×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Gets 12-Year Jail Sentence For Planting Child Porn On Enemy's Computer

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the do-not-pass-go-do-not-collect-$200 dept.

Crime 448

An anonymous reader writes with an update to a story we discussed in August about Neil Weiner, a man who sought to ruin the life of a school caretaker by planting child pornography on his computer. Weiner has now been convicted on two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of perverting the course of justice. He was sentenced to 12 years in jail. "The judge told Weiner that his plot to have Mr. Thompson sacked and prosecuted very nearly succeeded. Police had been careful not to make public their arrest of the caretaker and only informed those at the school who needed to know, he said. 'But you gratuitously and spitefully informed the local press so that he and his wife suffered the distress of the unwelcome publicity which followed.' Mr. Thompson's health and that of his wife suffered. The judge said: 'There are still those who believe, and probably always will, that he is a pedophile. I am wholly satisfied that Mr. Thompson is innocent.' ... Weiner had discovered the caretaker's password by looking over his shoulder one day and been caught doing so. When Mr. Thompson was asked why he did not change it, he said he wished he had, adding: 'Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

448 comments

Perverting the course of justice. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689170)

What an appropriate charge. Also, this guy can rot.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689246)

And he has an appropriate name for what his job will be when he gets into prison. Neil Weiner will be gobbling down weiners on a daily basis.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (2, Funny)

Norwell Bob (982405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689316)

And the award for Most Obvious Joke That Didn't Need to Be Said goes to.... [tearing envelope].... THAT guy!

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689768)

Except those are Wieners (after the capital of Austria), not Weiners (which should be pronounced like "whiner"...and he'll certainly be doing that as well.)

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (4, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689516)

How much time would his victim have gotten? He should get the same + one year for being an asshole.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689608)

On the other hand, some assholes deserve to be framed. Like my previous boss who fired me because "you were eating too much food at lifetime" and "you were seen watching FOX News while eating your sandwich". What the hell? Is eating and taking a state-mandated lunch break now a crime?

Of course being a contractor I had zero rights to fight this blatant lie..... but I wouldn't mind putting some porn (just regular adult stuff) on her computer so she, too, gets fired. Karma.

Oh. Rockwell Collins.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (1, Flamebait)

ebuck (585470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689726)

You shouldn't be fired because you watch FOX News. You should be rehabilitated.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689834)

You're right.

Rather than expose myself to opposing views that I disagree with, and thereby be more open-minded, I should watch nothing but the pro-"make government bigger" bias of the other channels.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (4, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689746)

Fired is one thing.
Fired, for kiddie porn, is something else entirely.
Simply being accused is enough to ruin your life.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (4, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689786)

Dude, you were a contractor - you can be let go for any reason, even including "I don't like you". All I have to do is call the agency and say "Hey, XXXX is not working out, he's not a good cultural fit here...can you send someone else?"

If you don't like the instability of being a contractor, don't do it - become a permanent employee instead. (possibly for less money, but hey everything in life is a tradeoff)

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689878)

It's not quite that simple.

The corporation signs a 6 month contract which means they can't let you go "just because we changed our mind". They have to provide a reason for why the contract should be nullified, else the other company can sue for breach.

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689804)

Like my previous boss who fired me because "you were eating too much food at lifetime" and "you were seen watching FOX News while eating your sandwich".

You should have called FOX News, I'm sure they would LOVE a story like that.

But in some jobs and/or in some jurisdictions you can be fired for any reason whatsoever (except for those prohibited by law).

Re:Perverting the course of justice. (4, Interesting)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689696)

What an appropriate charge. Also, this guy can rot.

The truly sad thing is that he very well may be rotting alongside victims of the more successful (weren't caught) perverters of justice. Unless, of course, we just assume this is the first time someone has ever attempted this.
 
It'd be interesting to see what percentage of those convicted of possession of child pornography claimed they were framed/had-no-knowledge-of-the-pornography, and how much effort law enforcement spent in checking the validity of those claims.

I suspect that the numbers would be pretty damn disappointing/terrifying.

Completely off-topic (0, Offtopic)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689706)

In your sig, shouldn't that be, "Nationalism is bigotry.", not "Patriotism is bigotry."? If I said, "Go USA!" that would generally be perceived as patriotic; supporting a nation, but not denigrating another. If I said, "USA is number 1!", that would be nationalistic as it says that the USA is above or superior to other nations.

Lethal Weapon VII (5, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689172)

The use of child porn as a weapon will now land you in jail longer than
  • Armed Robbery with an AK-47
  • Shooting into a crowd
  • Selling heroin to children

All of the above combined

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689238)

The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (1, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689628)

The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.

Poor Michael Jackson died too early... He would have loved that idea!

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689694)

Flying naked children are perfectly OK weapons of war.

However, 8X10 glossies of same are classified as illegal WMDs.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (2, Funny)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689264)

Boohoo. The guy was attempting to destroy the life of someone else and get them sent away to prison for a long time. He better start loosening his ass up now so it hurts less when he hits the cell block.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689290)

Actually, it's more of a death sentence. They typically butcher child pornographers and molesters.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689336)

Which was what was going to befall his victim had the person not been cleared. It's only fitting that he now gets put into that spot himself.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689404)

Which was what was going to befall his victim had the person not been cleared. It's only fitting that he now gets put into that spot himself.

Correction, that's exactly what's happening to the person anyway. Just as the judge said, there will forever after be people who are likely going to believe the man is a pedo even after the judge cleared his name. I doubt the press will publish the results of the trial as front page news since it will show that they were fooled by the man. At best perhaps a small article at the bottom of page 18.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689886)

Correction, that's exactly what's happening to the person anyway. Just as the judge said, there will forever after be people who are likely going to believe the man is a pedo even after the judge cleared his name. I doubt the press will publish the results of the trial as front page news since it will show that they were fooled by the man. At best perhaps a small article at the bottom of page 18.

Well add that to the long, long list of crimes that can't be completely undone. If I get beaten up and end up in the hospital I can't ever "undo" that time. If I get permanently injured I won't grow a new leg just because my assailant is convicted to prison and has to pay damages. If you steal or destroy something of personal value to me then money won't get it back. Nothing that leaves scars on your soul will heal from it. In fact, money and valuables are pretty much the only thing you can replace. So your point is right, but don't pretend it's that unique to child porn.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689342)

I brutally murdered 14 women with a pickaxe but at least i didnt touch kids! freeeak!

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689938)

Yeah, that would be horrible if you touched some kids. Clearly raping someone and causing temporary emotion distress is much, much worse than brutally murdering them!

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (4, Interesting)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689550)

There's 3 homicides of prisoners in prison in the UK a year, so clearly they aren't doing a good job of the butchering you expect.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (4, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689462)

That's the point. The social stigma and legal punishments for what amounts to a thought-crime (mere possession of child pornography, not the creation of it) is above crimes that cause real, tangible harm to other people.

Instead of pinning child porn on the caretaker, he could have just outright shot him and suffered a more lenient fate*.

* Assuming, of course, GP is being factual in the list of crimes that have more lenient punishments.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689572)

Instead of pinning child porn on the caretaker, he could have just outright shot him and suffered a more lenient fate*.

* Assuming, of course, GP is being factual in the list of crimes that have more lenient punishments.

Except none of what he states is relevant to either murder (which is a mandatory life sentence in England) or attempted murder. Both of which are far more stringently punished then what happened here.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689710)

Both of which are far more stringently punished then what happened here.

Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. Point withdrawn.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689712)

WRONG! By possessing child porn you are supporting the scum that ARE ABUSING CHILDREN to create it in the first place.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (2, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689906)

WRONG! You are only supporting the scum that ARE ABUSING CHILDREN if you pay for child porn (directly or through ads, whatever).

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (2, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689854)

The GP doesn't say shot. He could rob the caretaker at gunpoint, put not shoot him.

I'm sure if you took a shot at a kid they'd give you at least 12 years.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689570)

Yeah, and i suppose it is worse than ACTUALLY destroying someone's life, permanently? As in, you know, KILLING them?
Yes, the tool definitely deserves to be punished, but that sentencing is messed up, regardless of how much of a dick he was.

You're the kind of mob-mentality that probably stands outside "convicted" pedophiles doors throwing stuff at them.
The whole "taboo", witch-hunt of the 21st century over child porn, pedophilia and so on is pathetic.
You can have your entire life ruined for being a moderator on a forum because of retardedness like this if someone just happens to come along and post some child porn. Or worse, you just happened to come across the thumbnails, or even worse than that, the full image!
And yes, some people are so technically illiterate that people have been screwed over because of a web browsers cache. Even years after the image was cached.
A pedo is no worse than any other sexual predator. They should be treated the same.

And before people come in crying over how children are so innocent, just get out.
I can't count how many times people have been screwed over by children. I know some personally, and i could bet most people here have or do too.
Children aren't innocent in the slightest, children are pricks, you should know, you were one, they abuse their position in law all the damn time.
If anything, children should have stricter laws created for them. I'm getting a bit sick of children getting off for robbing stores with knives or some shit like that, but some poor twat who browsed 4chan for a day is getting pummelled in the ass by some dude with more metal in his mouth than the jail cells door.
And don't get me started on the "children can't make good decisions at that age" bullshit either. Children are forced in to deciding their entire futures at 8-14 years of age all across the world. They seem to be perfectly capable of that, right? Sex? "YOU MONSTER, DIE A MILLION TIMES! THEY CAN'T DO THAT! SICK FUCK!!" Mm, yes, apparently nature is a lying bastard too.

Fuck society. And fuck people who think like that. People like that have ruined society. Both the children and the ones who defend them.

Apologies for the profanity.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689604)

Yeah, and i suppose it is worse than ACTUALLY destroying someone's life, permanently? As in, you know, KILLING them?

No. Nice strawman, though. If he had murdered the guy he would be facing a mandatory life sentence rather than this 12 years.

BTW, I'm not a "think of the children person". The fact that he tried to destroy this person's life with child porn is irrelevant. He could have tried to frame him for any other number of things and I still wouldn't feel a lick of sympathy for him.

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689754)

Is there any doubt that this sentence was motivated by revenge and not justice? If anyone can actually put an ounce of trust in such a legal system, then please, do tell us why.

If I was the victim, I'd want redemption, not justice. I wonder how much redemption (yes, meaning cold hard cash) this victim will actually see. I'm guessing zero.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (4, Insightful)

Faluzeer (583626) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689792)

Hmmm

It will also get you a longer sentence than abusing hundreds of children as in the following case [bbc.co.uk]

The above case seems to be remarkably lenient, given the sheer scale of the abuse I would have thought a life sentence would have been more appropriate.

Re:Lethal Weapon VII (1, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689902)

None of the above.

Armed Robbery with an AK-47 amounts to an aggravated felony (robbery aggravated by use of a weapon) plus a weapons charge (assuming the AK is not legally owned) that would run a couple of decades' jail time.

Shooting into a crowd would be 18-1/2 years at least, times one count per bullet fired. Add more if anyone gets injured. Add the noose if anyone dies.

Selling heroin to children also 18-1/2 years, per count.

You may have anecdotal evidence that judges have given out smaller sentences for such things, but there would be mitigation such as cooperation in other investigations, lack of intent, etc, to get those reductions.

Who would've thought? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689214)

"Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?'"

Maybe I'm becoming disillusioned and cynical as I grow older, but my first response to this was "who wouldn't?" (Also: "would could"?)

That said, Thompson has my sincerest sympathy; what Weiner did was really horrible, and no man or woman should have to endure this.

12 Years, not enough (2, Informative)

Faatal (1907534) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689218)

Should have been much longer in my opinion.

Re:12 Years, not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689274)

Should have been much longer in my opinion.

12 years for one count of perverting the justice system plus 5 years for possession of child porn, concurrent sentences. I came up with 17 total years in prison, but perhaps my comprehension was off...

Re:12 Years, not enough (2, Informative)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689402)

Yes, you should check your comprehension, because concurrent sentences means served in parallel. Consecutive sentences means served serially.

But more interestingly is that sexual predators (I have no idea whether this guy fits that or not) more or less have a life sentence because after their prison time is up, they can get administrative detention forever if no one believes that they have reformed.

Re:12 Years, not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689436)

Concurrent means at the same time. Consecutive would be if one followed the other. Your comprehension error is in the meaning of the word concurrent.

Live and learn (5, Insightful)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689220)

Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

This clearly illustrates that until lay persons learn to think otherwise in terms of privacy and security on systems and networks; nothing is going to get better.

Re:Live and learn (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689306)

After having seen what people with Personality Disorders are capable of, I could've thought that they would've stooped even lower than this.

Re:Live and learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689486)

If I were Mr. Thompson, I'd be finding out who are the baddest criminals that share a cell block with this asshole, and I'd gladly donate $20 a week to their concessions account to make sure that he is treated justly while in prison.

Who would have thought? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689650)

I am surprised it hasn't happened sooner. I'd even bet that it has, just that in this case the perp was caught. I think 12 years is pretty lenient. This was not a joke, it was clearly very malicious.

Re:Live and learn (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689920)

It's not up to him to keep his computer secure. It's up to the miscreant not to commit the crime.

Not suprising... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689240)

This isn't surprising when you have laws forbidding the possession of information and a stigma that persists if someone were to openly come against ridiculous laws simply forbidding possession of information.

Re:Not suprising... (2, Interesting)

Norwell Bob (982405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689296)

I must be reading your post incorrectly, because what I'm getting from it is that you consider child pornography to be 'information'. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Re:Not suprising... (0)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689372)

Any particular series of bits is information.

Re:Not suprising... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689482)

Actually not. Any particular series of bits is data. If it has any meaning to a sentient being it's information.

Or did I get that wrong?

Re:Not suprising... (1)

Norwell Bob (982405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689820)

Yes, yes. Semantics aside, I believe you understand the spirit of my post. But, whatever. It's more fun to be a pedant.

Re:Not suprising... (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689460)

It is, in several senses.

information
noun
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news:information [information] concerning a crime.
2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data:His wealth of general information is amazing.
8. Computers.
8.a. important or useful facts obtained as output from a computer by means of processing input data with a program:Using the input data, we have come up with some significant new information.
8.b. data at any stage of processing (input, output, storage, transmission, etc.).

1. It documents a fact or circumstance of a crime that was committed.
2. It's factual information about what the people represented look like.
8. It's the processed form of the data that came from a CCD, for instance.

I think the first one is the most important. The problem with such laws is that any handling of it is likely to get you in trouble, which heavily discourages reporting it to the police should somebody come across it.

Re:Not suprising... (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689654)

Technically it's just a string of binary you're posesssing, and he do have a point in the stigmatisation. Had Mr Thompson been accused of murdering children instead he certainly wouldn't have been spit upon. And had Mrs Thompson had affairs with schoolchildren it too would've passed with lesser spite.

From a personal point i would much rather prefer to be laid by Mrs Thompson while in 3rd grade, and if i instead had to chose between Mr Weiner the Butt-rape-bandit and Mr Manson the maniac-murderer, the choice is obvious, though the stigmatisation said persons would face is not in line with that choice.
The stigmatisation is also bad in that politicians can, and do, use it as a straw man for promoting draconian laws(and internet filters) of various kinds, and if anyone opposes then they are obviously pedophiles.

Re:Not suprising... (3, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689840)

I once saw photos taken by a (IIRC) French photographer at the previous turn of the century (1900s) of nude adolescent girls playing in the water. That's all. Nothing sexual about it. They're about as arousing as a table leg. I can't remember the photographer's name, but that's beside the point. In other countries, he's considered a great artist. In the US a child pornographer.

We in the US have retarded attitudes towards sex and we are the twisted ones. If you think nude pictures of child are pornography, then that means you find them arousing and that you are the sick bastard.

All those judges who ruled that pictures of children are pornography are the perverts.

We in the US are pretty much perverts.

Re:Not suprising... (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689356)

Waaaaaah. I'm so broken up inside over people getting in trouble for possessing pictures and videos taking of people being raped. Oh how sad it is for them.

Re:Not suprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689364)

You are truly an asshole

Re:Not suprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689530)

Lol, go die.

Re:Not suprising... (5, Insightful)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689660)

You are correct. Possession of anything as a crime makes it extremely easy to frame people, and interferes with presumption of innocence (since it doesn't care how that came into your possession, only that it existed). It is also extremely difficult to change, since wanting to fix a broken system leads to you being called a witch yourself.

And the parent may have been flamebait, but it seems like the natural conversation for this story.

Mr Weiner (1)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689270)

Mr Weiner will be very popular amongst his jailmates with a name like that.

Re:Mr Weiner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689640)

If Mr. Weiner violates prison rules, will the guards put Mr. Weiner in the hole?

Kudos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689362)

I don't usually agree with arresting people for possession of child pornography, but considering this asshole distributed the pictures by copying them onto somebody else's computer and nearly cost that person his freedom, I say the sentence is well deserved.

hypocritical ignorant victim (-1, Troll)

Mike Da. Kristopeit (1905338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689368)

Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

the "would could could" aside.... REALLY? in your WORST nightmares people aren't stooping low enough to commit homicide? no physical harm at all? a tarnished reputation later exonerated by a judge is your WORST nightmare? why do you think passwords exist? because accessing your account is something someone might do... having the password already acknowledges this threat...

i feel no remorse for a victim who would hypocritically exaggerate the truth to the media and attempt to exploit their reach to create more sympathy for yourself and more hatred towards the already convicted offender. you can't have it both ways. if you want to whine about someone using the media, don't turn your back and do the exact same thing with your own exaggerated hypotheticals.

how is this for a nightmare: what do you think this guy is going to do when he gets out in 12 years?

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689500)

the "would could could" aside.... REALLY? in your WORST nightmares people aren't stooping low enough to commit homicide? no physical harm at all?

Unlike you, not everybody is a twisted sociopathic asshole. Many people are "good", and can't imagine that someone could attempt to destroy someone else's life.

a tarnished reputation later exonerated by a judge is your WORST nightmare?

Sorry, but "what he did" wasn't an attempt to get the guy exhonerated - "what he did" was attempt to destroy the man's life. And he very nearly succeeded.

So pull your head out of your ass, your brain is starving for oxygen.

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (0, Troll)

Mike Da. Kristopeit (1905338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689526)

unlike you, i'm not a coward.

you are NOTHING

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689626)

unlike you, i'm not a coward.

you are NOTHING

He/she is something. Something you're not, in fact: Right.

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (1)

Mike Dav. Kristopeit (1905334) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689732)

the "NON" in ANONYMOUS confirms "He/she" is NOTHING.

and, as i already stated, having a password already acknowledges the threat of someone else accessing your account. this would be the same as having locks on your doors, using them improperly, and then crying to the media that they never imagined it was possible when someone enters their home and causes them harm from their most vulnerable place.

the only fact is simple... you are NOTHING

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689504)

what makes you think this guy is going to be in jail any time close to 12 years?

As for hyperbole, it may have been an exageraiton, and it is not as bad as many other things in life, but if it happened to me I would freak out too.

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689926)

what makes you think this guy is going to be in jail any time close to 12 years?

AFAIK they don't generally keep people in prison after they're dead, so I'd agree with that.

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (5, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689610)

If you RTFA, you'd know both the man and his family were subjected to months of abuse while the investigation proceeded, and the abuse occurred because the guy framing him leaked the charge to the news media. Yes, he should have changed his password, but that just puts him in the same category as the overwhelming majority of people who don't keep their office computers sufficiently secure.

And yes, for many people, being accused of pedophelia IS worse than being charged with murder. I know a man who lost his job, his house and his family while his case dragged through the courts. The whole town thought he was guilty. He was beaten twice, once very severely. The kids who accused him eventually recanted their stories, but the damage was done. So you can take your self-righteousness and shove it straight up your ass.

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (2)

M. D. Kristopeit (1890086) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689846)

i have no problem with anything until the victim attempts to exploit the media to further harm a convicted and sentenced man.

that is a hypocritical act of malice and vengeance, and can only serve to discredit the justice system.

we'll all see how the show ends in <12 years, and whether or not continued agitation of the situation was the "good" move.

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689866)

Shit, it's basically impossible to keep your computer "sufficiently secure" from anybody who has physical access to it all weekend like a co-worker. If someone wants to plant something on your machine, they're going to be able to do it. Even if you're paranoid and encrypt your hard drive and take your laptop home with you every night someone can still come in and stick a keylogger in your keyboard. Then it's just 10 minutes one lunchtime and you're forced to literally live under a bridge [aolnews.com], alone and penniless until you die. That's the power of invoking one of our cultures most forbidden taboos.

Re:hypocritical ignorant victim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689728)

You feel no sympathy for a guy who was almost put into a cage for maybe a decade and even without that is forever branded as human scum through no action of their own?

What the fuck? It's a heretofore unseen version of the "it wasn't rape because she wore a short skirt" defense.

Do you realize that "who in their worst nightmares would think somebody did $TERRIBLE_THING_THAT_ACTUALLY_HAPPENED" is not like "Hey guys, did you know X is a criminal who does $THING_THAT_HE_DIDNT_DO_AND_IN_FACT_I_DID"?

Also, you're misrepresenting what he said. He asked who would in their worst nightmare would imagine this. Not, "okay guys, list out your nightmares, we're going to rank them best to worst, and we want to see if mine is at the bottom".

And, you're misrepresenting what the nightmare was. The nightmare wasn't a tarnished reputation and exoneration. The nightmare was having incriminating criminal and career-destroying evidence planted on your computer. To draw a parallel with the other things you said, it's like you argued that the worst nightmare is that you lived another day with no injury rather than somebody attempting to kill you, even if they didn't succeed.

Very sad (1)

StaceyRey (687641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689376)

The depths to which people will stoop to prevail over another are astounding.

Mr. Weiner is fortunate that he only got 12 years. And if the inmates on the inside find out that he was using kiddie porn as his means to an end, he is going to have a very, very long 12 years.

up next. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689430)

frame someone for trying to frame you for having child porn.

recursive crime

What a Happy Optimist Mr. Thompson Is... (5, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689456)

'Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

When I was growing up, my dad once told me something along the lines of, "Boy, think of the worst, meanest, most downright, terrible thing you would be willing to do to someone that you truly hated. Now, you can safely make the assumption that someone else out there could come up with something worse if you give them enough reason. Remember that."

I always did.

Re:What a Happy Optimist Mr. Thompson Is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689564)

I am sad for you, if you always expect the worst to happen. Even when you cross the road, do you think what someone might do to you?

Re:What a Happy Optimist Mr. Thompson Is... (1)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689814)

I am sad for you, if you always expect the worst to happen. Even when you cross the road, do you think what someone might do to you?

This particular AC is completely missing the point. The moral is to treat others well because if you are not nice, people will be more vindictive than you imagine.

Re:What a Happy Optimist Mr. Thompson Is... (0, Flamebait)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689856)

I am sad for you. You're too spineless to stick your name to your comments and yet have the gall to go on and question the realism I was raised with. If you're going to question my lifestyle, have the backbone to show your face Coward.

Now that that's out of the way, when I cross the road, I do not sit around and ponder the possibility that some maniac is going to maliciously and intentionally run me down with his car. I do, however, keep my eyes up and my gaze shifting back and forth so that I remain alert for the potential idiocy that is so prevalent in this world. Likewise, when dealing with people, I lock my gaze on their face and pay attention to how they react to my words and actions. I make a point to take mental notes if it appears that I've angered or hurt someone, and I remain even more vigilant when dealing with that person in the future. Of course, I apologize if I've overstepped a line and done something stupid myself.

I am not, nor was my father, saying that you should always assume the the worst will always happen. You misread his advice. He was saying that you should always assume that there is the potential for the worst to happen, and that you should remain vigilant for such instances. This world isn't made up of unicorns and candy canes Princess. Sometimes bad shit happens for reasons that could be avoided if all parties involved remained vigilant. A real human, a mature human, recognizes this simple fact and stands with his or her gaze leveled on the horizon.

Why is it a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689508)

to have a picture of a naked child on your computer? Is this a federal law or a state/local law?

Re:Why is it a crime (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689802)

Usually both. It's a state/local crime to posses it, and a federal crime if they can prove you moved it across state lines (including electronically). In this case it's a UK law though, because that's where this particular story happened. I'd venture to guess that there are a *very* small number places in the Western World where it's not a crime, if any at all.

Hahahaha His Name is Weiner... hahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689574)

What a dick.

You fail at nightmares (2, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689614)

Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

While I can understand some naivity, it's not like computer kiddie porn is the first witch hunt.

Whether criminalizing kiddie porn is a good idea or a bad one (I can understand the viewpoint of the porn enabling the crimes / creating the demand), when you have thoughtcrimes on the books, everyone really should be expecting that sometimes innocent people will be harmed. I think that when someone says they can't believe it would happen, they probably really mean that they think it'll probably never happen to them. Probably.

Re:You fail at nightmares (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689930)

Possession of child porn isn't a thought crime. It's an anti-trafficking law. You try to catch the creators, but you also go against the consumers. Law of supply and demand and all that. Possession (which supports production), which is what you're being punished for, is not a thought.

There do seem to be a lot of people who take it too far, particularly lately, but the actual law is not a thought crime law.

Re:You fail at nightmares (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689934)

Whether criminalizing kiddie porn is a good idea or a bad one (I can understand the viewpoint of the porn enabling the crimes / creating the demand), when you have thoughtcrimes on the books,

Intentionally acquiring child porn isn't a thought, it's an action. It's not a crime to be a paedophile, the crime lies in the associated activities.

I could kill someone and get a shorter sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33689688)

12 years is a bit excessive.

This would have worked (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689782)

... if the guy hadn't blabbed.

More than anything else, this is the single best reason for keeping your security tight and your password secret - especially from caretakers, who will have free, unfettered and prolonged access to your work computers after you've gone home..

Good job! (2, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689916)

Police had been careful not to make public their arrest of the caretaker and only informed those at the school who needed to know, he said.

Good for them, exercising a bit of restraint while the suspect was not yet proven guilty!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...