Typo In IP Address Led To an Innocent Father's Arrest For Paedophilia (buzzfeed.com) 227
An anonymous reader has shared a shocking story about the arrest of Nigel Lang by the British police for a crime he didn't commit. It all happened because of a typo, according to a report. From the report: On a Saturday morning in July 2011, Nigel Lang, then aged 44, was at home in Sheffield with his partner and their 2-year-old son when there was a knock at the door. He opened it to find a man and two women standing there, one of whom asked if he lived at the address. When he said he did, the three strangers pushed past him and one of the women, who identified herself as a police officer, told Lang and his partner he was going to be arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children. [...] He was told that when police requested details about an IP address connected to the sharing of indecent images of children, one extra keystroke was made by mistake, sending police to entirely the wrong physical location. But it would take years, and drawn-out legal processes, to get answers about why this had happened to him, to force police to admit their mistake, and even longer to begin to get his and his family's lives back on track. Police paid Lang 60,000 British Pound ($73,500) in compensation last autumn after settling out of court, two years after they finally said sorry and removed the wrongful arrest from his record.
Brazil (Score:5, Interesting)
Brazil, come to life.
Re: (Score:2)
familyâ(TM)s (Score:4, Informative)
Fuck how long has Slashdot been around and they still can't fix this shit? familyâ(TM)s familyâ(TM)sfamilyâ(TM)s This is seriously the only time in my many years on the internet I have not seen a website unable to render text correctly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Still can't edit posts either. Slashdot is a fucking relic.
Re: (Score:3)
Not being able to edit posts is a feature. Being able to rewrite the history of a conversation is Orwellian.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Agreed, and not being able to edit a post (for even a 1-minute grace period) is fucking embarrassing, not to mention infuriating.
It's even more embarrassing when you consider that this is a forum where discussions of programming and technology take place.
1991 called and wants its text-file forum back.
Re: (Score:3)
1991 called and wants its text-file forum back.
Did you warn them? Did you? All those people are going to die just because you didn't tell 1991 when they called and it's all your fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we did warn 1991 about 2/26 [wikipedia.org]. The net effect was to delay the destruction of the World Trade Center to 2001.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you warn them? Did you?
I tried but I got an error when I tried to open the file for writing.
Re:familyâ(TM)s (Score:5, Insightful)
"Agreed, and not being able to edit a post (for even a 1-minute grace period) is fucking embarrassing"
What's more embarrassing is your inability to proof-read before submitting off the fucking handle like the majority of you tend to do.
Proff Reeding [Re:familyâ(TM)s] (Score:2)
The problem with proof-reading is that it's hard to mentally divorce what one intends to say versus what they are reading back. Others have complained about their own "intention bias" before, not just me, so I know I'm not alone.
There's a point of diminishing returns on repeat re-reads to proof the copy. Time is often the best solution to clearing one's mind of intention bias. (A second opinion is also good, but hard to come by.)
If you by chance have a special b
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is once you allow editing, you open a can of worms. I'd rather live with mistakes then not being able to trust the integrity of the written record. Forums are conversations.
Re: (Score:2)
And those solutions are the can of worms that come with their own downsides. I prefer comments the way they are.
Re: (Score:2)
If you by chance have a special brain that is immune to this, I congratulate you, but us muggles want a muggle-friendly edit system.
My brain is not immune to this, and I still don't want post editing. There is a preview function. Sit with it longer before you post if not having errors is so very important to you. As Slashdot has grown older, I suspect the median age has also increased, and I have noticed far more tolerance on the part of the readership for errors. Why, it is not uncommon in this day and age for apostrophes to be misused without a single comment, and last week I actually read a comment in which the author reversed the in
Re:familyâ(TM)s (Score:5, Insightful)
not being able to edit a post
That's what the Preview button is for.
Re: (Score:2)
not being able to edit a post
That's what the Preview button is for.
Newsflash- even forums with preview buttons allow you to edit your post for at least a short time. Welcome to the 90s!
For proof, please see any forum written in the last 20 years or so: SMF, VBulletin, Agora, phpBB, myBB, FluxBB, PunBB, Vanilla Forums, Invision, Phorum, FudForum, Beehive, BBPress, UBB.threads, XenForo, Ikonboard.....
Re:familyâ(TM)s (Score:5, Informative)
If I recall, not having the option to edit was an intentional decision. Since this site is about the users having technical threaded discussions, it makes sense to make the posts fixed as it preserves the integrity of the discussion (i.e. no going back to edit out the part where you were wrong)
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall, not having the option to edit was an intentional decision. Since this site is about the users having technical threaded discussions, it makes sense to make the posts fixed as it preserves the integrity of the discussion (i.e. no going back to edit out the part where you were wrong)
Oh please, a grace-period of one minute would solve all this shit, including the pantywaists who moan about retroactively editing posts to make them look dumb. Chances are they already look dumb and no editing would be required to show that.
Are these chicken-shit fuckers SO SCARED that someone would edit their post within one minute to make them look foolish? If so, then I'd say the problem is with them and not the content of the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could even go radical and allow edit until the first reply or moderation, like most of the other sites.
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be editors that would look over the content before it was on the front. They would fix glaring mistakes and sometimes grammatical issues. I had it done to one of my posts and I was ever grateful. If the system isn't going to allow a time frame for editing after the fact they should go back to reading over things that have high impact on the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait 1 minute before clicking "Submit" after you hit "Preview".
It will do exactly as you said.
Re: (Score:2)
I can make mistakes that will take a lot longer than one minute to clean up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be okay wish such a feature as long as the grace period ended as soon as the first reply to your post was made.
This isn't facebook, where you can edit your post to make repliers look stupid after they point out your errors.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be okay wish such a feature as long as the grace period ended as soon as the first reply to your post was made.
I agree, but such a feature is far too complex to ever be added to slashdot. And the weiner-dicks would moan about it endlessly.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd be okay wish such a feature..."
O The Irony
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't facebook, where you can edit your post to make repliers look stupid
Well yes, but when it's done in Facebook the post gets an "Edited" label. So if you come across a disjointed sequence of posts and spy an "Edited" flag among them, then it doesn't take much intelligence to infer that one comment originally said something different... oh, wait. Yeah, I see the problem now.
Re: (Score:2)
My login name was Frédéric, in 1999, during various /. update it became Fr%E9d%E9ric or Fr#d#ric or something, at one point I was even not able to log in, I had to message an administrator so he could rename my username... 2017 and still no proper support for accentated characters.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel your pain, Fr%E9d%E9ric.
Re:familyâ(TM)s (Score:5, Insightful)
" they already know that the low ID lusers like you will keep coming back filling their pockets with ad revenue "
Yea, right. Pretty much all of us low-UID "lusers' are smart enough to use adblockers and script blockers so they don't get shit from us.
Leave it to an AC to be wrong as always.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen that checkbox in months. My karma has been good for years.
Re:familyâ(TM)s (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, same here.
Karma: Excellent, 15 moderator points expire 2017-03-16, and all notwithstanding. The checkbox has gone. Before it only occasionally unchecked itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here
Re: (Score:2)
I'd subscript if the option existed. Please fix so I can give you money.
The fix is in (Score:3)
The number of member/AC posts per story on slashdot has been dropping rapidly, while posting systems with decent post editing, modern character representation, and 90's-era amenities like decent code blocks, lists, images and democratic up-modding proliferate around us.
The only question is, will the slashdot owners address this before the site becomes a completely forgotten backwater?
Okay, there is one more question: Do they even have anyone who could fix it?
Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
Just port the fix from Soylent News [soylentnews.com]
It's been fixed there for months. And it's open source! Take it!
Re: (Score:3)
Parent should probably be modded up to +87 or so. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, moderation here is completely dysfunctional.
I'm a fan of mod-up-only systems, where the only mod-down-analog is "I personally don't want to see this post" and "I personally don't want to see this poster's posts."
It's much more meaningful to me to see post A with 50 up votes and post B with 5, than it is to see post A with 5, and (not) see post B because it's hidden by one down vote. Also, when everyone can vote, then you're not at the mercy of the fact that some asshole like me has mod points today. :
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Slashdot is fully
Only $73,500? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only $73,500? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd start off with a $10M asking. I'd settle for about half of that.
first, punishment that is EXPENSIVE will tend to teach the authorities their lessons.
second, you may be unemployable for the rest of your life by this mistake; I'd need about 2-5million to be able to retire and live on.
not my mistake; I should not have to pay a dime for THEIR stupidity.
ip address does not equal a person. even more so when they don't even bother to check their work BEFORE A LIFE IS RUINED.
what would fix this: remove the safety net for public 'authority figures' and when they screw up, let their own insurance cover the costs. if they had to pay, directly, they'd surely think twice before going off half-assed on a witch hunt.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
first, punishment that is EXPENSIVE will tend to teach the authorities their lessons.
I'm not sure that is true. The police officers and officials pay nothing. It's the tax payers. I agree with the compensation, but it should come out of the police officials' personal pockets. Otherwise, there is no lesson for them to learn. It's not their money.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen where a cop had to quit after a big lawsuit he caused. They didn't fire him, they just shit all over him for 8 months until he couldn't take it and quit. Then he couldn't get a job anywhere as a cop. I saw his stupid ass working in the lumber department at Home Depot and he didn't last long there.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd start off with a $10M asking. I'd settle for about half of that.
People who end up on disability for life don't get those kinds of amounts here in Europe, they'd just laugh at you. Unless something is done with malice you'll recoup little more than actual financial losses (now or in the future), like if I hit you with my car and broke your leg you'd be compensated for time on sick leave. But the pain and suffering, walking around with a cast and the inability to participate in dancing or running or swimming will net you almost nothing. Even if it is done with malice I'd
Re:Only $73,500? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in no way does the 'police department' feel any pain
It does at the level of elected officials. The community will remember that this sheriff or mayor cost them million$ in extra taxes thanks to their police department's incompetence. They will get voted out and their replacement will clean the fuckups out of the department.
Oh, sorry. I forgot about the police unions.
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing is still a factor for some people, but much less significant compared with matters such as health care, defence and the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't usually like big monetary awards for distress but there are exceptions. Getting labeled a pedo is one of them. It can literally get you killed in some places. Houses have been known to catch on fire when someone labeled a pedo moves in a neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
Some scouse git got a huge amount because he wasn't allowed to vote while he was in prison for hacking a woman to bits with an axe. What financial loss was that covering?
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but the hassle of getting out of this is probably 10x worse for the low wage crowd. They often can't afford paying for an attorney, so they have a hard time even getting a proper defense.
Getting only 73,500$ for all this trouble caused here is like putting a band-aid on an open fracture.
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at the actual figures, that Wall-Street banker has negative productivity and harms society. The grocery shop worker very likely has positive productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
> They don't do "punitive damages" in the UK. A court will only order compensation for actual damages suffered, which must be properly justified, not just a big made-up number. Of course, $10M might be a reasonable claim in some situations, if you were a high-earner and your career really had been destroyed.
In this case a couple million would be the MINIMUM appropriate compensation because dismissal of wrongful charges that were pressed due to gross negligence does not remove the mindshare and all the in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only $73,500? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
£60,000 is a joke amount of money. It's not just the hurt and devastation it has caused but there has to be some kind of deterrence in the future.
I would assume most slashdotters earn more than that per year. At a minimum, take salary multiplied by number of years he was wrongfully incarcerated (include trial time, too). Then fudge that number for inflation and possible interest (based on DOW Jones, or some other index). It's impossible to prove a dollar amount for loss of reputation. It's also impossible to know how many companies in the future will pass him up because he was incarcerated without taking the time to find out he was innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
At a minimum, take salary multiplied by number of years he was wrongfully incarcerated
erm. Approximately 0 then.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is the lawsuit happy American in me talking, but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.
Exactly. The hardest part about damages to ones reputation or career after something like this happens is proving it, so your only other option is to assume it will damage you for life, and settle for a life-altering amount up-front. And $73K sure as shit ain't it.
This also hopefully sends a message that police fuck-ups will ultimately cost a lot, and it should, since a typo can change someones life forever.
Re: (Score:2)
but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.
That was my first reaction too.
$73K is nothing for what this poor guy went through. $7.3 million would be more along the lines of what I'd consider fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I where in the same situation and would not have lost my job or anything else, but pushing back, I would be happy with it.
Obviously I would be happier if it were 10 Brazillian, but that would be, I think, not reasonable. As it was settled outside court, it means he was compensated for his loss in time and not their fault in it.
What about when you are looking for you next job (assuming you didn't lose your current one that is), and no one calls you back because the top hit on Google is an article about you being arrested for pedophilia. What about losing your home because you are now essentially unemployable? Will you have the resources to be able to "push back" each time you are discriminated against due to this false black mark that will follow you around forever and be compensated each time?
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK compensation is not punitive, it's purely to restore any loss. So the $X million suits you get in the US won't happen here, unless someone actually lost millions.
In this case he may have lost some employment of business opportunities. He may have argued that future earnings are affected. He could also claim for mental anguish and harm, especially if it resulted in mental illness (stress, depression) and the breakdown of relationships (friends, family, lovers).
Without reading the judgement I can on
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is the lawsuit happy American in me talking, but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.
Britain does not award large legal settlements, except for the near-capital crime of insulting a famous person.
fix your utf (Score:2)
Chump change for years of a ruined life (Score:4, Insightful)
Say what you will about lawsuits in America but they sure do work great for cases like this. This poor guy has years of his life completely ruined and will possibly have people hate him for the rest of his life because of the implication. Also this kind of stuff still shows up on background checks even if it's removed from your record. I would bet good money that he will have a harder time finding work in the future.
Does 1 year's salary make up for that? It sure wouldn't for me.
Lawsuits = new Porsches for lawyers (Score:2)
US lawsuits sort of one-third-work, when they work. Lawyers benefit, and complainants benefit of the remainder after the lawyer's take their cut if they manage to defeat the system, which certainly isn't a given. There's also no guarantee that any images awarded or recompense offered will be in the range of appropriate, as this US case shows. [nbcnews.com]
Even if a large award (or any award) is given, it rarely affects the agency
IP Addresses Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and it can work the other way as well. (Score:4, Interesting)
Where you miss type and end up in a pop up loop.
http://gizmodo.com/5099383/pop... [gizmodo.com]
Real problem is demonization of sex crimes (Score:3, Insightful)
Sex crimes are horrible - but not worse than murder.
Western culture has demonized it by spreading lies and falsehoods. The truth is:
1) People convicted of sex crimes are LESS likely to commit more crimes than other criminals (this includes pedophiles).
2) Most people convicted of 'sex crimes' are normal, healthy people, not strange perverts.
3) Sex crimes are incredibly subjectively prosecuted. Homosexuals are likely to be arrested, tried and convicted for the exact same behavior that straight men or women would be ignored at (for example, asking someone out for a date => soliciting prostitution) Teenagers routinely create 'child pornography' and usually (but not if the prosecutor dislikes you), have it swept under the rug.
4) Sex, being something people are ashamed of, is often used by the police to legally extort people into confessing to crimes they did not do in order to avoid sex crime charges.
Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes (Score:4, Insightful)
5) Getting caught pissing behind the bushes can get you on the Sex Registry.
Re:Real problem is demonization of sex crimes (Score:4, Insightful)
Sex crime by definition means you're a pervert.
A few decades ago, simply being homosexual made you a sex criminal. Laws change as do individual ethics. I'm sure here on Slashdot we could point out a few things in current legislation that shouldn't be there.
Re: (Score:2)
Well homosexuality is legal now but it's still perversion. Pretty much anything between two consenting adults is legal now. Or three or four or more. We don't have legalized polygamy but that is probably on the way.
Re: Real problem is demonization of sex crimes (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends. If you're talking the 45 year old who has sex with a 6 year old, then yes. You're absolutely correct. But that's not where the definitions end, and there's a lot more grey area involved. For example, an 18 year old having consensual sex with their 17 year old partner is committing a sex crime in several jurisdictions (adjust for the cut-off ages in various areas). Is that "physical and psychological abuse"?
The issue with "sex crimes" is that they are treated on an emotional level before a practical one, with no consideration for circumstances, and they WILL ruin your life if you're even accused, no trial or conviction necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's worse than death, then surely the humane thing to do would be to kill those people?
"Brazil" is not a work of fiction any more... (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of 'Brazil' (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who haven't seen the movie 'Brazil,' this event is so close to the premise of that movie that it's eerie.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who haven't seen the movie 'Brazil,' this event is so close to the premise of that movie that it's eerie.
Well, I suppose that might be a bit up for debate in that Brazil has nothing to do with a man falsely accused of being a pedophile. But both involve a bureaucracy making mistakes that innocent people pay for.
For those who haven't seen Brazil, thank your lucky stars. This is going to get my comment 1 point, but it's truly awful. I love Monty Python, but I'll be very blunt and say that I think that Terry Gilliam's movies are very hit and miss and this is a miss for sure. Years ago on another job a co
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I suppose that might be a bit up for debate in that Brazil has nothing to do with a man falsely accused of being a pedophile. But both involve a bureaucracy making mistakes that innocent people pay for.
In Brazil [wikipedia.org], a fly landed on a typewriter and an innocent man was imprisoned as an accused terrorist and later killed. A government functionary was assigned to correct the error, and the bureaucracy led to a lot more trouble and more people getting harassed. Hence the comparison, someone in the bureaucracy makes a typo and the full-force of the government comes in, ruins a life, and takes years to correct.
Whether you liked the movie or not, that's your opinion and I'm fine with your interpretation. I compl
The U.K. Pedophile suspicion fad (Score:2)
It's one of those unexplainable oddities of British culture, like hating redheads. No one seems to know how it got started.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Started in the late 80s with Pedogeddon spread by religious nutjobs because they couldn't ban sex before marriage.
Now porn is being blamed and universally blocked by default on most internet connections by these awful prudes like Claire Perry and her kind.
Sexual demonization has brought up a country of socially inept retards.
Not just here, but in many Christian nations.
No wonder the "white race is dying" is a thing, it literally is. They've been brought up in to hating their own bodies by absolute nutjobs
Dangerous World (Score:3)
The ultimate sabotage tactic. Hack someone's computer and download child porn. Then turn them in.
Re: (Score:2)
Has already happened several times, I believe. And that are only the people that could prove their innocence. There will be a lot more that could not and also some that could but decided not to advertise what happened anyways.
I don't Speak German (Score:2)
Really bad police work (Score:4, Insightful)
Without bothering RTFA, this sounds like horrendously bad police work and he should get a much bigger settlement. Hitting that IP address warrants surveillance, not arrest. After some nominal period of time looking at his traffic, they would have realized it was an anomaly and nobody outside the precinct would have known about it.
In real cases of pedo that get a conviction, there are usually whole hard-drives full of disgusting stuff that gives agents PTSD. You can't get that with a typo.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Noble? It doesn't take much imagination to see how zero tolerance does more harm than good. A half-baked measure based more on emotion and fear than reasoning? Sure, but punishing the innocent 'just in case' is in no way noble.
Re:Zero tolerance has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Zero tolerance has failed (Score:5, Interesting)
"Zero tolerance" is the authoritarian idea that every deviation from what they find acceptable has to be crushed with extreme force. Of course, in the case at hand, the accusation was extreme, but the same shit does happen for things that are nowhere near as bad. And you would think that before destroying a person's life they would double-check they have the right person. But not so, because the authoritarians behind this believe everybody to be guilty and giving people a chance to prove they are innocent is optional.
No, there is nothing at all "noble" with zero tolerance. It is a purely fascist idea. (And yes, I do know the actual definition for "fascism". It fits.)
Re: (Score:2)
3 people lived in the home the IP address was "assigned" to. Only the man was arrested and had his life ruined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yes, that's how all totalitarian states start. After all the Nazis started with noble ideals: economic equality and fairness, free public education, universal healthcare, government retirement benefits, an end to unearned income (capital gains etc.), and nationalization of important industries. It inevitably led to corruption, theft, violence, war, and eventually genocide.
You forgot their desire to be strong, to avenge their defeats, to crush the threats to their safety, to purify their identity, and other motivations that were actually what lead towards corruption, theft, violence, war, and most importantly, genocide.
If the Nazi's had stuck with their other ideas, the world would have been better off, but you see, it was their pride, their anger, their resentment, that drove them, not their more positive ideals.
It's ok though, I understand you have to justify your own weakn
Re: (Score:2)
Wild guess: roman_mir?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/arti... [thetimes.co.uk]
Re:Tuttle or Buttle (Score:4, Funny)
Well that's bloody typical. They've gone back to metric without telling us.
127.0.0.1 Can Still Get you into Trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
On the bright side, with so many addresses, the chance of an accidental IP collision with a different customer is decreased rather significantly, so you're less likely to screw over the wrong person if you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where your typo is. It's not like IP addresses are picked at random out of the entire address space.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct, but the difference is that it DOES depend where your typo is, whereas with IPv4 it almost doesn't depend where your typo is as it's still pretty much guaranteed to point the finger at someone.
Additionally, if your typo is near the end of the IP in IPv6, the odds are good that you'll be pointing at the same customer, something not true in IPv4
Re: (Score:3)