Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#41

Post by flipper »

jacquesm wrote: post #10
ErrantX wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other information? An ip address? Not particularly relevant. In th case of indecent images the police are pretty much required to investigate with evidence of this type. Not doing so is just too dangerous all round for them. I'd say this was just one of the extreme cases your always going to come across. It sucks, lots. Edit: by required I mean its shaky legal ground not to pursue it aggressively. Especially if…

No, seriously, the fact that there was no other corroborating evidence means that there are NOT enough grounds for suspicion. A credit card number is way too easily jacked / faked / cloned. I've had it happen to me in a restaurant, before I finished my trip home (another 700 km drive) there had been a few thousand $ of online charges on the card. A credit card number is not an identity. If it isn't enough to cross a…

Yes, if I was the victim in this article I would strongly consider suing the police for wrongful arrest. He would have an excellent case against the police for negligence causing him substantial loss. If the police had investigated his case properly they would have seen that there was no prospect of successful prosecution, but every chance of ruining his life.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#42

Post by btilly »

codexon wrote: post #39
jacquesm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My house is my private property, I can invite whoever I want there, and can discriminate freely on sex, race and so on (not that I do, but I could) because the decision affects only me. A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors. Religion, sex, skin colour and other personal attributes are not am…

A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors. A couple decades ago, businesses in the US would have argued the same thing, claiming that Black and Hispanics are naturally lazier. Think about a company like Walmart, Ikea (or any company you frequent that has a near monopoly). How would you like it i…

I think you responded to the wrong person. jacquesm is the one who thinks businesses should not be allowed to discriminate.

Incidentally you're wrong about the "couple of decades ago" timeline. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and the Heart of Atlanta case of 1964 upheld its constitutionality, and the Ollie's BBQ case of 1967 upheld that it applied even to businesses with little obvious interstate commerce (this matters because Congress' authority to pass the Civil Rights Act stems from their ability to regulate interstate commerce). So the basic issues were litigated 40 years ago.

That said, it is still depressingly easy to find people today who make the same arguments. They are just not legally allowed to act on them.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#43

Post by rdtsc »

tptacek wrote: post #25
xiaoma wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should be able to fire someone for any reason. I disagree. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for being Jewish. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not voting how you want them to. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not having sex with you. There are a lot of things that you shouldn't be able to fire someone for.

You can't fire people based on race, creed, age, or gender, and you can't fire them for not having sex with you. There are laws against those things, those things specifically, and almost exclusively those things.

Except that you will still be _laid off_ for any of those reasons but it would be masqueraded as some other convenient 'official' reason. "The cash is tight", "we are not growing", etc.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#44

Post by mprime »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
mynameishere wrote: post #11

who now sells encryption services Also: How to use the internet through Indonesian proxies and install OSes on hidden volumes.

More likely: Be aware, your identity is easily assumed and 'bad people' may ruin your life very casually. He's had an object lesson in the consequences, it lost him a ton of money, you really can't fault the guy from trying to recoup some of his losses with his new-found knowledge.

His "new-found knowledge" is what anyone here would call common sense.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#45

Post by codexon »

btilly wrote: post #42
codexon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors. A couple decades ago, businesses in the US would have argued the same thing, claiming that Black and Hispanics are naturally lazier. Think about a company like Walmart, Ikea (or any company you frequent that has a near monopoly). How would you like it i…

I think you responded to the wrong person. jacquesm is the one who thinks businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. Incidentally you're wrong about the "couple of decades ago" timeline. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and the Heart of Atlanta case of 1964 upheld its constitutionality, and the Ollie's BBQ case of 1967 upheld that it applied even to businesses with little obvious interstate commerce (this…

Well I see that now in his other comments, but the phrasing of the comment I replied to wasn't quite right. Discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily.

And last time I checked, a couple decades ago also includes 50 years ago.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#46

Post by sailormoon »

"Being arrested and accused of what is probably one of the worst crimes known to man, losing my job, having my reputation run through the mud, it's a living nightmare."

I love how downloading a stream of bytes - simply copying a file from A to B - is now "one of the worst crimes known to man". I wonder how long this kind of crap goes on before the average person considers it a good use of their time to learn about encryption.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#47

Post by eds »

codexon wrote: post #45
btilly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you responded to the wrong person. jacquesm is the one who thinks businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. Incidentally you're wrong about the "couple of decades ago" timeline. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and the Heart of Atlanta case of 1964 upheld its constitutionality, and the Ollie's BBQ case of 1967 upheld that it applied even to businesses with little obvious interstate commerce (this…

Well I see that now in his other comments, but the phrasing of the comment I replied to wasn't quite right. Discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily. And last time I checked, a couple decades ago also includes 50 years ago.

Was the last time you checked thirty years ago?

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#48

Post by zmmmmm »

ErrantX wrote: post #4

It's a difficult scenario and definitely an extreme example. It's hard to see what could have gone differently (apart from the family and employers being douches)

> It's hard to see what could have gone differently

Really??? It would have been trivial for them to check and see that the child porn was purchased in Indonesia they should have been able to do a very quick check on his border records and see that he did not visit there. Instead they were just lazy and cast a wide net and pulled everything in. I hope he considers suing them.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#49

Post by sailormoon »

ErrantX wrote: post #12
jacquesm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, seriously, the fact that there was no other corroborating evidence means that there are NOT enough grounds for suspicion. A credit card number is way too easily jacked / faked / cloned. I've had it happen to me in a restaurant, before I finished my trip home (another 700 km drive) there had been a few thousand $ of online charges on the card. A credit card number is not an identity. If it isn't enough to cross a…

You would be surprised at the number that are caught using their own cc. The standard approach in such a case would be to ask the guy in (or arrest him if you were suspicious) and sieze the computers. Then you decide what to do depending on the interview. Rereading it maybe your right; it shouldn't have gone so far.

If someone is dumb enough to use their own cc then I hardly think they have the wherewithal to proxy the requests through indonesia.

Rereading it maybe your right; it shouldn't have gone so far.

Maybe you don't realise it, but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice. There is no "maybe" about it. And it shouldn't have gone anywhere at all. The state has fucked this guy's life up for no reason other than its own incompetence.

I get the feeling that those in law enforcement are so brainwashed as to the monstrous nature of their "enemy" that they rationalise away "collateral damage" like this guy as a necessary evil.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#50

Post by pyre »

dantheman wrote: post #32
xiaoma wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firing Jewish people doesn't just hurt the bigoted employer, it hurts the people wrongfully fired, too! There is something appealing to letting everyone keep to whatever groups they wish, but historically the idea has led to horrible things for the shunned groups.

Agreed, it hurts everyone involved -- just as hate speech does. As for the history of discrimination, I believe that the majority of it was actually codified into law. So, I don't know if we can blame individuals acting on their own. Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government?

"Irish Need Not Apply" was a common sign to see in America when there were a lot of Irish immigrants (Irish Potato Famine era).

> Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government?

What comes first though? The government is made up of people. So people have to have these attitudes first and foremost before it becomes codified into law. If the public violently disagreed with said laws, then they would be repealed as wildly unpopular.

Post reply on HN