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

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#71

Post by ErrantX »

zmmmmm wrote: post #48
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.

> It would have been trivial for them to check and see that the child porn was purchased in Indonesia

Not particularly trival. And more importantly accessing another IUP is trivial; there is common software for the purchase of this material that uses various random proxies to protect your location/identity.

The fact the IP address is in Indonesia tells us very little; tracing the actual IP to a physical location is relatively hard and time consuming. There isnt the money available to do that.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#72

Post by ilitirit »

Pertinent issue, but in future please note the date of publication in the title if the article is more than a year old. I wish people started standardizing the way articles are published to the web so that this sort of metadata could be derived as easily as the page title.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#73

Post by noonespecial »

enneff wrote: post #57
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?

The article indicates that his number was stolen from a well known and generally believed safe online retailer. Someone else was stupid enough to get his number stolen. His savvy-ness is irrelevant.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#74

Post by ido »

danskil wrote: post #2

This is really horrible, but i can't help but be reminded of the episode of "The IT Crowd" Where the lead character goes on a date with Peter File. Just goes to show how much value all societies place on titles, no matter how un-deserved.

Took me a second to understand who "Peter File" is...Doesn't really sound that similar to Pedophile when I say it.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#75

Post by jacquesm »

codexon wrote: post #66
jacquesm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was phrased just right, there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply. You can like that or not but that's the way it is and it probably isn't going to change. A mans home is his castle, no matter how reprehensible his views. And that works both ways, you can't be forced to…

there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply You phrased it as though you support discrimination under the cover of private property. Private property is being used as a blanket excuse for discrimination which is being rightfully challenged in the US in situations such as this: http:/…

You keep adding twists to your argument in later comments, it's a nice trick but it really doesn't work.

Birthdays normally are 'invite only', and as long as they are they are private functions. Birthdays open to the general public are not common (at least not where I live).

Open to the general public but closed to some subset (the people with red hair, people born on Tuesday and so on) are possibly illegal but as long as they are in someones private dwelling they have the right to toss out anybody for whatever reason so it's going to be very hard to know what the real reason is. In my country if I tell you to leave three times and you don't I have the immediate right to even use force to remove you, whatever my reason for not wanting you in my house.

Houses are special, they are not generally open to the public, and in case they are no doubt the rules change but that was not the example used. So don't twist it that way.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#76

Post by jacquesm »

mprime wrote: post #44
jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many people on HN do you think fall in the 'common' bracket?

There is probably more IT competency here than you'd find in a very large majority of the net population.

For most people this would be news, for you and I, and most of the rest of HN it's old hat.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#77

Post by btilly »

jacquesm wrote: post #75
codexon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply You phrased it as though you support discrimination under the cover of private property. Private property is being used as a blanket excuse for discrimination which is being rightfully challenged in the US in situations such as this: http:/…

You keep adding twists to your argument in later comments, it's a nice trick but it really doesn't work. Birthdays normally are 'invite only', and as long as they are they are private functions. Birthdays open to the general public are not common (at least not where I live). Open to the general public but closed to some subset (the people with red hair, people born on Tuesday and so on) are possibly illegal but as lo…

It is worth pointing out that many workplaces are not open to the public either. So in both cases they are really "private except for a list of people of my choosing" and the difference is that in one case I am allowed to choose on restricted criteria and in the other I am not.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#78

Post by mprime »

jacquesm wrote: post #76
mprime wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How many people on HN do you think fall in the 'common' bracket? There is probably more IT competency here than you'd find in a very large majority of the net population. For most people this would be news, for you and I, and most of the rest of HN it's old hat.

>"For most people this would be news"

If that's the case, I'm more out of touch with the world than I thought.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#79

Post by jacquesm »

btilly wrote: post #77
jacquesm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep adding twists to your argument in later comments, it's a nice trick but it really doesn't work. Birthdays normally are 'invite only', and as long as they are they are private functions. Birthdays open to the general public are not common (at least not where I live). Open to the general public but closed to some subset (the people with red hair, people born on Tuesday and so on) are possibly illegal but as lo…

It is worth pointing out that many workplaces are not open to the public either. So in both cases they are really "private except for a list of people of my choosing" and the difference is that in one case I am allowed to choose on restricted criteria and in the other I am not.

But a job offer is open to the public.

And it's at the hiring time that members from the general public are allowed to compete for jobs.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#80

Post by codexon »

jacquesm wrote: post #75
codexon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply You phrased it as though you support discrimination under the cover of private property. Private property is being used as a blanket excuse for discrimination which is being rightfully challenged in the US in situations such as this: http:/…

You keep adding twists to your argument in later comments, it's a nice trick but it really doesn't work. Birthdays normally are 'invite only', and as long as they are they are private functions. Birthdays open to the general public are not common (at least not where I live). Open to the general public but closed to some subset (the people with red hair, people born on Tuesday and so on) are possibly illegal but as lo…

I am not adding twists to be nitpicking. The law is tricky, and many people try to abuse it to the maximum extent such as in the article I just pointed out.

A man's home is not always his castle. You cannot use it to break laws. At least in the US, you cannot:

1. Murder someone on your grounds unless in self-defense. If someone is found shot 5 times or in the back, you will be charged with murder!

2. Set lethal booby traps.

3. Smuggle illicit goods.

4. Having dogs fight like Michael Vick.

5. View child pornography.

Discrimination by selectively serving the public on private grounds, I believe has not yet been tested in the court of law, but this was the excuse that many private businesses had in the past when they decided to serve white people only.

Post reply on HN