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

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#51

Post by pyre »

sailormoon wrote: post #46

"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 en…

Well, you could argue in this case that the crime he was accused of was purchasing child porn which encourages and supports the producers though I have a feeling that the author just mean 'child porn' (in general) when he wrote that.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#52

Post by pyre »

mprime wrote: post #40

It's upsetting to read that he just now started being wary of credit cards and shredding his papers. Someone should not have to go through such an ordeal before caring about the privacy of their personal information. The same goes for his "once bitten, twice shy" comment - why did he have to have his life ruined before being 'cautious' (a.k.a. exercising common sense) about online shopping? Still, this is absolutely…

> why did he have to have his life ruined before being 'cautious' (a.k.a. exercising common sense) about online shopping

It's not even 'online shopping.' A couple of the huge cases of stolen identities were by employees at credit card processors, so it didn't matter how respectable or secure the stores themselves were.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#53

Post by pyre »

sailormoon wrote: post #49
ErrantX wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I'm sure that on some level they feel bad about it, but they find ways to rationalize it away so they they can continue their job, and the politicos in the department try to keep everyone hush-hush to avoid lawsuits and a PR storm if someone were to admit to a mistake.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#54

Post by llimllib »

> Each computer has a unique internet protocol number, or IP address, which identifies the specific computer and its geographic whereabouts whenever it is used to access the internet.

I'm surprised nobody here has responded to this complete falsehood in the article. Did this paragraph bother anybody else?

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#55

Post by sailormoon »

pyre wrote: post #51
sailormoon wrote: post #46

"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 en…

Well, you could argue in this case that the crime he was accused of was purchasing child porn which encourages and supports the producers though I have a feeling that the author just mean 'child porn' (in general) when he wrote that.

Funny how that argument only works with kiddie porn. I mean, you could argue that by buying Nikes you're encouraging and supporting child labor. You could argue that by buying a diamond you're encouraging and supporting slavery. You could argue that by buying pictures of Abu Ghraib the media "encourages and supports" the behaviour at Abu Ghraib.

But this supposed causal chain of responsibility between purchaser and producer is only enforced, indeed only even mentioned, when it comes to the bogeyman of child porn, which means it's nothing but an excuse.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#56

Post by philk »

"I made the mistake of telling my father, and he cut me off," Mr Bunce says. "He then told all my siblings and they also cut us off."

"I've forgiven them [my family] - there's no point in bearing a grudge."

His family seems pretty loathsome and reconciling with them after the fact seems like a waste of time.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#57

Post by enneff »

mynameishere wrote: post #11

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

If he was savvy enough to take any of those measures in the first place, why would he be stupid enough to type his credit card number in?

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#58

Post by enneff »

flipper wrote: post #41
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…

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.

"there was no prospect of successful prosecution, but every chance of ruining his life."

Which is probably why they did it. "Even if we can't convict him, we'll at least destroy this filthy pedo's life."

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#59

Post by derefr »

llimllib wrote: post #54

> Each computer has a unique internet protocol number, or IP address, which identifies the specific computer and its geographic whereabouts whenever it is used to access the internet. I'm surprised nobody here has responded to this complete falsehood in the article. Did this paragraph bother anybody else?

An IP address is only assigned to one computer at a time. If you have a (recent) timestamp, you can resolve the IP address to a MAC address (and customer account number/address) by subpoenaing the ISP. You might get a router/gateway/proxy, but that's still "one computer" and you've still found it. It's just not the one you wanted.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#60

Post by llimllib »

derefr wrote: post #59
llimllib wrote: post #54

> Each computer has a unique internet protocol number, or IP address, which identifies the specific computer and its geographic whereabouts whenever it is used to access the internet. I'm surprised nobody here has responded to this complete falsehood in the article. Did this paragraph bother anybody else?

An IP address is only assigned to one computer at a time . If you have a (recent) timestamp, you can resolve the IP address to a MAC address (and customer account number/address) by subpoenaing the ISP. You might get a router/gateway/proxy, but that's still "one computer" and you've still found it. It's just not the one you wanted.

In the context of the article, the "it" in "whenever it is used to access the internet." refers to the computer that you're using, not your gateway or some proxy machine.

Also, it's not true that an IP address is only assigned to one computer at a time; the IP address 10.0.0.1 is assigned to a whole lot of computers right now. You and I know that, and understand why it's true, but the article implies (pretty directly) that an IP address is a unique identifier for a computer. Which is a widely-believed falsehood that drives me crazy.

Post reply on HN