Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Privacy Software The Courts

Malware Can Download Child Porn To Your Computer 586

Posted by timothy
from the where's-dexter-when-needed? dept.
2muchcoffeeman writes "The Associated Press tells the story of Michael Fiola, a former Massachusetts government employee who was arrested in 2007 after child porn was found on his state-issued laptop computer. He was eventually cleared of all charges after some digging by the defense found that the laptop was infected with malware that 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 article also discusses the technical aspects of how it could happen and about similar cases in the United Kingdom in 2003."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Malware Can Download Child Porn To Your Computer

Comments Filter:
  • Pedobear strikes back

  • by Xiph (723935) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:50PM (#30025474)

    Wherever she goes, the police will be aware that she was once accused of something related to pedofilia.
    Accused of course implies she was linked to it.

    ok, i meant to make this longer and darker, but i'm just not really feeling that paranoid tonight =)

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ok, i meant to make this longer and darker, but i'm just not really feeling that paranoid tonight =)

      Noted. Thank you citizen. This matter will be investigated and remedial action taken fnord if it is deemed to be warranted.

  • by iYk6 (1425255) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:50PM (#30025476)

    Lucky for this guy there was evidence to prove he didn't do it. A hacker could might have installed a remote access program, downloaded the files manually, and then uninstalled the remote access program. There wouldn't be much evidence to suggest that this guy didn't download the kiddie porn himself.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The guy could also download some kiddie-porn-visiting malware, have a good time jacking off to cool pics and when finally caught, blame it all on teh viruses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yet another reason that simple possession of such material should not be a crime. The whole notion of a crime should involve actual harm caused by one's actions; go bust the people who are giving child rapists money.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Maybe. But ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? Being accused already ruined that guys life (and finances). It could be worse, his wife could have left him. He has little chance of gaining everything back, and there will always be that who-knows-cloud over his head.

  • by parlancex (1322105) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:51PM (#30025480)
    Too bad his life is already ruined beyond repair.
  • by Monoman (8745) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:54PM (#30025502) Homepage

    Frameware ? :-)

    • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:19PM (#30025706)

      The hysteria around child porn makes the ideal way to frame someone. Need to get rid of an enemy, a politician you don't like maybe ? Just break into their computer and load a single image on there. No one will look too closely, everyone will be scrambling to condemn you first to avoid looking guilt by association. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:25PM (#30025748) Journal
        I seem to recall reading that the FBI ran some honeypot sites that were linked to indicating that they contained child porn, but didn't. For this kind of malware you'd want to make sure it hit a few of them, downloaded some real child porn, and then deleted itself. Do it to a Senator, for example, and it wouldn't matter if they were cleared within a few days; the scandal would be enough to ruin their political career for life.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Monoman (8745)

        I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

        Maybe it does. Hmmmm....

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by QuoteMstr (55051)

          When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:57PM (#30026072)

            When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

            That's what happens when nonviolent victimless activities such as adult consentual personal drug use are made into crimes. That 1% would be a tiny fraction of a percentage if there were no such thing as the War on Drugs.

          • by asdf7890 (1518587)

            When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

            You have a higher opinion of human nature than I.

      • The hysteria around child porn makes the ideal way to frame someone.

        People need witches. People need easy targets to vent the full fury of the legal system upon. Pedophiles are perfect, because unlike witches, they actually exist. The public delights in these show trials, and delights even more in being able to treat the accused and especially the convicted as the scum of the earth.

        It's a kind of blood sport. It's a form of entertainment. It's completely shameful.

  • by ickleberry (864871) <web@pineapple.vg> on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:54PM (#30025506) Homepage
    Its crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having a certain amount of bits stored on hard drives/flash memory/toggle switches arranged in a certain way.

    Criminalising mere possession only drives the stuff up in value, if there was more of it freely available no pervert would feel the need to hand their credit card details over to some lads in Thailand so they can pick more 5-year-olds off the street.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RIpRapRob (1346701)
      Surely you must be trolling? If not: It's crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years just for buying something that was already stolen or for hiding someone who has already committed a crime.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:27PM (#30025774)

        Let's see:
        1. Buying something that you know is stolen - the original owner should still be able to reclaim his property. Also, you are paying a thief for stealing, so he will steal more because he can live from it.
        2. Hiding someone who has committed a crime - you are wasting time of the police officers who are searching for the criminal, also the criminal may commit another crime while running from the police and this time you will be an accomplice.

        Now, downloading a picture of a crime. The picture is harmless, having it is also harmless (unless you have the only copy in which case you are holding evidence that could be used to put a criminal in jail). Pirating such picture does not pay money to the producer and so the producer will lose a lot of money (RIAA and MPAA both said that piracy hurts the industry).

        • The usual argument for criminalizing posession of data regardless of how you got it hasn't been refuted near enough. (too bad AC posts get overlooked by mods - as if they weren't worth reading unless someone got a karma point)
    • People download porn and pay for hookers so why would this stop them from abusing real children? Legalising child porn legitimises child abuse, imo, and makes it more likely that people will do something to children.

      Now maybe if the punishment for child abuse was something extreme, like death then yeah maybe. What's done is done so I could see leaving them to play with the pictures they have and if they take it beyond that then wipe them off the planet.
      • by kromozone (817261) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @06:09PM (#30026162) Homepage
        Depraved videos of people being brutally murdered, see "3guys1hammer" for example, are not illegal and they depict the most heinous of acts. I am sure a depraved sociopath or two has masturbated to such videos before as well. Yet, while these videos are legal and a certain segment of the population with extremely violent tendencies may experience sexual pleasure from them, having them legal has not increased the incidence of people making murder/rape videos on a for profit basis. The whole thing has devolved into pure insanity. People being thrown in jail for pictures of the Simpsons having sex, people being framed, the FBI posting links on sites purporting to be child porn, then storing the IP of anyone who visits that URL without verifying in any way that they were in fact referred from the site where the link was posted. So long as the underlying act is kept illegal, legalizing possession of data depicting such acts does nothing to boost crime rates. I would also imagine it would be even easier to locate and prosecute actual pedophiles if such images were legal.
    • by LainTouko (926420) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:40PM (#30025884)

      Our governments claim that it is essential to stop people downloading and possessing regular media from P2P services (outside of official channels) because it decreases the ability and motivation of media producers to produce new media.

      Our governments claim that it is essential to stop people downloading child porn off P2P services because it increases the ability and motivation of child abusers (or more commonly now, children) to produce new child porn.

      I think there's something fishy here.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's not all that strange logic though, whetehr you agree with it or not. Yes, at the outset it looks like a contradiction...

        However; there is no legal way to download child porn (and I think it should continue to be illegal, if nothing else, to produce child porn). OK, so that means that if P2P is one of the major ways to download child porn, then P2P increases the ability (not sure about motivation) of pornographers. If there's a way to get it to the customer, that increases the ability....

        The first st

        • OK, so that means that if P2P is one of the major ways to download child porn, then P2P increases the ability (not sure about motivation) of pornographers.

          The ones who are in it for the money don't make any money off of P2P; they have other ways of distributing their illicit goods for compensation. Thus, P2P doesn't affect their ability or motivation. If anything, it would be a negative impact in the same way it is for the RIAA/MPAA.

          The ones who aren't in it for the money are generally sick fucks who abuse their own children. They'll continue to do so whether or not their stuff finds its way onto P2P networks. If anything, they'd want to keep their stuff off

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08, 2009 @06:18PM (#30026240)

      There is not - nor has there ever been - a lucrative market for child pornography. Even before the laws that now ban distribution and possession of the stuff were written, and it was available (usually under the counter) from mainstream porn vendors, it just didn't sell very much. Today, with the internet, it's almost exclusively distributed gratis. That's something that people who've been raised to think of everything in transactional economic terms can't seem to grasp: child porn doesn't operates on supply-and-demand terms. So the argument that possession of child porn creates an economic "demand" for it which incentivizes pornographers to produce more... misses the point. Child porn is produced almost exclusively by people who enjoy child porn themselves. They distribute it not for profit, but for the simple reason that they want to share. Whether there's an audience of a dozen out there, or a million, they're going to do the same thing. Now, there are other arguments for the criminalization of possession of child porn, and those may or may not have merit. But the argument that possession creates demand is a fallacy.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:56PM (#30025522)

    If everyone downloads kiddie porn, then that makes it really hard to pick out and prosecute the people who do it deliberately.
    This case was kinda stupid in that it went faster than humanly possible. I expect that newer versions will be a bit more subtle.

    Personally I think trojans like this are a good idea precisely because they make it difficult to prosecute someone for having a copy of the stuff -- possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy. The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it. The politicians get their public back-slapping for a job well done, meanwhile the children who are really being hurt by the creation of the stuff aren't any better off than they were before.

    Its a case of the politicians deliberately not thinking of the children at all, only their careers, but proclaiming that they are protecting children -- 100% hypocrisy.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:13PM (#30025674)

      It's even funnier when you compare the stand on downloading kiddy porn and downloading movies/music/software for free.

      1. Downloading copyrighted material illegally (not paying the authors when they ask for the payment) hurts the whole $content industry and will lead to less $content being produced, because nobody wants to work for free.
      2. Downloading kiddy porn without paying for it helps the industry and will lead to more of it being produced = more children being abused.

      Does this mean that the only true artists are the kiddy porn producers who appreciate that their product is being used and produce it just for the fun of it?

      And yes, trojans like this are good. Now will somebody make one that also downloads music and software in addition to kiddy porn? Since most users don't find out about what various software does to their PCs until the PC starts acting up more than they can handle, it should DDoS the MAFIAA and child porn prosecutors. Except this time make it a worm, so it spreads without the user having to click on some link.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rwwyatt (963545)

      I must respectfully disagree with a number of your points.

      possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy.

      The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

      The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it.

      There are ways to catch the manufacturer, but what other freedoms will be lost in the balance. Shall we have to provide ID to buy a Camera?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08, 2009 @06:03PM (#30026110)

        You see nothing wrong with charging people with a crime, for viewing a picture? Or being in possession of one? It may not be thought crime, but it is persecution especially when you consider that we aren't just talking about actual child abuse either, where you would have an argument concerning actual crime taking place to produce the picture (which still doesn't justify throwing people in jail for possessing the picture), but CGI images have resulted in child porn prosecutions, as have drawings and comics.

        This is at its core, prosecution and persecution targeted toward people the public does not like.

      • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @06:09PM (#30026154)

        possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy.

        The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

        Actually thought crime is often used to refer to something where all you're doing is sitting around not harming anyone (as opposed to victimless crimes).

        Here's a fun thing from Denmark (age of consent is 15).

        If I (32) have sex with a 17-year-old girl, that is perfectly legal.
        If anyone takes a photo of it, draws it, writes about it in detail or films it - it is child pornography. And as I'm am the only 'adult' in this, I will bear the full brunt of the law's punishment. Even if she were to set up hidden cameras without me knowing it, I'd still be charged with manufacturing. It's classified as child pornography and not pornography with a minor (under 18).

        But if no-one watches, it's perfectly legal.

        That is fucking scary.

      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @06:14PM (#30026200)

        The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

        Uh yeah, what do you think a thought crime is - something that is not a crime?

        There are ways to catch the manufacturer, but what other freedoms will be lost in the balance. Shall we have to provide ID to buy a Camera?

        So, your argument is that because it is too hard to actually save any children from abuse, we should just fuck with people we think are gross?

    • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @06:09PM (#30026152)

      Because it's easier to assuage the public outcry and win PoliticanPoints by attacking those who possess it than going after those who produce it (since a lot of it isn't in the States, for one thing) and/or saving the kids.

      There was a great article in the Economist recently about how there's no motivation for politicians to care at all about the suspect's side (felons don't vote, for one thing), so laws just become more and more unreasonable and the rights of pedophiles get eroded worse and worse.

      Ever since that one girl had to Register after having naked pics of herself on her cell phone when underage, then charged as an adult, I've had basically zero respect for these laws, even as the thought of CP makes me sick.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:56PM (#30025526)

    Downloads all the latest movie and software releases, and stores them on my computer! It's madness, I say, madness.

  • by gmagill (105538) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @04:59PM (#30025548)

    Guess that lets my cat of the hook...

  • The Perfect Frame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:02PM (#30025582)

    Think Fred might beat you to that promotion? Think your wife was a bit too friendly toward Bob at the party? Think Doctor Franzhaufer gave you an unfair grade? Don't like your new uppity neighbor?

    Download child pornography to their computers. Sure, they'll whine about their "rights" and their "innocence", but who's going to believe a creepy pervert? Even if the faggy liberal court lets him off on some technicality, his career will be ruined, his friends will leave him, and he'll probably end up shooting himself.

    You win, right? You showed him who's boss.

    --

    This country is losing all its marbles at once Among our other problems, we're engaging in a good old-fashioned witch hunt against child pornographers. No accusation is too specious, nor any policy too draconian. Never mind if due process rights are bulldozed, and people who've served out their sentences are branded for life and forced to live under overpasses. Never mind that the beachheld of practically all Internet censorship schemes has been combating child pornography. Never mind the culture of fear that can justify anything.

    At least we're getting those evil-doers, right?

    • There is an antidote though: Child porn on (nearly) every computer!
      I mean, the law system basically already has that implemented: Everybody is guilty somewhere.
      So it will make no difference if they pick one of us at random, because he is one of the 99.99% with child porn on the computer. Or because he is one of the 99.99% with $OTHER_CATCH22_CRIMINAL_OFFENSE.

  • ...is create a bunch of honeypot websites for politicians and fatcats.

    And then trigger the appropriate middle-of-the-night "clubbing cops" raids on the targets.

    But don't get too greedy. It must stay believable to the general public. (Including the media. Including "FOX & 'tards".)

    P.S.: I think, we, the people, should have our own intelligence service. With the ability to filter out things that were aquired with proper methods. With a huge knowledge base. With native "agents" in every country. In every c

    • P.S.: I think, we, the people, should have our own intelligence service. With the ability to filter out things that were aquired with proper methods. With a huge knowledge base. With native "agents" in every country. In every company and government office. And with trust relationship management. Make it a game. And let millions of people play it. Let's see who 0wns who then ^^ (Yes I know... nice dream though.)

      I believe we call that wikipedia.

  • What gets me are the confident assertions that people cannot unintentionally download child pornography by prosecutors who have no idea what they are talking about. It's disturbing both that people pay attention to them and that they are more interested in getting convictions than in consulting real experts.

  • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@b ... h u d s o n .com> on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:35PM (#30025860) Journal

    malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute -- an inhuman feat

    In other news, slashdotters lined up in droves asking "where can I get the adult | lesbian | furries version of this script?"

  • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:38PM (#30025872) Homepage
    Seriously, you gotta be a real ass to do something like this to someone.

    It's this sort of thing that will give governments an excuse to try and control the net even more and give companies a reason to close up their hardware and in the end most people end up with less freedom.

    The net was nice before every tard was on it waiting to be exploited.
  • Grain of salt. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SkOink (212592) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:42PM (#30025892) Homepage

    Whenever I hear about something like this, I'm always a little bit skeptical. What would a malware writer stand to gain by writing some malware that "accessed 40 child porn sites per minute" and installing it on some guy's computer? It's pretty absurd when you think about it.

    Does anybody really believe that there's some spergy criminal mastermind out there who spends his nights optimizing his malware's CPSPM rate? One would assume that anybody with enough knowledge to even write the software is probably already connected to the people who produce that stuff, or else he wouldn't know where to get it in the first place (and so how could he write malware to do it for him?)

    • Re:Grain of salt. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lagomorpha2 (1376475) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:54PM (#30026026)

      It might be the case that the malware was designed to turn the computers into hosts for redistributing the material so that those hosting it wouldn't need to host their site on anything that could be traced back to them.

    • Re:Grain of salt. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gerafix (1028986) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:56PM (#30026050)
      Seriously? It's the ultimate revenge plot in the west. Even if you're just accused of having child porn, regardless if it's true or not, your life is ruined from that moment on. All for what amounts to what, maybe a couple hours of programming? Talk about return on investment, and probably no way to trace the program back to the 'hacker' means almost no liability. It's the perfect dish to serve cold.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lawpoop (604919)
      Years ago, while working at an ISP, I heard a geek bragging to another geek that they could do this very thing, to get back at someone they didn't like. My first thought was, "How does this guy know where to download it from?" I wouldn't even begin to know. I've never run across anything remotely similiar to it in all my web surfing. It struck me that there was probably stuff about this show off that I didn't to know about at all.
  • by zuperduperman (1206922) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:43PM (#30025906)

    While it's sad whenever someone is falsely accused and I have sympathy for him and his wife, I can't help but feel - it's wonderful that this has happened to a politician. Because this could happen to absolutely anybody and politicians will not relent in their fear mongering and ridiculous laws in this area until they become victims themselves.

    While I strongly suspect if they weren't a) wealthy and b) in positions of power the governor would now be rotting in a cell, the fact of the case being overturned will help sanity prevail everywhere.

  • So now what (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:44PM (#30025916) Homepage

    So now the guy's sold his car, taken out a second mortgage, lost his job, 11 months of his life and most of his friends. He's a pariah with a mountain of debt.

    Meanwhile, the prosecutor's off looking for the next big case without so much as an uncomfortable public statement or even an "I'm sorry". Business as usual.

    It's a touch kinder and gentler than the days of the (Un)Holy Inquisition where if you drowned you were innocent and if you didn't they'd burn you, but it's no different in principle. The process of being tried does very nearly as much damage as being found guilty would. The accusation destroys your life one way or the other. Those who cause all the damage face no consequences whatsoever.

  • Computer malware could screw badly your REAL life. It should be a real example to show to people that aren't concerned about security, uses insecure practices/browsers/operating systems/whatever.

    Probably is the most convincing scenario until a computer virus manage to infect and kill real people.
  • ... and the possibly upcoming law now, making it illegal to WATCH child porn. No, not consume it or otherwise support pedophile circles, merely watch it.

    It's exactly these things that make me against that law. Sure, you'll probably easily explain it if it really did happen to you, but what if the search warrant was about something else? "Oh, look, he had child porn on his computer too, besides all this movie piracy." Where both can be a result of low computer security and a hijacked WiFi connection, neither

  • An inhuman feat... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nux'd (1002189) on Sunday November 08, 2009 @05:58PM (#30026076)

    ...so of course he's innocent.

    What if he intentionally contracted this 'malware'? It seems to do a good job of diverting the blame.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09, 2009 @04:22AM (#30030340)

    I see several people talking about how "gross" that guy is and maybe he "intentionally put the bot on his computer" and I thought that maybe I should put my 2 cents into this discussion since the same thing happened to me several years ago. I was charged with Possession of Child Pornography and I didn't do it. I didn't even know stuff like that existed, much less that it was on my computer.

    I was a guy that always had fun hanging out with my friends and since I was one of the first ones to finish college and get a 'real' job, I was also the first one out of all of my friends to afford nice toys. Like a Flat-screen TV, every video game system, workout equipment, and a nice, fast computer. Friends came and went all the time. People may say I'm too trustworthy and I guess I wasn't thinking, but most of my friends had keys to my apartment along with my roommates. I'm sure you can figure out where this is going.

    One day I get back from what was a 5 day party/drinking-binge with one of my friends who was going to college in another city a few hours away, and I notice that my apartment is messier than usual. I didn't think much about it at first but then I notice that my PC is gone. So I call my roommate and asked him if he borrowed it for a LAN party or something? (yea, that's how ridiculously lax I was with my friends) and he said no. Then on my PC desk, I noticed a detective's business card and a search warrant describing what they came to search for (they came sometime that morning and guess what they were looking for?) and what they took (PC stuff like HD's etc) and that they wanted to talk to me. I kind of did that whole out-of-body experience thing that people talk about where you don't really think this is happening to you and you get all numb and it almost feels like you're "watching yourself".

    I can microscopically explain every detail of the whole ordeal, because even though I try, I will never forget it. But to make a long story short - I was eventually arrested and charged. My name was on the news in my local community and on the radio as well. The law enforcement went to my work and questioned my boss about how much "access to children" I had. (I never worked with kids so therefore I had "no access to children") but nonetheless I lost my job. There were even some people (old ladies who didn't personally know me) who wrote to the local paper asking the editor "why do they even give people charged with crimes like that out on bail?". I remember thinking "This can't be happening" and that someone's gonna come out and say it was all a joke like in the movie 'The Game' with Michael Douglas. I just couldn't believe it. I mean... I WAS INNOCENT and people were already condemning me for something I didn't even know existed.

    At first I thought that the prosecutor would realize it was a mistake and apologize or something, but my lawyer sort of brought me to "reality" when he basically told me that I was DEFINITELY going to go to prison and that I was DEFINITELY going to have to register as a sex offender at least for several years after prison and possibly for the rest of my life. He was just trying to reduce the prison sentence and see what else he could do. He told me that since I was being charged with this crime there was no way in the world that I would "get off" despite not having any criminal record.

    When the realization set in that my life was pretty much over... it got really bad. I felt as though my entire life up to this point was done and everything I ever worked for was over. I basically boarded myself up in the spare room at my parents home. It really felt as though the villagers were outside my Mom's house with pitchforks and torches just waiting to lynch me. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't eat. I lost 30% of my body weight in a matter of a couple weeks. I thought about suicide constantly... and every time I did I would begin crying. I would begin crying not because I was scared, but because I knew I wasn't thinking about suicide in a "passing thought

  • Standard of proof (Score:3, Interesting)

    by masonc (125950) on Monday November 09, 2009 @05:28AM (#30030666) Homepage

    the courts need to raise the standard for proof of this crime. Just because there is CP on a computer should not be considered enough to prove the owner of the computer put it there. Computers, especially home computers running Windows, are inherently insecure and able to operate autonomously, subject to outside control without the owners knowledge. I can't think of any other possession we are less in control of, which is probably why there is no real analogous precedent for the courts to relate to.
    The courts need to require that the prosecutor can show the owner DID download the material with knowledge, not just that it was there. The requirement for proof should be something like correlating an online conversation to a request for the material or carrying it on a DVD, purchasing it with the offenders card, something that shows it could not have been automated.
    There is the potential for severe miscarriages of justice with the lax standard for proof presently employed which will inevitably lead to abuse and misuse of power. Once prosecutors have a slamdunk way to leverage a confession that will use and abuse it. All they have to do in ANY case is to look for a piece of CP on the defendant's computer, even if that has nothing to do with the case. No-one wants to go to jail for that and will confess to any other crime, even if they are not guilty. Look at the present case against prosecutors for manufacturing evidence if you don't believe they would do this. "there is no freestanding right not to be framed."

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...