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

How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 178 posts

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#151

Post by tracker1 »

tremon wrote: post #91
lettergram wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually why historically only land owners could vote. They had the most to lose and we're the most educated. Regardless of "right or wrong" that did provide a safeguard against the likes of people like Trump, probably Hillery and Bernie as well.

Would it have safeguarded against Nixon, Reagan, Bush or McCarthy though? (yes, I know, the latter was never president -- but still elected)

If you're throwing Reagan in as a bad president, you should throw JFK in too, since regarding policy/politically they were very close to each other.

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#152

Post by tracker1 »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #68
ekianjo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, it has become like that. Because of complete disregard/disrespect for the US constitution. The constitution had numerous safeguards to restrict abuse of power, but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it.

>>> More like, it has become like that. Because of complete disregard/disrespect for the US constitution. Which has infected every level of government. From the president's "executive orders" every time he wants something done and congress refuses to do it, so he simply writes a new law and enacts it. From supreme court nominees who believe more in "social justice" then interpreting the constitution which is their jo…

Is there really a need for more/new laws? Seriously. I mean most of what congress does is budgetary and campaign fund raising... very litle effectively gets done regardless... much of what passes, does so with very little backpressure, exception to some hot-potato political issues.

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#153

Post by tajen »

kazagistar wrote: post #58
webjprgm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is a form of government that can destroy itself. The French voted to put in an emperor their first time around. So we may have a good constitution but if the people vote to make bad laws that break it, and permit those laws to function, then it is the people's fault, not the founder's fault.

I mean, the binary choice clusterfuck that is modern politics is certainly the fault of the founders, and is certainly partially responsible for the current problems. And because of the reverence of the founders and the constitution as it exists, the self destruction and rebirth is looking likelier then meaningfully repairing the system.

Tomorrow we'll have infinite disdain for binary-party democracies, just like we currently have for monoparty democracies.

It baffles me that people still immigrate to Singapore. What a total disrespect for a thousand years fighting for the right to vote.

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#154

Post by chroma »

mindslight wrote: post #128
chroma wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see an explicit governmental condonement of the contents of that link. > You still haven't made a case for why possessing such information should be a bona fide crime (as opposed to being evidence of a real crime). You've merely asserted it should be illegal, with only scary innuendo to back it up. SILEX makes it possible to enrich uranium in secret for mere millions of dollars. It was privately discovered,…

> If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted And yet such criminalization won't stop someone actually determined to use it. If your security relies on preventing the spread of readily-available information, you've already lost. Your argument only seems practical for this situation because the only entities in possession of said information ar…

Well, that was interesting. I certainly can't call you inconsistent.

Now I'm just curious: Is there any scenario in which you think possession of a physical or digital asset should result in imprisonment? That is: Is possession of a fuel-air bomb OK? My mere possessing it doesn't harm anyone, only my use of it would. What about possession of a nuclear weapon, or some device that could exterminate all life on earth? If information hazards[1] exist, would possessing them still be legal? If mind uploading becomes possible, should it be legal to run a million uploads in agony? After all, it's just data on your own hardware. I realize some of these scenarios seem far-fetched, but I'm trying to find the limits of your beliefs.

It seems to me that laws regarding possession must be contingent on the possible harms allowed by physics and biology. If certain machines or pieces of information can be readily used to cause mass suffering, then the cost-benefit analysis suggests punishing those who possess them.

To use an analogy: Possessing certain things is like brandishing a weapon. If you point a gun at someone, technically you haven't caused any physical harm. It's just that you're very likely to harm someone. There's even a decent chance you could cause harm by accident. So to with the possession of certain dangerous items. The danger might be more remote, but the potential harm might be far greater. That's the rationale for restriction.

1. http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#155

Post by Filligree »

SeanDav wrote: post #150
upofadown wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't mere possession illegal in the US? If so then the jury returned the correct verdict. If we don't like it then we have to fix the law.

If the evidence was planted, then the jury most certainly did not return the correct verdict.

Legally? I wonder. Morally you're right, but if mere possession is illegal, then I don't see how it being planted matters.

If it were proven that law-enforcement agents did the planting, that would be a different matter. You could also argue about the definition of "possession", maybe... but IANAL.

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#156

Post by tremon »

tracker1 wrote: post #151
tremon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it have safeguarded against Nixon, Reagan, Bush or McCarthy though? (yes, I know, the latter was never president -- but still elected)

If you're throwing Reagan in as a bad president, you should throw JFK in too, since regarding policy/politically they were very close to each other.

I don't have any experience or knowledge on which to judge any presidents before Clinton. I just listed the usual suspects that come up in such discussions. Sure, consider JFK on that list too.

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#157

Post by voxic11 »

Filligree wrote: post #155
SeanDav wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the evidence was planted, then the jury most certainly did not return the correct verdict.

Legally? I wonder. Morally you're right, but if mere possession is illegal, then I don't see how it being planted matters. If it were proven that law-enforcement agents did the planting, that would be a different matter. You could also argue about the definition of "possession", maybe... but IANAL.

Of course it matters. Federal law specifies that the CP must be knowingly possessed. If it was planted that requirement cannot be met. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#158

Post by jnbiche »

soperj wrote: post #114
jnbiche wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a laugh. They get paid handsomely to leave. Fair enough. I was trying to make an analogy about the leaders being held responsible. If you can think of a better one, I'll change it. That said, I can tell you from personal experience (as seen in a friend) that nearly any corporate executive who gets booted by the board or CEO will be tremendously bruised and hurt by the ordeal. Yeah, it's a punishment most of…

hahaha. I think most people would take those problems any day. Sorry your buddy had his feelings hurt.

Wow, have you ever been fired? In this day and age when we see successful people in the tech industry dealing with suicide and depression on a regular basis due to work-related issues, that's a pretty insensitive attitude to have.

For the record, my friend was a C-level executive but not CEO, did not get a multi-million dollar severance (less than a million), and for someone who based his entire identity on his job and company, it was a very serious blow that sent him into major depression and alcoholism.

Also, since you seem to be a judgmental kind of person and may have formed an incorrect impression of my background in your mind, I should add that I don't share my friend's financial success. I'm not a successful executive. In fact, I'm struggling financially at the moment.

But despite my personal struggles, I'm able to look past the numbers in someone's bank account and realize that we're all humans in the end, and just because someone has more money than me doesn't mean they're not worthy of compassion.

That said, if you were just trolling, you got me good. hahaha, that's a laugh.

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#159

Post by upofadown »

voxic11 wrote: post #157
Filligree wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally? I wonder. Morally you're right, but if mere possession is illegal, then I don't see how it being planted matters. If it were proven that law-enforcement agents did the planting, that would be a different matter. You could also argue about the definition of "possession", maybe... but IANAL.

Of course it matters. Federal law specifies that the CP must be knowingly possessed. If it was planted that requirement cannot be met. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252

The court can't read the mind of the accused. So either there is an implied level of guilt associated with mere possession or it would be impossible to ever get a conviction under that part of the law.

I now agree that the "they planted it" defence would work but in practice that would be impossible to prove, which was probably what happened here.

Re: How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

#160

Post by SixSigma »

agripa2 wrote: post #125
patcheudor wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace." This right here is the conversation which needs to happen around this particular topic. In the security community the topic of forensic discovery of child porn tends to get a hand-wave because child porn. It's there so someone must be guilty. The fact is, it is trivial to plant such evidence on anyone's…

This is utterly terrifying. What are some common steps to prevent this kind of "invisible" injection of images. If you're on private WiFi are you good to go? Any common tips to stay secure?

Boot from read only media, or mark your partitions read only. If you boot from CD you can copy-on-read to RAM to keep things snappy. Or PXE booting a Unix / Plan9 workstation.

I set my networks up so that I never rely on a terminal machine for storage. If I lose my laptop all I lose is my laptop.

If I want a file to be stored permanently, I have to action it - Nautilis will mount remote file systems over ssh, I use that feature when creating & editing documents. I don't create them on the laptop.

Other stuff gets mounted/linked in /dev/shm if needed

I can flip ro/rw on partitions for doing updates or anything I really need to write to HD.

I don't do it for privacy reasons, just data loss protection.

Post reply on HN