Beta
×

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 Barred From Being Alone With Daughter After Informing Police of Porn On PC

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the too-much-information dept.

Government 777

First time accepted submitter robably writes "A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months. Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November. As a result social services said he 'should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.'"

cancel ×

777 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bottom line: never cooperate with the authorities (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277421)

That is all.

Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (5, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277525)

Clearly, there is a moral lesson here: if you don't know enough about your computers to keep child porn off them, you will probably not be an effective parent. East Riding social services should be complimented for bringing to light this previously unknown connection. Perhaps other similar relationships exist, such as improperly weeded gardens leading to revocation of driver's licences, or lawyers disbarred for insufficient knowledge of breakfast cereal jingles.

Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277671)

How about Samsung lawyers that can't identify the products in question during a case based on the appearance of said products?

Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (5, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277695)

It reminds me of that episode of COPS which opens with an elderly woman in a gas station. The woman holds up a rock of crack, telling the cop it was she that called them because somebody sold her that rock of crack.

The episode comes to a close immedately as the cops cuff her on the spot without question and take her in.

I thought this was known by now (5, Informative)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277425)

If you find something like that, you do NOT report it.

It doesn't matter if you obtained it, you will likely take the fall.

Re:I thought this was known by now (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277437)

They're from the government and they're here to help. Trust them.

Re:I thought this was known by now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277449)

But... *they* tell you to report it.
You don't want to act against *their* wishes, do you?

Re:I thought this was known by now (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277461)

Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished.

Re:I thought this was known by now (5, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277829)

Indeed. From TFA: "Mr Robinson said: 'It makes you feel as though you shouldn't have reported it in the first place'."

Never EVER trust the police. Any police. When I was in the USAF stationed at Dover in 1972, I had barracks duty one day and the duty sergent came to me as I was sweeping, held up a hand rolled something and said "what's this?" I replied, well, it's either a cigarette or a joint."

"How do you tell?" I took it, broke it open, and said "It's green. It's a joint."

So the stupid old man asks "what should I do about it?"

I told him to throw it in the dumpster and forget about it. He said "I dunno, maybe I should report it?"

I told him "if you do, all you'll accomplish is sitting around filling paperwork about it for two days."

When I saw him the next day he said "you were right, I should have just thrown it away. Damned assholes treated me like a criminal and I had to fill out paperwork all damned afternoon. Now I'm behind in my real work."

Re:I thought this was known by now (4, Informative)

Loualbano2 (98133) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277581)

Be careful.

From: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C110.txt [house.gov]

-HEAD-
        Sec. 2258. Failure to report child abuse

-STATUTE-
A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.

So if you're working on a machine, see CP and don't report it, you are on the hook.

Re:I thought this was known by now (2)

mk1004 (2488060) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277801)

Be careful.

From: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C110.txt [house.gov]

-HEAD- Sec. 2258. Failure to report child abuse

-STATUTE- A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.

So if you're working on a machine, see CP and don't report it, you are on the hook.

From the snippet it looks like this statute applies to employees or contractors working on federal land, not individuals. Of course, if you get child porn on your computer 'accidentally' and the police find you before you report it, you'll still be in a world of hurt. I wouldn't be surprised if the government has some way of tracking traffic from known sites hosting child porn and those downloading it.

Re:I thought this was known by now (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277887)

Funny since they have prosecuted teenagers for receiving what was deemed CP even though they never opened the file.

So not only was he guilty of having it, even without his knowledge; but also guilty of not reporting it, again without his knowledge.

Re:I thought this was known by now (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277935)

I wonder if the staff at Penn State read this. :)

Re:I thought this was known by now (1, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277599)

If you find something like that, you do NOT report it.

How about we wait and see what the result is here before we make wide generalisations. The guy isn't under arrest. The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why. The guy does have child pornography on his laptop; it's not like a reasonably likely cause of that isn't himself. There is a chance, I couldn't guess on odds, that the guy had looked at child pornography and was concerned his details may have gotten to the police. I think it is pretty reasonable for the police to want to make sure that isn't the case and I can see why they are concerned about him being left alone with a child in the meanwhile.

The other option he had, assuming he is innocent, is to delete it and hope that the police don't come knocking about the fact his laptop was used to download some child porn. Having deleted it isn't exactly in his favour if that came before a jury. Obviously the odds are small. Finally, clearly the child pornography was there because someone put it there. Either he did it by accident (which may be possible if he was downloading something else shady) or someone else is using his laptop to do it. They might do it again and they won't get caught if he didn't report it.

Re:I thought this was known by now (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277683)

The guy isn't under arrest. The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why.

So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.

The guy does have child pornography on his laptop; it's not like a reasonably likely cause of that isn't himself.

So he reported his own child pornography to the police?

There is a chance, I couldn't guess on odds, that the guy had looked at child pornography and was concerned his details may have gotten to the police.

So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?

I think it is pretty reasonable for the police to want to make sure that isn't the case and I can see why they are concerned about him being left alone with a child in the meanwhile.

So why even bother with courts and trials? If the police suspect someone is guilty, we should immediately start procedures to protect everyone else from that dangerous person! Presumption of innocence? System of laws? Why bother?

Re:I thought this was known by now (4, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277897)

So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?

It's like reporting your car stolen to hide the fact that you were the getaway driver.

Re:I thought this was known by now (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277973)

So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter?

Yes, the state can look out for the welfare of his child while they investigate the rather peculiar circumstances whereby "I downloaded music," morphs magically into "somehow that child porn got on my computer."

So he reported his own child pornography to the police?

So we'll imagine any conspiracy possible that will explain why he's innocent, but nobody can imagine a single scenario where this could happen? Because I sure can. Man downloads child porn. Wife finds it, freaks out. Man, in damage control mode, goes "but honey, I swear I would never do this, I thought I was downloading music! I'll report the very serious crime I was an unwitting victim of right away!" Wife accompanies him down to the station, where they file report alleging that "somebody out there in those magic tubes gave my sweet innocent husband child pornography when he thought he was downloading the latest Michael Buble album!"

Here's the thing: I've never once downloaded an MP3 from amazon, or itunes, or emusic, or an independent artist's distribution site, and ended up with child pornography. So I naturally find the claim of "I thought I was downloading music, but turns out it was pictures and video of a 6 year old being raped," to be a little hard to swallow.

The police have to investigate the reported crime; given that this man was doing "something" online that resulted in his laptop getting some child porn on it, it's not unreasonable to think that he might have downloaded them intentionally, and then hoped to cover his ass by acting out his mock outrage in front of the police when he the files were discovered by, say, his wife.

Re:I thought this was known by now (2, Insightful)

s0nicfreak (615390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277685)

I'd rather be arrested than be legally barred from being alone with my children.

I can't even appreciate why this was done. If someone was found to be looking at adult porn, would you forbid them from being alone with adult women? What about their adult offspring?

Re:I thought this was known by now (3, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277717)

I think I would have securely deleted it, then reported that I was trying to download some music and it was a CP site, report it that way. Likely it is a techonophobe ruling that because it was on your PC then you intentionally put it there.
By saying you saw it elsewhere you are dutifully reporting it as mandated while not admitting that you were in possession. I doubt they'd make the connection that to see it you copied it at least to your browser cache.
-nB

Re:I thought this was known by now (0, Troll)

holmedog (1130941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277739)

Thank you for this post. I know everyone around here instantly jumps to the defense of the person conceived to be wronged, but the simple fact is the social services worker made a judgement call that there was a non-trivial chance that the porn came from the man himself. I can actually see this being the case.

Anyone who has lurked 4chan in the past (poor, poor souls) will know of a similar phenomenon. The people who are in such a hurry to push the report button are usually the ones slamming f5 on the thread and hoping their report makes them look like a good guy instead of a pervert.

Re:I thought this was known by now (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277817)

You say he isn't under arrest, but at some levels what's going on is even worse. My wife works nights as we can't afford day care, this would effectively force me to hire a baby sitter to supervise me with my own children. Let children service come in, see if there is ANY evidence of abuse and if not, then assume for a moment the guy is innocent since he is the one who brought it to the police's attention. If you find evidence it may have been him, then reconsider, but this seems really harsh.

One of my sisters-in-law is a heroinatic and my other sister-in-law is trying to get custody of her son; every time the clean one find heroin needles in her house (and typically where the kids could reach it) she refuses to call the police as she doesn't want to get in trouble and doesn't want children services investigating her. In a better world with a better system, she would call and would have all the evidence she needs to get custody of my nephew. Punishing parents like this makes the world a worse place, not a better.

Re:I thought this was known by now (4, Insightful)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277877)

Dude, wait and see? Do you have a clue as to how costly this shit is to fight? The State has stepped in and forced him into supervised visits with his own daughter. Can you imagine the emotional turmoil of something like this happening to you? And guess what? At the end of it, he'll be cleared and The State will turn and walk away. They will not even apologize. In fact, there will now be animosity because they "lost". Wait and see... are you fucking kidding me?

Re:I thought this was known by now (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277983)

The ban on being alone with his daughter seems overly harsh but I can appreciate why.

You're not a parent obviously. Not being able to be alone with my daughter would be devastating to me and my family. Not only is it unwarranted, unjust, and probably unconstitutional, it is also massively disruptive to the day to day workings of the modern family. This isn't the freakin 60s, I have an active and important role in my child's life; I get her out of bed in the morning, take her to day care, take off work when she's sick... etc etc. There is a chance that he looked up child porn, but this 'precaution' is being implemented on essentially zero evidence and without any due process.

Also, 4 months? They're worried about him spending 5 minutes alone with his own child and it's been 4 months without any decision as to whether he's a violent sexual predator or a good, (overly-)responsible parent. So which is it? Is he so dangerous he can't be trusted with his own flesh and blood or is he so innocuous that there's no need to actually, you know... investigate him?

Bingo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277749)

NEVER go to government. Let them come to you. If they have determined that there is a problem (and that's for them to decide, not you), then you will be engaged. If they don't know (very possible) or don't care (also very possible), then you will not be engaged, and hence there was never a problem in the first place.

If you go to government when there is no need, what "good" can come of it? You really need to learn some risk management. The downside risk here absolutely dwarfs any "good" that could come from engaging government. At the very least, you will lose in the form of hassle, time, and money. At the most? I think we all know the answer to that.

Government doesn't engage a citizen unless they want something from him. When a citizen engages government, the people making the decisions don't ask "how can we help this citizen?", but rather "what do we want from this citizen?" If they can't determine what they want, then you will cut your losses at the hassle stage. If they can determine what they want, your losses are potentially unlimited.

Example: If I witness a violent crime, then yes, I will do the right thing and report what I know. This is the exception rather than the rule.

Example: If I am rear-ended by a careless driver resulting in a dent on my bumper, I tell him not to worry about it and move on. This is the rule rather than the exception.

Re:I thought this was known by now (5, Informative)

softwareGuy1024 (2564569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277769)

Indeed, you should be careful reporting anything illegal. Remember this guy [wikipedia.org] . Unfortunately many law enforcement agents would rather go after a whistle blower, who may be easier to prosecute, then build up a case against the real criminals.

I've said it before... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277427)

And I'll say it again. Never, ever, under any circumstances, contact the police unless your life is in danger and they are your only hope. NEVER
 
You will only end up much worse off than you were before you called them.

Re:I've said it before... (2, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277491)

I'd say never contact them no matter what. Better to die.

Re:I've said it before... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277539)

I'd say never contact them no matter what. Better to die.

Which is what is known as "natural selection".

Re:I've said it before... (4, Funny)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277923)

Yeah. No Valhalla for you.

Re:I've said it before... (5, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277511)

Yep. Call them only if:
1) You can accept that someone will be arrested, and
2) The situation is so bad that you don't mind if that someone is you

If being arrested isn't better than whatever's happening, don't call them. Period.

Re:I've said it before... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277929)

What screwed up country do you life in? Arround here the police officers are actually pretty nice and helpful.

Re:I've said it before... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277541)

Mod parent....more insightful..

And if you are not sure, watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]

Re:I've said it before... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277553)

So if I hear gunshots from next door and then I see a stranger exit my neighbor's house covered in blood and drive away in their car, I should just go back to watching TV. Right.

Re:I've said it before... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277595)

Probably. They might run out of leads and try to pin it on you.

Re:I've said it before... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277611)

Yes, unless you want to be investigated for the murder of your neighbor.

Re:I've said it before... (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277631)

If you don't want to be arrested for murdering your neighbor, yes.

Re:I've said it before... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277613)

A man who turns to the law grabs a wolf by the ears.

Re:I've said it before... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277673)

I don't think that saying means what you think that saying means.

Re:I've said it before... (4, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277635)

At first sight, this behaviour from the police is self detrimental, because people who report stuff are useful and alienating them makes criminals safer.

In truth this behaviour maximises the control of police over both people and their own work. Over people, because those who didn't report and are later discovered become automatically suspects, so they can be threatened. Over their own work, because nobody can accuse them of failing to investigate or succeed in their investigation after a report, if nobody reports.

If you expect people in power finding ways to maximise control, no matter under what flag, religion, or ideology, you usually explain things better than the theory that incompetence reigns over c.

Re:I've said it before... (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277653)

..ommon sense.

Re:I've said it before... (3, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277659)

Yeah, you beat me to it.

For those who haven't seen it:

Don't Talk to the Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]

He man not have had a choice (5, Insightful)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277701)

``Honey, what's this on your computer?''

`What's what? Oh! That!'

``How did it get there honey?''

`Uh, I don't know. It must have gotten downloaded when I was downloading music or something.'

``We should call the police.''

`Uh, yeah, we should do that.'

Careful with anecdotes (5, Interesting)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277773)

I recently had a great experience with police. We had a break-in, and all the laptops were stolen. Fortunately we had Prey on one of them, and it tracked the thieves to a hotel in a nearby town. The local police investigated and recovered almost everything. We drove over the next day and brought them brownies.

Re:I've said it before... (5, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277813)

Sadly this is true.
We were broken into, lived in a seedy part of town, called the PD.
They showed up and saw some glassware (what most nerds would consider basic chemistry needs) and assumed I was a drug cooker.
I had to dig out all the science kits I bought for my kids and actually show them a basic science experiment (viscoelastic fluid using cornstarch and water), which my children happily explained to them, before they would back off on their obvious intent to arrest me.
On the bright side I think the cop that was actually paying attention actually learned that a similar fluid is responsible for his transmission's torque converter functioning properly, as well as the fan clutch for his car's radiator.

Go figure.
-nB

Re:I've said it before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277853)

Am I one of the few who still think the police are generally there for the greater good? I'm sure mistakes are made, power can go to the head, and some cops will make some poor choices. Yet, I still at least *want* to believe that the police are there for the greater good.

Re:I've said it before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277857)

And I'll say it again. Never, ever, under any circumstances, contact the police unless your life is in danger and they are your only hope. NEVER You will only end up much worse off than you were before you called them.

I would normally agree with you except this case may be the exception. If these images were floating around in the cloud so this father could stumble across them there is a good chance that the "authorities" knew about them and also knew that a certain ip address (father) had downloaded them. It might be best to call them before they knock on your door with a battering ram. It would be a hard call for me to make. Side note: I am guessing a "social worker" made this call. The "social worker" is probably paid $15 and hour and given a three ring binder with the rules and a 200+ cases. I bet if the father plays it cool and works his way up the ladder he can work things out.

Re:I've said it before... (2)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277963)

Sometimes it is necessary to contact them for insurance purposes.

After all, how are you going to prove to the insurance company that your car was stolen?

What else did he expect? (5, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277431)

"Hi, police, I am currently committing the crime of possession of child pornography, here's my name and address..."

Re:What else did he expect? (4, Interesting)

Meshach (578918) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277493)

"Hi, police, I am currently committing the crime of possession of child pornography, here's my name and address..."

Also imagine if the police did nothing. Then the headline would be "Man with child pornography on his computer allowed unsupervised visits with children". I do not know what he is criticizing.

Re:What else did he expect? (4, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277681)

Sounds to me like social services just found the guy's name involved in a child porn investigation and assume he's dangerous. This doesn't seem to be an issue of bad police intentionally making somebody's life miserable, but rather a miscommunication that now has to be investigated, verified, checked, reviewed, and accepted by half a dozen different departments before any resolution will come about.

To be blunt (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277445)

Never talk to the Pigs. There is never, and has never been any interaction with the police that will ever benefit you in any way.

Re:To be blunt (3, Funny)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277521)

Never talk to the Pigs. There is never, and has never been any interaction with the police that will ever benefit you in any way.

You forgot to add: "...unless you're filthy rich."

Re:To be blunt (3, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277643)

But you still don't do it then. You have your lawyers do it.

Dumb (5, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277447)

People expect reason and common sense from the authorities are dumb. I remember a friend of mine reported his roomate for child porn and the police came and took ALL the computers in the place. His roomates and his. They tried their best to implicate him as well as his roomate in the illegal pictures but couldn't quite stretch it far enough so settled for keeping his computers. He never got them back and I guess they scared him so bad he was happy not to be in jail. He said he'd never call the police again if his life depended on it.

Re:Dumb (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277499)

Yep the police are not there to protect you, they are there to punish people, and keep the rabble in line. Sure sometimes some people need punishment but the police operate from the standpoint that everyone needs punishment and if they punish you wrongly well the court system is there and it will be taken care of.

It basically all comes back to the saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

Re:Dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277879)

It basically all comes back to the saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I prefer "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull."

Re:Dumb (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277527)

It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying. If the police assume he's telling the truth they risk putting a child in danger (and failing in their duty to protect the innocent) but if they assume he's lying then they can take measures.

Re:Dumb (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277549)

Janet Reno? Is that you?

Re:Dumb (3, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277641)

It's Pascal's wager for cops :

A) Guy's a pedophile
Do nothing: a child gets abused, serious reputation damage for police
Do something: child is OK

B) Guy's not a pedophile
Do nothing: child is OK
Do something: minor reputation damage for police

Not difficult to see which option the police should be choosing there.

Re:Dumb (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277711)

Logical Conclusion:

Arrest everybody for being a pedophile. Just in case. You can always establish your innocence later.

Re:Dumb (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277787)

Logical Conclusion:

Arrest everybody for being a pedophile. Just in case. You can always establish your innocence later.

Stop... Giving... them... ideas. OK? They might take you seriously. If they could, they would arrest everyone in sight. just in case.

Re:Dumb (0)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277921)

Everybody who is in possession of child pornography will need to prove they are innocent, even if self-reported, yes. How is that a bad thing ?

Re:Dumb (1)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277591)

It's common sense for the police to treat the man as if he's lying. If the police assume he's telling the truth they risk putting a child in danger (and failing in their duty to protect the innocent) but if they assume he's lying then they can take measures.

There's more too it. The UK had a case (Baby P) where the authorities and social services failed dismally. So now they're shit scared of being tarred by that brush. This poor sap who is clueless about computers and the internet is a victim of the overweening and overzealous UK authorities who now don't want to be caught with their pants down.

If the pupetrator was caught with his pants down then he should be castrated and thown in jail for the rest of his natural.

Re:Dumb (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277875)

If the pupetrator was caught with his pants down then he should be castrated and thown in jail for the rest of his natural.

[ insert Muppet joke here ]

In other news- (5, Funny)

Crasoose (1621969) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277459)

The RIAA now has resorted to other means of enforcing their copyrights than normal lawsuits, they have opted instead to inject illegal photos into popular music torrents. More news at 11.

Re:In other news- (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277501)

Damn. That's just so evil it is brilliant. If they aren't doing it yet I bet they soon will.

Re:In other news- (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277551)

But then instead of just being possessors (like this guy) they'd be distributors of child pornography. I would imagine that carries much heftier punishments, enough to give even the RIAA pause.

Re:In other news- (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277805)

You'd first have to prove that it was *them* who contaminated your machine with those photos. They're going to deny it, of course, and you most likely didn't check for the source of those torrent packets. Or do you log the IP addresses of connected peers and your uploaders?

Re:In other news- (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277731)

That chilling thing about this is that you have been modded funny instead of insightful.

Re:In other news- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277889)

My understanding is that Vic Toews will now appropriate the daughter & integrate her with the relationship he cultivated with his parliamentary assistant, during his marriage. Saving the children, that's what Vic does.

bad guys (0)

Haven (34895) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277469)

Here at work it is my job to fix IT problems. When I see a server I see a box of problems. There is always something that can be "fixed."

A police officers job is to "catch bad guys." Whenever they see a person they see a "bad guy" they need to "catch."

Police are not your friends unless you help them "catch bad guys."

Re:bad guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277645)

Police are not your friends unless you help them "catch bad guys."

No, not even then. "Policemen are not your friends unless you're another policeman".

Re:bad guys (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277655)

Here at work it is my job to fix IT problems. When I see a server I see a box of problems. There is always something that can be "fixed."

See this is the wrong approach to IT in the same way that it is the wrong approach to policing. The job of IT should be to prevent problems from happening in the first place, you know being proactive instead of reactive.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished (2)

johnvile (2560845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277495)

Ever.

Police State much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277505)

So much for Innocent til proven guilty.

Next time, DON'T bother, when the police create a climate of fear from reporting something, simply don't bother (no exceptions)

Remember, the unwashed masses voted Liebour in THREE times, they had it coming.

Re:Police State much? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277795)

It's the court's job to assume you are innocent until proven otherwise, it's the police's job to assume you are guilty and find the evidence to support that and make sure you are at the court's disposal.

Justice (4, Funny)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277507)

He's a snitch. Of course he should be persecuted. Worst of all, he snitched one the one person who should have been able to count on his loyalty and discretion: himself.

I saw this last night... (5, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277517)

On the BBC website (the link posted in the summary), and it was quite a prominent story - however, I went back to find it this morning and it's nowhere to be found, you have to use a direct link to get to it. Interesting...

The story itself is a typical example of UK officialdom vastly over-reacting, and has been picked up by many mainstream newspapers today - I hope this bloke is absolved and compensated by social services for their idiotic behaviour.

Re:I saw this last night... (1)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277665)

On the BBC website (the link posted in the summary), and it was quite a prominent story - however, I went back to find it this morning and it's nowhere to be found, you have to use a direct link to get to it. Interesting...

Well, yesterday's local news is less prominent today, not a big surprise. And it's fairly straightforward to navigate to by drilling down through the regional pages: News/England/Humberside.

Re:I saw this last night... (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277861)

On the BBC website (the link posted in the summary), and it was quite a prominent story - however, I went back to find it this morning and it's nowhere to be found, you have to use a direct link to get to it. Interesting...

It's there, but not in a very prominent place. Go to the England part of the UK section, select Yorkshire & Lincolnshire as your local area, then click on the Humberside section. It's there, for their community to see, but not really presented to the rest of the nation.

Come on people (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277557)

There's a new iPad. With 120% more horizantal who-gives-a-shits and a whole bunch of new big-fucking-deals available on the app store.

And you guys are talking about this nonsense? Defending a guy with a hard drive full of child porn, that just somehow "magically" got there, he doesn't know how - a wizard did it?

iPad people, iPad. Apple isn't paying you to defend child molesters, it's paying you to sell them more iPads.

Re:Come on people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277625)

I lol'ed.

Another rube will self-identify (2)

Xandrax (2451618) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277583)

Unfortunately, there are still people out there wearing rose-colored glasses. We can only hope that all the people who think it's a good idea to have bigger government with more authority over our lives will have an event just like this happen to them, so we can get off this road to hell paved by their "best intentions".

Re:Another rube will self-identify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277763)

The clear answer is to deregulate everything. Especially the financial industry (because that worked out so well in 2008). And then privatize everything, handing over ownership of prisons and military to private corporations run by a good old boy network of fascists.

That will fix the problem, obviously

Re:Another rube will self-identify (0)

Xandrax (2451618) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277943)

Beautiful beating of that straw-man.

Never ever ever ever talk to the police. (1)

AndyKron (937105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277605)

Never ever ever ever talk to the police.

Why punish just him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277667)

There's at least two other people mentioned in this story who probably had access to the computer.

Its only fair that the child should be put in foster care, isolated from her parents, and kept away from school, playgrounds, or anywhere else where children her age congregate.

What Did He Expect The Police To Do? (1)

cmholm (69081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277675)

US, Canadian, and UK law enforcement have a major jones for nailing creators and consumers of child pr0n, who are disproportionately male. As such, when a male comes forward with pr0n on his equipment, the default position will usually be to consider him a suspect until they have a better grasp of the situation.

Given the policy, and that the police aren't mind readers, they may never obtain that grasp, and thus a male in Mr. Robinson's position will likely always be under suspicion. God help him if he ever has family problems that reach the authorities in the future (divorce, child acting out, etc).

Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson seems to be victim to his own naiveté. A typical /. commenter might wonder: what did he expect to accomplish by reporting the results of a file download to the police? They are likely not equipped to deal with cyber crimes, so even if all concerned agreed that Mr. Robinson had inadvertently discovered a criminal child pr0n provider, they'd be hard pressed to do anything about it unless Scotland Yard got involved.

Social Services (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277693)

They don't help kids, they just hurt parents!

The new Darwin law (1)

deciduousness (755695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277703)

This is almost a new iteration of survival. It doesn't matter if it seems like the right thing to do, contacting the "authorities" will result in a punishment for someone, it is what they do, it is what they are trained and told to do. This guy most likely would have been fine if he would have called a tech and asked for help that way.

A lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277771)

Don't seek out help from institutions that justify their existence by creating problems they can then claim to have solved. Especially don't seek out help from such institutions that have permission to use violence to achieve such ends. Asking cops to address an action that has been deemed illegal is only going to get you intimately familiar with how the justice system actually works. It isn't designed to solve problems, to provide restitution, correct behavior or to prevent certain behavior. It is designed to perpetuate itself. This is true of peaceful institutions as well, but the single important difference is what sorts of actions are used to achieve that end. Voluntary organizations promote themselves by being useful, by offering something people want. Violent organizations promote themselves by being preferable to resisting them. That means the value they offer(and they do offer legitimate value, I don't deny that these mechanisms of 3rd party self defense and dispute resolution that they approximate are useful things) need not be compared to their cost, instead it means that one must also consider the cost of resisting them, as opposed to a peaceful solution which does not compel association.

A great way to see the difference is to imagine what neighbors and teachers and friends and family would do instead, were this warning flag brought to their attention by the parents. There is no way they'd simply impose such a blunt impersonal ruling. They'd talk with the parents, the child and see if something is actually going on. They'd probably not be experts in either psychology or investigating computer usage but if they had reason to suspect the worst, such outside help would be possible.

So the lesson in short is to go to your community, whatever that may be, when you want help. Avoid arbitrary rule driven institutions that will simply turn you into their next project to justify their wages for the day.

In Capitalist America ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277815)

... just sue them for getting it wrong. Besides, suing is the national sport.

3 rights make a left, 4 rights gets you nowhere (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277823)

People who steal music shouldn't be allowed around impressionable children.
People who steal music and instead get child porn (porn, not pr0n, because it's not the acceptable kind...) shouldn't tattle to the police.

This is training people not to report crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277843)

This guy seems to doing the right thing and is being punished. What's the take way lesson?

Public humiliation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277847)

It's just this sort of thing that makes me want to bring back tar and feathers. Find every official who thought this was a good idea, and publicly shame them. It will keep other bureaucrats from being similarly obtuse and anti-common sense.

we are assuming, of course, he is truthful (1)

goffster (1104287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277851)

The investigator might have found something to merit being cautious at least.
How many of you have downloaded music to find it was really porn?
I would imagine the answer to be nearly zero.

Pointing the blame at the wrong group (5, Informative)

hawkbat05 (1952326) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277901)

It seems like everyone is blaming the police for this but if you RTFA, no charges or arrests have been made at all. It's social services who made the recommendation and I have NEVER heard of their decision being contested successfully. These people have the ability to apply restrictions like this to anyone with little to no evidence of an actual crime or charges being laid. For parents these organizations are far more intimidating than the police because they can make their own rules and the courts will uphold them.

Multiple personalities. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277915)

Clearly, his other self downloaded it.

what would you do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39277937)

Personally, I'd be tempted to find out everything I could about who hacked into my system and how they did it.

Would that be wise? I'm not sure. My guess is that you couldn't do such investigative work after calling the police, that it might help if you did it before calling the police, and that if you were in the middle of doing it and the police came knocking, you'd be in even more trouble.

I couldn't just delete it and not try to help - I'd feel guilty the rest of my life and wonder if I could have made a difference for some child. I'd have to call the police.

What would you do?

To be fair. (1)

inkrypted (1579407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277961)

They really should consider if he has any record of criminal behavior in this area before making a decesion like that. I can see the need for caution but this seems very exsussive. I hear stories like this all the time and wonder if child molesters are the communist of the new millennium.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>