17
   

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

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Do you have the right to encrypt a computer that you do not own? I dont think you do.


Off hand I can nor see a college engineering professor not having the rights to place software on his college computer and in any case that would be a civil matter between him and his college.

Can not off hand see how it would interfere with his 5 amendment rights not to hand over the keys or to even to admit that he had the keys.

5 amendment have nothing to do with property rights.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:19 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Now shutting down any of my or my wife computers would means that they could not be access again without my or my wife aid.

They could keep the laptop but is would be completely worthless to them as the hard drive by any known test would just be full with random digits.

So, your wife has child pornography on her computer too?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:25 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It is not "normal young girl behavior" for young girls to kiss each other and touch each other's bodies--particularly when it is being photographed by an adult and distributed as erotica for sexual arrousal. That sort of behavior is much more typical of children who have been sexually abused.
we have no idea what these girls were doing, who filmed it, why it was filmed, or why Smith was watching it. You have made a boatload of assumptions.

I note that some reports claim that he was looking at pics of girls only, we dont even have established that any girl on girl action of any type happened.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
Sorry, don't you like it when someone else's concept of freedom threatens you? Like your slobbering sidekick Bill, you're used to bullying your way through life, and the thought of being on the receiving end for once makes you **** your pants. You are not a man, you're a sick little pervert, and all real men hold you in contempt. You don't speak for men, you speak for sad inadequates. With his grunts and snorts, Bill doesn't even speak for primates.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
we have no idea what these girls were doing,

Simulated sex acts, according to the police.

Quote:
who filmed it,

A sicko. No other word for the person.

Quote:
why it was filmed,

More than likely, for the financial benefit of said sicko.

Quote:
or why Smith was watching it.

I'm sure it was for his own sick reasons.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:38 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
So, your wife has child pornography on her computer too?


LOL..............

Love the idea that anyone with security on their computers must be into child porn trading.

I know you are not that dumb so I do not see why you had shame yourself with such nonsense.

We both do a lot of traveling and hundreds of thousands of computers are lost or stolen at airports alone every year and we both had all kind of private information’s that is worth hundreds of times the cost of the hardware to the wrong people.

Copies of all kind of legal documents and credit cards information and bank accounts information with pass phases for online banking ETC. The ability to control many hundreds of thousands of dollars is in those computers.

We do a hard drive backup before traveling and if a computer go missing all we had lost is the cost of the replacement hardware as no information can be used against us that is contain in them.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:46 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Love the idea that anyone with security on their computers must be into child porn trading.


Anyone interested in the specifics of the law must be someone who wants to take max advantage of the law.

Anyone interested in Alleged rapists and child pornographers receiving just treatment from the state must either be one himself or at least a sex offender sympathizer.

Anyone who demands to know the exact nature of the evidence against a allege child pornographer before claiming that he is a bad guy must be a sicko who likes to watch child porn

---------------------------------------------------------
I should come up with some witty comment here about small minds who peddle in sleaze, but I am too busy today.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:54 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Oh the ownership of the hardware does no matter on the issue of if it can be read once WDE had been put into place nor can I see how it would effect his 5 amendment rights not to give up the keys.

EFF has a slightly different take, which I would trust more than your rather questionable statements:

https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights

Quote:
What about my work computer?

A: It depends. Generally, you have some Fourth Amendment protection in your office or workspace.18 This means the police need a warrant to search your office and work computer unless one of the exceptions described above applies. But the extent of Fourth Amendment protection depends on the physical details of your work environment, as well as any employer policies. For example, the police will have difficulty justifying a warrantless search of a private office with doors and a lock and a private computer that you have exclusive access to. On the other hand, if you share a computer with other co-workers, you will have a weaker expectation of privacy in that computer, and thus less Fourth Amendment protection.19 However, be aware that your employer can consent to a police request to search an office or workspace.20 Moreover, if you work for a public entity or government agency, no warrant is required to search your computer or office as long as the search is for a non-investigative, work-related matter.21
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:58 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Well any lawyer who file such a suit may be in trouble with his state bar and he would know filing such a claim would be a pointless exercise so that seems off hand a good shield from such suits.

There are a lot of non-lawyer litigants out there, who do not feel the constraints of Rule 11. (Google it.)
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 01:07 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
There are a lot of non-lawyer litigants out there, who do not feel the constraints of Rule 11. (Google it.)


The low risk of pointless law suits that will be dismiss at first hearing is not what you and others was implying in stating that the airline or the passenger could be facing large laws suits for reporting the man to the police.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 01:11 pm
@DrewDad,
They can search a work computer in many cases without your permission but that does in no way imply that you have to make it possible for them to get useful information from those computers by handing over encryption keys that only exist in your mind in the US at least.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 02:55 pm
@BillRM,
The DailyMail is reporting that the computer was bought with grant money, which I think means that it is not owned by the university as other reports claim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066771/Professor-viewed-child-porn-class-showing-naked-young-girls-pleads-guilty-hes-leave-university.html

We also have this

Quote:
Assistant District Attorney Erik Bennett said.

The flight attendant also saw him looking at the images and asked him to turn off his computer, Bennett said.

The passenger emailed his son and asked him to contact police, he said.

When the flight landed, state troopers asked to see Smith’s laptop, and he consented, saying it had been bought with a research grant through the University of Utah, where he is a professor of engineering, Bennett said.

On it, troopers found dozens of images of children as young as 5 in a state of nudity or engaged in sex acts with men, he said


http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1128high_bail_for_passenger_accused_of_viewing_child_porn/srvc=home&position=5
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 03:05 pm
@Ticomaya,
I included the airline, its security service, the passenger who may have erroneously reported him , as well as the flight crew. I thought that each one of these may be an attractive litigant "IF AND ONLY IF" the case against the giuy is dismissed or hes found not guilty. As His life is ruined as HAwkee says, Im looking for his payback.

.
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 03:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
Until they prove him guilty as charged, why put his name out there into the public, for people to google around and find out all about his life, or assume it is that person. To put him at risk, or someone with the same name, from being attacked or murdered...

If it was pictures of his children, he would be able to prove that. A mistake.

There is no mild in my books, for any person viewing child porn....

But, there is no cause to plaster it over the news, and name a person, until 100% confirmed that was factual.

In my opinion.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 06:48 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
But, there is no cause to plaster it over the news, and name a person, until 100% confirmed that was factual.

In my opinion


I agree, abusing the accused before they have been convicted by way of a fair trial is uncivilized behavior....but we Americans thrive on just that. I chalk up our willingness to tolerate this abusive behavior on the part of the state to lack of ability to delay gratification combined with blood lust, the state of course has power projection (bullying) motivations.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:00 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Seem that you wish to be allow to make a legal claim as a non-lawyer such as the passenger can be sue for reporting what he think is a crime but only a lawyer can challenge your clearly false information.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Bill,
but more precisely the issue is the VIABILITY of such litigation.
In my opinion, that decision must be rendered on a case-by-case basis,
rather than a dismissal out-of-hand, as it woud be, e.g., for blowing the statute of limitations.

Do u allege that a defendant in such litigation (sued for calling police)
is entitled to summary judgment, as a matter of law??





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Most people over here support our sub judice laws. You only seem to have a problem with the lack of sub judice laws over there when it comes to (alleged) sex offenders. I may be wrong, but I've not seen you kick up such a fuss over alleged murderers, burglars, embezzlers or anything like that. In fact your sidekick Bill, thinks an alleged murderer in Texas, should be executed before oustanding DNA evidence is tested.

Before you go on about how being accused of a sex offence is more damaging I say bollocks, being accused of any crime is damaging. Craig Charles, star of comedy sci-fi series Red Dwarf was wrongly accused of rape, and spent three months on remand. He was completely exonerated, and now is a regular in top soap opera Coronation Street. It doesn't seem to have done his career any harm.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:13 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Quote:
"The notion that someone would be so bold as to view it in public is extraordinary, and I'm not sure what the explanation is," Wendy Murphy, identified by WCVB as an attorney and victim's advocate, says to the station.

As for the passenger who is reported to have videotaped the alleged crime, Murphy tells WCVB:

Someone who not only sees it but is smart enough to take a picture of it is very solid evidence. Reporting it immediately to law enforcement, law enforcement then being able to do their own immediate investigation -- that's a very strong case -- at least at this point.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/11/flight-child-porn-arrest/573281/1

If this man's life is over, because his computer contained child pornography, he's done it to himself. Stop blaming the citizen who reported him, and the cops who arrested him, and the government that will prosecute him if he's violated the laws. He's responsible for his own actions and the consequences of those actions.

Let 's slow down, Firefly: someone says that the complainant
was: "smart enough to take a picture of it" when doing so is a federal FELONY ?
I am taken aback that committing federal felonies is asserted to be "smart".
That is producing child pornografy.

Is there an exception in the statute?
Admittedly, its been quite a while since I read the statute,
but the logic of it indicates to me that both passengers
woud be (figuratively speaking) cellmates for similar federal crimes:
looking at child porn and PRODUCING child porn
(after looking at it).





David
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
You started this thread with the assumption that this was another innocent man being victimized by the government for some innocuous sexually-related behavior, and you were mounting your soapbox to deliver your usual anti-government diatribe. Well, it doesn't sound like this man was doing anything innocuous--he appears to have been viewing child pornography on his laptop, in a public place, where his behavior was observed and authorities were notified. And his computer was then examined by law enforcement who agreed that the computer contained images of child pornography. So, you really made a fool of yourself by starting this thread, because it backfired on your intentions, and now you are just trying to save face.
Quote:
I note that some reports claim that he was looking at pics of girls only, we dont even have established that any girl on girl action of any type happened.

Quote:

Anyone who demands to know the exact nature of the evidence against a allege child pornographer before claiming that he is a bad guy must be a sicko who likes to watch child porn

You are already fantasizing about the sort of material he watched--i.e. was it "girl on girl" or only pictures of naked 8 year olds in some sort of pose? You are indeed a sicko.

What do you want the state to do, show you the child porn?

Whatever material was on his laptop that constituted the reason for his arrest will be presented at trial and shown to a jury. It has already been viewed by the police and D.A..It is rather presumptuous of you to demand that you have to personally view the porn, or be given a highly graphic and detailed lurid description, before deciding whether the man has been appropriately charged. Your interest in this seems clearly prurient.


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:16 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Craig Charles, star of comedy sci-fi series Red Dwarf was wrongly accused of rape, and spent three months on remand. He was completely exonerated
as has been pointed out repeatedly on A2K our system does not exonerate, in fact in America if a person is not convicted of a sex crime it is assumed that the state fell down and that as a result the creap got away. Firefly in fact once told me that perfection in sexual assault cases would be a 100% conviction rate, and her view is by no means unusual among an American people who largely have not the first damn clue anymore what justice is .
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 06:42:53