materials on others people computers and the state now wish to make it a great deal harder for the defendants experts to examine the evidences?

Sickening to say the least and it all to protect the children of course!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 10:48 am
@firefly,
Quote:
@gungasnake,
Do you know of any cases where someone was convicted for having images spread by a virus?


Not yet, but it would not be a difficult thing even for hackers and ordinary virus authors to do, much less anybody with the power of state behind him. There is no shortage of cases in which people's lives have been ruined by false charges of sexual misconduct. The Duke LAX case comes to mind easily and it doesn't take much imagination to picture the next Mike Nifong using a virus lab to launch a political career.

Quote:


The government provides instructions for how to handle unintended downloads--and you can contact them for assistance......


On a scale of one to ten for really bad/stupid ideas, that (telling some government agent that you think you have dirty pictures on your computer and you don't know how they got there) would be an eleven or a twelve. Ordinary colleges and high schools do not have courses in how to survive in the real world and apparently a lot of people (like you) are growing up in dire need. Best thing I could suggest at this point would be joining the US Army for two or three years, that sometimes helps where everything else fails.

BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:07 am
@firefly,
Here is Washington state SC case ruling dealing with not allowing evidence to be examine by defense experts outside of the state control due to it containing evil CP.

http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/articles/opinions/

State v. Grenning, No. 81449-0. Neil Grenning was charged with 72 sex crimes, including 20 counts of possession of child pornography related to pictures found on his computer hard drives. The trial judge, at the request of the prosecutors, issued a restrictive order preventing copies of the hard drives from being turned over to the defense, though the defense was provided with access to them. Potential defense expert witnesses apparently refused to investigate the hard drives without the ability to take them to their own computer laboratories, and the defense did not present an expert witness regarding the hard drives at trial.

Grenning was convicted on all but one of the charges, including all of the instances of child pornography, and sentenced to 117 years in prison. He appealed, challenging the limitations placed on the hard drive evidence. The Court of Appeals agreed with Grenning and ordered a new trial for the child pornography charges; the state appealed.

The Court here upholds the Court of Appeals. In an opinion by Justice Chambers and joined by five other justices, the Court finds that its decision in State v. Boyd, "which held that the defense was entitled to a mirror image copy of the defendant's computer hard drives," controls the outcome here. Justice Madsen, joined by Justices Alexander and James Johnson, dissent and "disagree with the
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:20 am
@gungasnake,
What Firefly know or should know that there had been cases of people being charge with having CP where others had placed the CP on a person computers and computer experts was needed to prove that fact.

But I guess in the Firefly world it is better to locked up innocent men and women for having CP then to allowed defendant experts to examine the evidences in question on equal footing with the state experts.

The only kind of evidence I had ever hear of where outside experts could not freely examine the material as a matter of fact.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 11:34 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
On a scale of one to ten for really bad/stupid ideas, that (telling some government agent that you think you have dirty pictures on your computer and you don't know how they got there) would be an eleven or a twelve. Ordinary colleges and high schools do not have courses in how to survive in the real world and apparently a lot of people (like you) are growing up in dire need. Best thing I could suggest at this point would be joining the US Army for two or three years, that sometimes helps where everything else fails.


With all my layers of protections that in theory should keep anyone out of my hard drives up to the new many acrea two/three billions dollars NSA super computers center in Utah if I found CP on any of my hard drives I would drill many many holes into the drive and throw it far away as in a body of deep water.

Drives are far too cheap to keep one around that once contained such materials that the society happen to be so crazy about.
firefly
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 03:06 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

With all my layers of protections that in theory should keep anyone out of my hard drives up to the new many acrea two/three billions dollars NSA super computers center in Utah if I found CP on any of my hard drives I would drill many many holes into the drive and throw it far away as in a body of deep water.

In your case, no one would believe the child pornography wound up on your heavily encrypted computer "by accident".
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 03:29 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
In your case, no one would believe the child pornography wound up on your heavily encrypted computer "by accident".


It could happen as I used peer to peer networks to download adult porn and other files such as audio books and anyone can miss label a file .

In any case, I would wiped any such file at once and then destroy the drive in added to having protections that would guard the content of the drives no matter what.

But anyone repeat anyone of the many millions that used peer to peer networks daily could in fact find a CP file on their computers without warning as you are depending on the correct labeling of share files.

By the way as my security is rock hard it does not matter what you or anyone would believe if a CP file would come onto my computer as no one is going to be using the contents of my drives as a weapon against me and once more as an added precaution I would cheerfully destroy at once any drive that got those kinds of files on them and then restore the system from backups that are also encrypted.

Fair warning to everyone that used peer to peer networks you do need to be on notice that peer to peer networks can have dangerous files not only CP but virus carrying files and such.


0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 03:45 pm
@firefly,
The point is, that nobody who actually knows how the world and particularly this country works would EVER tell any government employee that any sort of a politically incorrect file had gotten onto his computer by unknown means.

This is basically just good street smarts, i.e. the same thing which tells you not to go walking down the streets of downtown Baltimore at 2 AM in the morning in a bra and panties.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 03:46 pm
This judge chose to sentence this man to two consecutive terms, rather than have the sentences run concurrently. So, some judges are using their discretion to impose longer sentences.
Quote:

Ithaca man gets prison term for child porn possession
By LINDA GITTLEMAN
06/12/ 2012

The Ithaca man who pleaded guilty to distributing and promoting child sexual abusive material and to using a computer received two prison terms to be served consecutively.

Justin Mosher, 38, was sentenced to a total of 46 months to 10 years for possessing child pornography on his computer.

His crime was discovered by a member of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, said Gratiot County Prosecutor Keith Kushion. Using the name Gay Lover 22, Mosher had been sharing files of more than 3,000 images with others.
Some of those images included infants and toddlers without adults, Kushion said.

If a ciminal is sentenced to more than one prison term, the terms are usually served at the same time, Kushion said. But because a computer was used, the law allows the judge to sentence the offender to consecutive terms.
“Some might say he was only looking at photos, he wasn’t actually abusing children,” Kushion said he argued. “But because of that, he generates a market, which generates child exploitation.”

On May 14, Mosher pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing or promoting child sexual abusive material and three more counts of using a computer to commit a crime.
Gratiot County Circuit Court Judge Michelle Rick sentenced Mosher Monday to 23 months to seven years on the charge of distributing abusive material. She then sentenced him to 23 months to 10 years for the use of computer charge.
She ordered that the prison terms are to be served consecutively, which means that Mosher will not be eligible for parole until he’s served nearly four years, Kushion said.
http://www.themorningsun.com/article/20120612/NEWS01/120619923/ithaca-man-gets-prison-term-for-child-porn-possession
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 03:52 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
On a scale of one to ten for really bad/stupid ideas, that (telling some government agent that you think you have dirty pictures on your computer and you don't know how they got there) would be an eleven or a twelve. Ordinary colleges and high schools do not have courses in how to survive in the real world and apparently a lot of people (like you) are growing up in dire need. Best thing I could suggest at this point would be joining the US Army for two or three years, that sometimes helps where everything else fails.


BillRM wrote:
With all my layers of protections that in theory should keep anyone out of my hard drives up to the new many acrea
two/three billions dollars NSA super computers center in Utah
Define that word, please ?


BillRM wrote:
if I found CP on any of my hard drives I would drill many many holes into the drive and throw it far away as in a body of deep water.

Drives are far too cheap to keep one around that once contained such materials that the society happen to be so crazy about.
I dunno, but I imagine that if someone felt a need to preserve secrecy
(e.g., a lawyer protecting his client's secrets) that fire cud be used to destroy a hard drive; yes ?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 04:03 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
It is not an equivalent situation.
On a public street you have no expectation of privacy.
OK; help me to understand u, here.
If instead of robbery on a public street,
or instead of murder on a public street (e.g., the Kennedy assassinations or the Benito Mussolini assassinations)
if CP were made on a public street,
then those considerations of repeating the abuses inflicted on the victims 'd NOT apply?? Is that your position ?
firefly
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 04:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, if you aren't going to discuss the topic of child pornography with some rationality, I'm not going to respond to you.

Courts have already weighed in on violations of privacy issues and continued sexual exploitation of the children shown in those images when the images are re-viewed by those who download them. Go read the case law--which has already been discussed in this thread.
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 04:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I dunno, but I imagine that if someone felt a need to preserve secrecy
(e.g., a lawyer protecting his client's secrets) that fire cud be used to destroy a hard drive; yes ?


Yes a good hot fire would beside warping the plates would demagnetize the plates also.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 04:36 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
David, if you aren't going to discuss the topic of child pornography with some rationality, I'm not going to respond to you.
I am making an effort to restore rationality




firefly wrote:
Courts have already weighed in on violations of privacy issues and continued sexual exploitation of the children shown in those images when the images are re-viewed by those who download them. Go read the case law--which has already been discussed in this thread.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 04:40 pm
@firefly,
Poor baby running from David now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a lot of magical thinking when it come to CP, to the point people can defend not allowing defense experts to be on the same level playing field as the government experts in examining the clone copies of hard drives that contain CP.

By the way no one normally examine the hard drives directly and the first task of any computer forensic expert is to make a copy of the drives and then lock the hard drives away so copies will be make the only question is will non-government experts have access to them under the same terms as the government experts.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 08:10 pm
I'll say it again, with terribly few exceptions, I find the idea of anybody ever being charged with any sort of a crime for owning something or having something (other than stolen property) in their possession, totally offensive.

Granted there may be things which a citizen should not be allowed to own, this is how high I would set the bar:

I would make the test be the question of whether Al Qaeda merely owning or possessing something would provoke our government to military action.

For instance, Al Qaeda or any terrorist group owning any of these items would or at least could provoke our government to action:

  • Portable AA missiles such as our own stingers.
  • Anthrax.
  • Nuclear or thermonuclear weapons.
  • Nerve gas.
  • Mustard gas.


Likewise there is no rational reason for a citizen to own any of those things and the intentions of the 2'nd amendment can be met without anybody ever owning anything like that.

On the other hand, Al Qaeda could own any kind of individual firearms, any kind of alcoholic beverages, any normal kinds of drugs, any kinds of dirty pictures, any kinds of pesticides, any kinds of sexy clothing, any kinds of vehicles....

In no case would Al Qaeda owning any of that stuff provoke Uncle Sam to action and there is no reason why an American citizen owning any such should.







firefly
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 08:51 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I'll say it again, with terribly few exceptions, I find the idea of anybody ever being charged with any sort of a crime for owning something or having something (other than stolen property) in their possession, totally offensive

Since the images in child pornography are illegally obtained in the first place, because they record criminal acts against a child, and the continued distribution and viewing of those images constitutes both a violation of the child's privacy rights and the child's property rights, I think they can conceptually be seen in the same category as "stolen property".
gungasnake
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 09:38 pm
@firefly,
Once again, I have no use whatsoever for perverts. Problem is, I have less than no use for rogue government agencies and policies. In my view, the later causes more harm than the former.
firefly
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 09:49 pm
@gungasnake,
Do you consider Congress a "rogue government agency"? That's where the child pornography laws and policies are coming from on the federal level. And, on the state level, the laws and policies are coming from the state legislatures.

That's arguably the will of the people.

And possession of child pornography is criminalized on an international level as well--virtually no country sees the collection and distribution of this material as a victimless crime any more. And the internet has caused and enabled an explosion in that type of crime.

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jun, 2012 09:53 pm
Consider that one of the biggest pervert trials of our age is going on even now in the environs of Penn State University:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/jerry-sandusky-trial-victim-1-accuser-witness-abuse_n_1589496.html

One thing I notice is that the victims all claim to have been psychologically damaged and I wouldn't dispute that, but they all appear to be alive, at least as far as I can tell.

Compare that with the activities of one of the government bureaucrats who has taken the most interest in pervert cases and in "protecting" children from perverts, even when that requires extreme measures i.e. Janet Reno:

In Reno's case, there were innocent people spending long periods of time in prisons for crimes which not only never happened but which in several cases were not even physically possible:

http://www.iwf.org/news/2432422/Janet-Reno-and-Her-Record-as-a-So-Called-Champion-of-Children

But there was also a case involving a church in Waco Texas in which Reno saved over a dozen children from possible sexual abuse by firebombing them:

http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

A typical case, Before:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WACO/30_port.jpg

and after:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WACO/30_pix.jpg

So that the simple question is, who would you rather take your chances with between Jerry Sandusky and Janet Reno? Or between Jerry and some government agency which might want to plant images on your computer the way that some rogue cops plant drugs on people who, for whatever reason, they want off the streets?



 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/12/2025 at 06:13:29