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

Who care as the federal government had the power to charge anyone with having child porn in the US under federal law and they can do so even if the state also charge under state law.

I had more then once comments that some states laws are in fact more sane then the Federal law on this thread.

I assume you are claiming that because some defenders are lucky enough not to had the Federal government prosecuted them and leave it up to a state with more sane laws that the fact that hundreds of people are being sentence under the very harsh federal law should not matter?

Or that the minimum sentencing is five years under Federal law?

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/145174/knock_knock_its_the_fbi.html

Knock, Knock, It's the FBI
By Mark Gibbs, NetworkWorld

Just imagine if one day in the near future the FBI comes to your enterprise with warrants that allow them to seize and remove any computer-related equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any addressed correspondence sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements and credit card statements. The first question you'd ask is, "Who has done what?"

You're going to be presume your CEO has been involved in some outrageous stock manipulation, or maybe your CFO has been cooking the books. But no, the agent in charge says: "Someone here clicked on a Web link and we're going to find out who did it."

A link?! Clicking on a link can now be a federal offense?! Was it a link to the truth about JFK's assassination (which we all know the CIA was responsible for . . . or was it the Moonies?). Was the link going to launch an ICBM at the Kremlin? Nope, it was a link to a nonexistent cache of kiddie porn that was created specifically by the FBI to attract pedophiles.

As is often said at moments like these, I am not making this up; this is exactly what happened to a doctoral student at Temple University who was also a history professor at La Salle University named Roderick Vosburgh. FBI agents knocked on Vosburgh's door early one evening and proceeded to throw him to the ground before cuffing him. Sounds a little heavy-handed, but who knows, he could have been armed with a RAZR for all they knew.

According to federal law, attempts to download child porn, whether successful or not, can result in prison sentences of up to 10 years, and a court found Vosburgh guilty of just that, "attempting" to follow a link, a link set up specially by the FBI to trap pedophiles.

Now, this is interesting for a number of reasons that should worry all of us in the IT industry. First, there's the issue of intent. It turns out that by simply accessing one of these links you are de facto, presumed guilty by your IP address being the proximate cause.

The fact that the action might not have been done by you personally is, apparently, not an issue. This makes running an open Wi-Fi access point completely inadvisable. And when your friends come over and ask to check their e-mail, the answer has got to be "no." And you'd better have in-depth Internet filtering for your kids.

The second issue concerns browser add-ons that attempt to pre-cache the content of links on a page. These add-ons are to improve perceived performance, but imagine that you run a Web search and wind up on a page that links to one of these FBI honeypots: Your browser will access the link and, unless you are masking what you do through something like the Tor network, the Feds will get your IP address. Before you know what's going on, there will be a knock on your door, you'll be hurled to the ground, cuffed, Mirandized, and all of your computer gear, financial records and leftover Chinese food will be en route to the local FBI office.

But what if an employee's browser pre-caches the contents of one of these FBI links, or the employee actually clicks on it? Can you imagine the chaos and insanity that would result from the FBI paying your company a visit? Work would grind to a halt, PCs and other gear would be impounded, records taken and your business would be dead in the water.

Of course, sizes matters. The risk for, say, Proctor and Gamble is rather less than for the likes of Plastic Sidings 'r Us, but every company in between should be concerned.

So, what are you going to do? Implement better filtering? Train employees better? Ensure browsers don't pre-cache? This is a quagmire that has no immediate good answer.

Advertisement: Learn about storing and securing your data before disaster strikes.

For more information about enterprise networking, go to NetworkWorld. Story copyright 2011 Network World Inc. All rights reserved.

.

Yes it is the federal law, but not everyone arrested for child pornography is prosecuted under federal law, as you are well aware.

So, your constantly carrying on about the "four year minimum" without clarifying that there are other state level child pornography laws, which can carry a sentence of only probation, is deliberately deceptive on your part to make your case for "crazy laws". Most people may be prosecuted under state law and not federal law.

I just re-read the federal law and the passenger who took the photo really wouldn't be in violation of the law because he immediately reported it to law enforcement.
Also, the photo the other passenger took might just have been a shot of Smith looking at his laptop, without showing a clear image of the screen. He wanted to show that Smith had used the laptop.

Similarly, someone who accidently downloads child pornography is not in violation of federal law if they make immediate efforts to delete it and/or notify law enforcement.

The feds really aren't looking to arrest innocent people for possession of child pornography--they really are looking for pedophiles.

This is just Bill stirring up paranoia about the pornography laws, because he's one of the few people who's got something to worry about.

Then people shouldn't download, or seek, or possess child pornography, should they?

That is the solution. It's quite simple.

The number of people try under Federal law in completely under the control of the US Attorney General and his lieutenants and at anytime all cases of child porn could be placed into the Federal court system.

In fact being charge and try in a state court give no one any immunity from later being charge in the Federal court system.

The override sovereign is the Federal government in this field and once more hundreds if not thousands of people are being try under federal law not state law every year.

So the question I had for you is having crazy laws at the Federal level on this subject should not be of concern as some percents of those charge get to be try in state court by the grace of the local Federal prosecutor?

Yes we should trust the government good will and in fact do a way with the court system completely as the Federal government had never acted in an improper manner.

Oh the government was looking for a bomber when they turn Richard Jewell life upside down as he was the easier target to hang the crime on.

I repeat...

People should not download, receive, offer, or seek child pornography.

That is the solution. It is quite simple.

I don't find the laws crazy. I think we are talking about serious crimes.

And we are talking about crimes which are committed by pedophiles. Someone who is not a pedophile, and possesses no child pornography, really shouldn't be personally concerned and worried about getting caught and charged under one of these laws.

The government can't charge you, let alone convict you, without the evidence--they have to show the child pornography that was possessed by you--which means you had the pornography in your possession.

You are the only person here who is preoccupied with that issue, and encrypting your computer...makes one wonder why, doesn't it?

so long as the operating definition of "pedophile" does not include harming of a child that statement flies. Let's please be honest however and say that who is being looked for are people for whom children are erotically pleasing, the "save the victims" story line is the rationalization for this forcing of will. This policing action is a part of a political position that kids should not be considered sexual beings by adults.

I dont have much problem with that political position, but I do have a problem with the heavy hand that is being used by the state against those who dont think state approved thoughts.

What is it with this guy and past participles? Does he do it just to be annoying?

I don't have any problem with those people being treated as pariahs and despised deviants. Like I don't have a problem with people for whom Jews or blacks are disgusting being treated likewise.

Unlike you and Firefly I had little to worry about as my protections from malware getting into my system of the type that might result in Firefly door being broken in by arm men one morning, is a great deal better.

Also if malware does get into my computer it can not be trace back by the ISP address.

Then we had the issue of FBI honey pots and such and the fact that my bowser pre-caching of links is turn off and by default Firefly is turn on.

No you and to a greater degree Firefly, due to her living in the US, are both at far greater risk then I am.

Let's assume that this guy was looking at child pornography...Then the above applies, if that's the case... He's a pedophile.. The difference is and only, is how far (just like someone who beats women (physical abuse) then one days turns into a murderer and kills her. He hasn't gotten to the stage of rape... yet... maybe...as I said before, he's on a plane going somewhere, who knows...

I don't care what years he gets by any laws, rather that it has to be viewed as "if guilty" lock him up for life in a physco ward because otherwise, he will rape a child, one day... Even if I use the word "may" ... It's too frequent and kids need to be protected by Adults.

People who are sexually aroused by children are pedophiles. That is the correct definition. It does not matter whether these people actually engage sexually with children or not. And no one, other than a pedophile, is interested in viewing and collecting child pornography.

No you jerk, the position is that children are not sex toys for adults--to be used, abused, and exploited by adults for their own sexual gratification. And that is what is done to them with child pornography.

Claps..

Sorry I have to 100% agree with both statements, well except the jerk bit as I don't know him well enough to judge, well I don't judge actually , mmm, then again I'm known to call people out for what they are, whatever...that's probably called "honestly"

Unlike you, I don't worry about the feds breaking down my door at all. I have nothing to hide. I do not feel in the least at risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It depends on what definition we are using. If we are going to make into criminal every guy who has looked at a girl less than 6570 days on earth and thought " yummy, she looks GOOD!" then we will have full jails to be sure.

That definition is not entirely accurate. The sexual interest in children does not have to be exclusive--some pedophiles are sexually aroused by both children and adults. But a pedophile is someone who is sexually aroused by children, and that is the widely accepted definition.

So a 19 years old guy with a naked picture of his16 or 17 years old girlfriend is a pedophile in your opinion?

Second I can flood you with cases after cases of non-pedophiles having their doors broken down and their lives turn upside down over this issue.

Come to think about it is a man who turn his head to look in a sexual manner at a fully develop human female walking by is he a pedophile if she turn out not yet to be a 18 years old in your opinion?

That the problem having a picture of a 17 years old and a infant being rape is the same crime under the current US Federal law and once more we should
adopt the UK system where the pictures/videos are not all the same.