How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#61

Post by btilly » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:10 AM UTC

Kliment wrote: post #56

btilly wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the 90s I ran across an interesting survey. In America more people were privately concerned about excessive violence on TV than excessive sex. But most thought that their neighbors were more concerned about sex than violence. And therefore found it easier to publicly express their concerns about sex than violence. As to your question, laws and solutions vary widely by country. And other countries have their o…

I suppose you mean violence in your second sentence, not sex.

Uh yeah. Thanks. Fixed.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#62

Post by ErrantX » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:12 AM UTC

danbmil99 wrote: post #26

btilly wrote: post #4

It saddens me that for every ridiculous story like this, there is someone out there who really thought that trying to bring the case was a good idea. Some things have improved in recent years. The incidence of bad therapy leading to false memory syndrome has been reduced, and with it the rate of false accusations. (There are also now improved odds for abused kids to be able to get information on what abuse is actuall…

> there is someone out there who really thought that trying to bring the case was a good idea. Really? Sounds more like there's some cynical jerk with no sense of ethics or boundaries who gets their jollies by randomly victimizing normal families with the excessive powers bestowed upon them by paranoid CYA legislation and an army of deranged ideologues who see abuse everywhere.

Highly unlikely; I'm sure there are such people in the LE services - but fortunately the controls now are quite good to stop them from running amok.

It sounds a lot like mad bureaucracy, incompetence and disinterest. Which, if anything, is even worse.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#63

Post by impeachgod » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:15 AM UTC

I tend to hold the Thoreauvian point that one ought to resist unfair laws. As I noticed, Child Protective Services are state agencies. If someone was falsely accused of child abuse/child porn, with no hope of winning the case whatsoever, how effective would it be to run away with the family?

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#64

Post by caf » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:18 AM UTC

mkramlich wrote: post #46

caf wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is deeply terrifying that we should not just self-censor completely innocent acts, but that you think it should be second nature to any "reasonable, non-naive person". Avoiding completely normal behaviour because of a fear of constant surveillance and being turned in by those around you? This does not strike you as completely f*cked up?

What is "normal" is subjective and varies by person and society. Would you agree with that? Some people don't think it's normal to want to photograph children naked. Others do. Some may not think it's abnormal, but on the other hand think it is not wise. Clearly, you think it's okay to do. Or you just think it is not unwise, or should not be banned. Those are each distinct nuanced states of mind on the matter. That's…

I'll try and explain.

"As was shown in the OA, in theory everybody is innocent until proven guilty. But in practice, especially regarding this particular issue, it's effectively the opposite."

This state of affairs is merely scary.

It is your blasé acceptance of this state of affairs that is terrifying.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#65

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:22 AM UTC

caf wrote: post #23

mkramlich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say we want to live in a world like this. I'm saying this is the world we live in. A reasonable, non-naive person would think twice about taking pictures of a kid naked, if they had any knowledge of the current state of society & laws in the US. This position should not terrify you. If there's no upside to it, but a pretty significant downside, then don't do it. Exercise willpower. To put it another way, it'…

It is deeply terrifying that we should not just self-censor completely innocent acts, but that you think it should be second nature to any "reasonable, non-naive person". Avoiding completely normal behaviour because of a fear of constant surveillance and being turned in by those around you? This does not strike you as completely f*cked up?

I have to agree that it's necessary. It is fscked up that people have to take that attitude, yes, but if you don't want to end up in a big mess, it's a legitimate position. People are hysterical about sexual abuse of children. I don't know what it is. They are all manipulated into it one way or another, I don't really get it.

I agree that this is sad. I agree that parents should be able to take pictures of kids running around and playing, even if the children are naked.

But the thing is, especially if you're taking these images to a third party for development, you don't want to give anyone any reason whatsoever to spring this kind of thing on you. Maybe someone at the drug store is best friends with your ex-wife's mom and they think that they can use this to finally put you out of the picture. Maybe someone at the drug store is just utterly unreasonable, as seems to have been the case here, and sees completely innocent photos in a bad light. If you take these on your digital camera and your disk gets confiscated in the course of a search warrant and the police find images of nude children, even if they are completely innocent images, do you think that they won't use that to help their case? Cops assume that they wouldn't be investigating someone if that someone were actually innocent and have a history of vindictiveness, dishonesty, and general nastiness that they justify by that belief.

So please understand that no one is advocating the position that you shouldn't be allowed to record images of your own children doing funny things/acting cute/whatever while naked. We are just saying that it's the best way to stay out of trouble here.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#66

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:26 AM UTC

impeachgod wrote: post #63

I tend to hold the Thoreauvian point that one ought to resist unfair laws. As I noticed, Child Protective Services are state agencies. If someone was falsely accused of child abuse/child porn, with no hope of winning the case whatsoever, how effective would it be to run away with the family?

IANAL, but in general, I think meritless cases like this one eventually get dismissed, though it's a lot of hassle and waste in the meantime. Even if your case doesn't get dismissed and your children are about to get taken away, running away with the children could only vastly, vastly aggravate the matter, as far as I am aware. In many cases you'll be able to get the children back. If you flee, that is much less likely. You'd be a fugitive and you'd be in serious, serious trouble, I think, even if the state's case was baseless to start out.

I think the best option is to do as the person in the article did and deal with it in a cooperative and respectful manner, as much as we may resent it.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#67

Post by motters » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:26 AM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #34

cagey wrote: post #11

We had "a run in" with Child Protective Services about 10 years ago. The charge: "Shaken Baby Syndrome" (symptoms medically caused; a long story). The "advocates" at CPS had me and my wife (in hospital having just delivered child #2) tried and convicted immediately. Only, I think, thru my self-advocacy directly to the head of pediatrics at the county hospital where my child was being held for examination, resulted in…

(at best they were all "just doing their jobs", just like concentration camp guards) Quoted for truth. This is not an invocation of Godwin's law, but the closest possible analogy, as these bureaucrats make the exact same repugnant decisions someone like Eichmann made. They fully well know they ruin the lives of many innocent folks; at least half the cases turn out to have been nothing. The problem is not 'the governm…

Yes the hysteria in Europe is quite similar. I think that part of this has to do with the fact that whenever a case of child abuse arises, and it's shown that the social services did not do enough to protect the child from harm, there's a huge media circus, legal cases brought against the council, heads of department sacked and so on. So from the social services point of view false negatives can be prohibitively costly, whereas false positives rarely if ever make the headlines.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#68

Post by nagrom » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:30 AM UTC

mkramlich wrote: post #46

caf wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is deeply terrifying that we should not just self-censor completely innocent acts, but that you think it should be second nature to any "reasonable, non-naive person". Avoiding completely normal behaviour because of a fear of constant surveillance and being turned in by those around you? This does not strike you as completely f*cked up?

What is "normal" is subjective and varies by person and society. Would you agree with that? Some people don't think it's normal to want to photograph children naked. Others do. Some may not think it's abnormal, but on the other hand think it is not wise. Clearly, you think it's okay to do. Or you just think it is not unwise, or should not be banned. Those are each distinct nuanced states of mind on the matter. That's…

It's terrifying because your position is that one shouldn't do something that is entirely harmless and innocent, for fear that you will be branded for life as something evil. It's even more terrifying because your position appears to be tacit acceptance of that situation.

Some things should not have to be worked around. Some things are wrong, and should be decried. A situation where parents are scared to photograph and document the growth of their families is exactly wrong, and should exactly be decried.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#69

Post by ErrantX » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:37 AM UTC

Besharov also said that the current law should be amended to grant immunity to those who in good faith deem a situation not to be child abuse or pornography. That way, those who report cases of abuse of questionable merit, simply to err on the side of mandatory reporting laws, might feel less pressure to do so. In our case, maybe the responding officer, who initially commented that he didn't find the pictures pornographic, would have dismissed the case at the drugstore and not reported us to child services.

This is the key takeway - and the thing that really needs to change.

In this case, like some many others, the process really broke down at that point.

But it is incredibly difficult, I imagine, to make such a call. If it later turns out you just let a child pornographer go free you will be proverbially screwed; both by the LE services and the media. We ask completely the wrong people to make these choices; inexperienced officers with a lot to lose if they make the wrong call.

Re: How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer

#70

Post by Confusion » Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 8:37 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #32

Sounds like the system worked. She was accused of a crime, an investigation was performed, the state realized they had no case and that nothing was wrong, and the charges were dropped. I guess it's kind of a pain to be the target of an investigation, but nobody's life was ruined.

  I guess it's kind of a pain [..]

It would be 'kind of a pain' if the system worked so reasonably well that any remotely decent parent could trust to be acquitted within a week. As the system is, it's not just 'kind of a pain'. It's an emotionally wrecking experience, because you live in uncertainty for a long time, where the possible consequences are severe and you can't be sure of a positive outcome, no matter how decent you are. Kafka understood this.