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

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#81

Post by jacquesm »

ErrantX wrote: post #70
sailormoon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice Sorry, not my intention. I dont think this is considered a "necessary evil". I think fuck ups and mistakes happen; yes this should be investigated (I have no idea if it has been) and it should be considered how to stop mistakes happening. I think this guy has been screwed by society and his employer as much as the system of law. It's an extr…

When accusing someone of a crime that serious you tread with care. There is no 'undo' button on that operation.

I can sneak large numbers of files on to your computer without your notice (you'll have to trust me on that one, I'm not going to explain here how for obvious reasons, but if you want we can correspond by email about it, I'm sure I'm not the only HN'er that can think of tricks like that but I don't want to give the less capable ideas), one phone call later to some anonymous reporting facility and you'd be in a world of trouble.

It shouldn't be that easy to ruin somebody's life.

If a case isn't iron clad why spook the suspect (after all, simply monitoring them would give you hard proof or reason enough to drop the case quietly, maybe issue a warning that the guys card was cloned, which after all is what the police was for).

In the current system you might as well be guilty, even when you are not.

I personally hate child pornographers with a vengeance, for very good reason (they occasionally use my websites as their means of transportation), but I hate sloppy police work even more.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#82

Post by btilly »

jacquesm wrote: post #79
btilly wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Members of the public may apply for jobs, but most will not be allowed to interview, and those who are allowed to interview will not be given the freedom to wander around the potential workplace.

The process is akin to the fact that everyone in the public is in my potential circle of friends, and once a friend you may be allowed in my house. But that doesn't make my house anything close to publicly available.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#83

Post by sailormoon »

ErrantX wrote: post #70
sailormoon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice Sorry, not my intention. I dont think this is considered a "necessary evil". I think fuck ups and mistakes happen; yes this should be investigated (I have no idea if it has been) and it should be considered how to stop mistakes happening. I think this guy has been screwed by society and his employer as much as the system of law. It's an extr…

At the end of the day, as you say, it comes down to a question of incentives, power, and consequences. The problem is that there is little or no consequence to an LE officer ruining someone's life. Every incentive is there to pursue further, make sure they're not a threat, err on the side of presumed guilt. Having no incentive other than personal morals to treat the guy fairly is a big, big problem.

I personally respect you and I'm sure your colleagues are equally stand-up guys. But the system as a whole is sick. For LE officers to whimsically decide whether or not to ruin someone's life with charges of kiddie porn is too much power. Way too much.

"Child porn" has outgrown all reasonable legal bounds and i now used as a general person justification for doing basically anything. Look at us in Australia - it is now used as an excuse for censoring the entire internet. Other countries cannot be far off. You must realise this. I am not even sure where to start putting down the child porn bogeyman but it is absolutely, absolutely, a manufactured fear.

Child Pornography == Emmanuel Goldstein

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#84

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #81
ErrantX wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice Sorry, not my intention. I dont think this is considered a "necessary evil". I think fuck ups and mistakes happen; yes this should be investigated (I have no idea if it has been) and it should be considered how to stop mistakes happening. I think this guy has been screwed by society and his employer as much as the system of law. It's an extr…

When accusing someone of a crime that serious you tread with care. There is no 'undo' button on that operation. I can sneak large numbers of files on to your computer without your notice (you'll have to trust me on that one, I'm not going to explain here how for obvious reasons, but if you want we can correspond by email about it, I'm sure I'm not the only HN'er that can think of tricks like that but I don't want to…

[deleted]

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#85

Post by ErrantX »

sailormoon wrote: post #83
ErrantX wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice Sorry, not my intention. I dont think this is considered a "necessary evil". I think fuck ups and mistakes happen; yes this should be investigated (I have no idea if it has been) and it should be considered how to stop mistakes happening. I think this guy has been screwed by society and his employer as much as the system of law. It's an extr…

At the end of the day, as you say, it comes down to a question of incentives, power, and consequences. The problem is that there is little or no consequence to an LE officer ruining someone's life. Every incentive is there to pursue further, make sure they're not a threat, err on the side of presumed guilt. Having no incentive other than personal morals to treat the guy fairly is a big, big problem. I personally resp…

I see what your saying; and in truth there is a good point in there.

> For LE officers to whimsically decide

I dont think that is the case necessarily. It's more a careful choice I think.

> "Child porn" has outgrown all reasonable legal bounds and i now used as a general person justification for doing basically anything.

On this we are in agreement. I actually just contributed to a book about the new French web monitoring/filtering laws which are being "legitimized" using child porn as an excuse. We argue that really it has no effect on the "business" of CP and basically it is just political posturing (Ill provide a link if your interested).

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#86

Post by ErrantX »

jacquesm wrote: post #81
ErrantX wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice Sorry, not my intention. I dont think this is considered a "necessary evil". I think fuck ups and mistakes happen; yes this should be investigated (I have no idea if it has been) and it should be considered how to stop mistakes happening. I think this guy has been screwed by society and his employer as much as the system of law. It's an extr…

When accusing someone of a crime that serious you tread with care. There is no 'undo' button on that operation. I can sneak large numbers of files on to your computer without your notice (you'll have to trust me on that one, I'm not going to explain here how for obvious reasons, but if you want we can correspond by email about it, I'm sure I'm not the only HN'er that can think of tricks like that but I don't want to…

> When accusing someone of a crime that serious you tread with care. There is no 'undo' button on that operation.

Agreed. Im of the opinion we can only deal with the facts of the case; and we have very few of those. Random scenario: he refused to answer questions (for example on the advice of a lawyer) or provide an alibi (I know I am making that up - but things can slant this either way).

> after all, simply monitoring them would give you hard proof

There are strong arguments against that. Firstly, of course, cost. Secondly the privacy argument (could you imagine the fuss if it turned out the police were monitoring potential suspects secretly? :P).

> In the current system you might as well be guilty, even when you are not.

Agreed. I think this is a general problem with the society as well as the system. Im not sure why this investigation was not confidential - most are. Indeed most of those accused and cleared of CP offences are not generally affected (according to the references I have read at least; which are solid, but I admit not my first hand knowledge).

> I can sneak large numbers of files on to your computer

Ofc. Those sort of cases are difficult. We do get cases which come in where a girl has accused an older male of abuse and looking at child porn where the officer has noted they think she may be maliciously lying. The problem is how do you prove things like that - the best way is to grab his machine and have a look for solid physical evidence then go from there.

I dont think you could accuse someone anonymously quite like you suggest and have them arrested straight away.

In this case the CC payment is tangible. In retrospect your probably right and they should have taken more care in investigating his alibi (if he gave it) before pushing the case one. But again we have no information on the sequence of events and who did what - so ultimately all of this is speculation :)

Post reply on HN