Slashdot Log In
Patrick Naughton Arrested
Posted by
jamie
on Mon Sep 20, 1999 10:00 AM
from the protect-your-children dept.
from the protect-your-children dept.
Pomme de Terre! writes "Patrick Naughton - Java-genius, Starwave CTO, & Infoseek VP - has been arrested for chasing 13 year old girls *and* having kiddie porn on his computer... and is probably going to be put away for a very long time. Very sad. " See also the Yahoo story. As executive vice president of products at Infoseek, was Naughton in charge of GoGuardian?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Patrick Naughton Arrested
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 473 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
He was not arrested for "Chatting"! (Score:4)
Patrick Naughton was NOT arrested for chatting with a purported 13 year old. The man arranged to meet with her and traveled from Seattle, WA to Santa Monica, CA, with the stated intent of having sex with her. He also did not appear surprised when he met up with a very young looking FBI agent posing as said 13 year old. Now I don't have any transcripts of the chat sessions, now know how convicingly 13 the agent was, nor do I know what happened at the pier where he was arrested, but in my book, this qualifies as "Interstate travel with intent to have sex with a minor" which is exactly what the man is charged with.
Additionally, he has been charged, not convicted. If he want's to plead that it was all role-playing and that he didn't believe that she was really 13, that's fine. I doubt its true personally, but I'm not going to be on the jury.
At any rate, before you start hollering about censorship and freedom, check your facts. If you think that "Interstate travel... etc etc etc" should not be a crime, write your congressman, or start a campaign to repeal the law here on slashdot, but in this case, the government caught a man who appeared to be trying to do something very bad.
Not every crime is a soapbox to talk about freedom and opression. Some crimes are genuine crimes.
Virtual crime, real injustice? (Score:3)
Oh, dear... (Score:3)
However, this is going to prove very problematic. Censors and snoopers alike are going to have a field day, thanks to the fact that this case will inevitably become quite high-profile. Censors will decry the ease of transmission of information on the Net, claim it's "a haven for chold pronography" and demand censorship (not like they haven't been doing it already, but now they have a high-profile case to latch onto).
Snoopers, on the other hand, will show how "people like this" use encryption to hide their activity from law enforcement, therefore "they" need a backdoor. Worse, since their point is semi-valid, they'll sway a lot more people over to their side than they would with pure crap.
Note I said semi-valid; they have a right to investigate, but it does not counter or override the people's right to privacy. I'll gladly let the FBI search my computer and decrypt my stuff, but they're going to have to show me a warrant first. If they don't, then they aren't getting into my machine, plain and simple.
But I digress. The point is, even if justice is served in this case, it could very well pave the way for injustices of the worst kind later on. We're going to have to watch this very carefully.
Moderate the above up, please! (Score:3)
Admittedly, the content of THIS story makes me think that the alleged offender, if he truly did these things, needs to be locked up with the key thrown away.
I can't bring myself to consider a 37-year-old having sex with someone he *knows* is a young teenager as anything other than predatory.
However, a lot of organizations are losing a lot of good volunteers these days. A lot of schools are losing a lot of good teachers. People are scared to work with kids because they might fit the fictional profile of a molester. (Never mind that this almost never meshes with the actuality -- and yes, as a matter of fact, I *am* speaking from personal experience that I would rather forget.)
Are you gay or bisexual? Are you online a lot? Are you ANYthing other than Protestant? Are you a single male working with children not your own? Guess what, if the answer to any of those questions is "yes", you're a real nice tempting target for a false accusation of child molestation, something that could completely ruin your life.
What drives me still nuttier is this: Suddenly, giving an upset kid a hug could easily become a federal crime. ALL touch from an adult other than a parent is sexualized -- now what kind of fucked-up message does THAT send to kids, hmm?
SIGH (Score:3)
Pedophiles are loathesome, detestable creatures. They're not new, nor are they rare. But in the past, how many men in such a position could have been propositioned by a 13-year-old? Does the FBI really need to go around drumming up business? Aren't there enough ACTUAL criminals without the FBI turning some POTENTIAL criminals into new ones. Besides, what of people who think they might commit a crime, but stop at some point (a point after which a zealous agent might already have arrested them) before actually committing a crime? Obviously one doesn't want to wait until the suspect is actually committing the act, but showing up can hardly be a crime, maybe he was just going to yell at this kid and find her parents and yell at them for being such morons. (I'm not gullible, he's probably a schmuck, but don't these people have bombers and such to find? They've proven they can catch one sicko who, left to his own devices, would likely have never hurt anyone, but they can't catch Erik Rudolph!)
Naughton Changed My Life (Score:4)
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that the executive in question would be Patrick Naughton.
I am a 3rd year computer science major, but while I was still in high school I was not very serious about computer science. (I just coded for kicks.) That all changed when I read a 1995 (?) issue of InternetWorld. Inside was the greatest interview I'd ever read... a techy, smart conversation with a Starwave executive.
This exec freely stated his opinions on Microsoft, Java, the Internet, and the future of technology. He was brilliant, fun, and clever. He was who I wanted to be.
I changed my entire perspective on code, software, computer science. I looked at things analytically... I decided to do things the Right Way. All thanks to an interview with Patrick Naughton.
Now, it may sound stupid to many, but this man indirectly changed my life. That's why this whole situation is pretty difficult for me. All of his accomplishments, in the eyes of many, are nonexistant. He was a pioneer in Java. He wrote the original Hot Java browser. He went on to lead Starwave, a company that pushed the boundaries of web site design and content. He then settled in a comfortable position at Infoseek. A hell of a life, filled with lots of money and accomplishments.
But that probably won't mean much anymore.
I'm sorry for you Patrick. Thank you for changing my life. I only wish that you'd have shown better judgement in your own.
Pomme de Terre
First of all... (Score:4)
That doesn't stop anyone from discussing what he is or deserves if he's found guilty, we should just be careful to qualify our statements with "if he's guilty" or speak in general terms. Most people seem to be doing this, actually.
--
No nails (Score:4)
I don't think they have much to nail him on for the following reasons:
1. It would probably be easy to show that the agent's chatting characteristics (they way she wrote, what she wrote, intelligence, maturity etc.) were not consistent with that of a 13 y/o thus leadig 'hotseattle' (he should get time for the nick) to believe he's talking to someone more mature then they pretend to be.
2. When was the last time anyone in a chat believed what they were told by someone else? There is no concrete way in a chat to know who you're talking to. Just because she said she was 13 does not make it true. People tend to fib alot in chats. This FBI story makes this point even more salient.
3. It would be arguable that even if the FBI agent had sent him a photograph of her 13 y/o self or any other 'evidence' he still had no real way of knowing her true age.
4. I doubt the FBI had a 13 y/o waiting for him in LA. It would be easy for him to claim that when he saw an adult waiting he decided to go ahead with it. Had he seen a 13 y/o he would have backed out bla bla bla.
In summary, he can claim a zillion things stemming from the fact that there is no way for anyone to know who they are chatting with in a chat room.
BTW is possesion of child pornography (for personal use only, of courseThe only punishment he will get is a nuked career....
That does it - no more cyber sex for me. (Score:3)
Yes, the article says the FBI agents repeated said they were 13, as part of their phoney persona, but when did they say it? And even so, does that count? It was chat, there was no way of actually verifying age - and much of online chat is about role-playing and fantasy (how many cyber sex females are actually female).
Suppose you meet someone online, engage in some pretty crazy fantasy, and want to pretend she is a teenager. She says she is 13. She is really an overweight housewife of 45. Have you done anything illegal? Not in my book.
This guy probably did in fact believe the girl he was talking to was 13, but that is a very fine line to walk. It is quite a bit different than an adult man trying to seduce a teenager in the real world.
Now granted, attempting to actually meet (real world) someone you met online, that you believe is 13, for the purposes of engaging in sexual activities, is pretty damned shady. But still, did he actually do anything?
The idea of getting arrested for a crime you might have committed is frankly very Orwellian. But there does appear to be quite a lot of lee-way in the American judicial system in this regard. Prostitution busts follow the same pattern. The Jon's are arrested for soliciting prostitution, in a situation in which a prostitute is not even present - it's a cop. The Jon is effectively arrested for his intent, what he thought the situation was, not based on the reality of the situation. One cannot actually solicit prostitution from a police officer (at least I hope not).
I don't know much about the legal precedents surrounding these sorts of things, but it seems to me that this sort of thing is getting out of hand.
I know, kiddie porn sucks, pedaphiles should be arrested - but only for committing actual crimes. I don't believe the framers of the constitution had in mind this bizarre form of preventative law enforcement.
Entrapment (Score:4)
The Man can provide the opportunity to do a crime. What they cannot do it provide encouragement or somehow otherwise force or draw someone into performing an illegal act that they wouldn't do without the Fed's involvement.
For example, providing an opportunity for someone to solicit a 13 year old is not entrapment, because the scumball in question took the initiative. Note that what's important here is the subject's intent and their belief -- I don't actually have to intend to kill a guy's wife for him o break the law by hiring me to do so, so long as he believed that I was a professional killer. I add this in because some moron actually posted that this was roleplaying. Yeah.
In any event, everyone protesting that this pedophile's rights were violated really needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves where their "privacy" rights end and the rights of their 13 year old daughter or sister or whatever not to be sexually fsck'ed up for life begin.
This guy needs to be removed from any position to hurt kids. I know some of you are so jaded from hearing politicians talk about "protecting children" that you can't see the forest for the trees anymore, but this is actually a case of protecting children from a sick individual.
----
Not His Fault! (Score:3)
Re:The other story... (Score:4)
There's nothing insidious going on - I'm still getting used to slashdot's administration software, hit the wrong button, and accidentally posted the story for a few minutes before I was done editing it. Sorry!
Jamie McCarthy
Re:Virtual crime, real injustice? (Score:5)
Re:police provocation (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:3)
I read some more on this on Wired or Zdnet, apparently their first IRC chat lasted 4 hours, there were multiple chats where the 'girl' expressed interest or at least didn't attempt to dissuade him from sexually explicit contact. To me it all appears entirely consensual. If it had actually been a 13 yr old girl she would have known she was meeting the guy for sex, it was abundantly clear that he was not trying to 'lure' some 13 year old innocent to his house so he could rape her. He was hanging out in some FATHER&DAUGHTER sex channel on IRC for christ sake! It's not like some random innocent little 13 yr old girl is just going to wander in there.
If he were stalking kiddies he would have been in some kiddie channel or something. I really don't think the FBI has much of a case here considering their methods... Also, another FBI agent sent this guy kiddy porn. Shouldn't the FBI agent be arrested for breaking the law? This is mildly absurd. I'm all against kiddy porn and non-consensual sex, but I really don't think this was either. This was just a nasty case of Entrapment.
Kintanon
Stop the real crime... (Score:5)
Do it "to protect the children"--Has gone too far. (Score:5)
This will seriously piss some people off, but here goes: NEWSFLASH: Most teenagers in the US are sexually active WAY before the age of 18. I sometimes question the reason behind the US "age of consent" laws. I remember sweating and stressing when I was in high school and I turned 18, but my girlfriend for the last year was still 16. The way these laws are enforced today, I could have been considered a "child sex offender" and forced to register for the next 20 years or whatever. Creepy stuff. Amazing how we in the US are willing to surrender our liberties in the name of doing what's "best for the children."
In the past, I've worked with youth groups that have very strict controls and rules for working with children, including a complete FBI background check. Unfortunatly, the developments over the past years have casued many otherwise good people and mentors to leave the organization for fear of some kid making up a story about abuse and ruining a life.
Not that I support the truly sick pedophiles out there that prey on children, but I can't help but wonder what this modern-day witch-hunt has done to discourage good people with a lot to offer youth groups and their members from participating. Sure, we "may protect the children" from the occaisional bad apple, but at what price? There is no way to measure what kids may be missing from never having the opportunity to meet a potentially great teacher or mentor who is now scared of interacting with kids.
Re:police provocation (Score:3)
Soooo... hanging out in '#father&daughtersex!!!!!!!' isn't an attempt to elicit some kind of sexual response from someone else in that channel? I'd say once you enter one of those channels it's like automatically propositioning everyone else there.
I mean, why else would you be in that channel if you weren't interested in that kind of thing? Seems pretty shady to me...
Kintanon
The mind boggles (Score:3)
One wonders how many things like this happen online:
bigweenie: Hey baby, come on over to my place.
imjust14: ok i'll be right over and we can have sex
bigweenie: Yowza! I'll see you soon
imjust14: you're under arrest for soliciting from a minor!
bigweenie: under arrest??? I'm undercover FBI lookie for kiddie pornographers!
imjust14: oops! ha ha!
bigweenie: boy is MY face red! ha ha!
imjust14: let's not tell anyone about this...
One also wonders what all those FBI agents who run around acting like 13 year-olds online and the ones hunting down kiddie porn all day long do in their spare time....
-=-=-=-=-
Some interesting comments on similar cases.. (Score:4)
I'm trying to to get involved in the name calling and blame throwing, since the man is indeed innocent until proven guilty. AFAIKT his major crimes are possession of child pornography and attempting to meet this supposed teenager.
Freeh, the head of the FBI spoke to congress in 1997 about child pornography, and so here are some excerpts:
Sexual exploitation of children involves sexual activity in which the perpetrator receives sexual gratification and may benefit financially, such as through the manufacture and distribution of child pornography. Exploitation may include contacts for sexual purposes, prostitution, pornography, or other sexually exploitative activities. Increasingly, pedophiles and sexual predators are using the Internet and on-line services to target and recruit victims and to facilitate the distribution of child pornography.
Pedophiles often seek out young children by either participating in or monitoring activities in chat rooms that are provided by commercial on-line services for teenagers and pre-teens to converse with each other. These chat rooms also provide pedophiles an anonymous means of establishing relationships with children. Using a chat room, a child can converse for hours with unknown individuals, often without the knowledge or approval of their parents. There is no easy way for the child to know if the person he or she is talking with is, in fact, another 14-year old, or is a 40-year old sexual predator masquerading as a peer. In other instances, a pedophile may use e-mail capabilities to send child pornography to persons who enter a chat room, even though the recipient does not request or want such mail.
Any similarities seen here? Let's continue.
In July 1996, 16 members of a group that often frequented a chat room known as the "Orchid Club" were indicted in federal court on a variety of charges involving the production and distribution of child pornography, as well as conspiracy. A joint investigation by the FBI, the United States Customs Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service determined that individuals used the chat room to arrange for and transmit child pornography. While in the chat room, they also discussed their involvement and desires in molesting children. What was especially significant in this case was that many of those conspirators later admitted active participation in child molestations within each of their own geographic locations.
One subject of the "Orchid Club" case admitted to having sexual attractions to girls age four to ten years old. He also admitted to writing diaries of his sexual desires for children and to secretly videotaping children at playgrounds. During a search of this subject's residence, investigators found approximately 700 floppy diskettes, 100 videotapes, diaries, writings, books, magazines, clippings, and related materials that indicated the subject's sexual interest in children.
This isn't quite the same, but it is an interesting notion.. (assuming he's guilty) would he have eventually progressed to this?
In 1994, the FBI initiated an innovative and proactive investigation, designated as "Innocent Images," to focus on the sexual exploitation of children through the Internet and on-line services. This investigation grew out of our experience in the May 1993 disappearance of George Stanley Burdynski, Jr., a 13-year old, in Prince George's County, Maryland. [snip] As of March 5, 1997, the "Innocent Images" investigation has generated 200 search warrants, 40 consent searches, 81 indictments, 33 informations, 91 arrests, and 83 felony convictions.
The "Innocent Images" Task Force is staffed by agents of the FBI's Baltimore, Maryland, field office, other federal agencies, and investigators from surrounding state and local jurisdictions in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. However, it is estimated that 95 percent of the subjects identified by the "Innocent Images" investigation reside in other states.
My assumption here is that "Innocent Images" was either behind the sting on Naughton or a major contributor of information and tactics.
And finally, from Freeh again to a congressional subcommittee,
Encryption. When I testified last week before the Subcommittee on the FBI's 1999 budget request, I outlined for the Subcommittee a number of challenges facing the FBI as it moves toward the 21st century. One of these challenges is the growing use of encryption by criminals to conceal their illegal activities. The "Innocent Images" initiative has uncovered sexual predators who use encryption in their communication with each other and in the storage of their child pornography computer files. This encryption is extremely difficult, and often impossible, to defeat.
It is essential that law enforcement agencies at all levels of government maintain the ability, through court order, to access encrypted communications and data relating to illegal activity.
I figured I'd just throw in a little encryption debate for you all to chew on.
It strikes me that Naughton has little hope. If he is convicted he'll be very lucky to not get jail time, and his life will be saved if he doesn't. Others have mentioned this already, but it is an enormous problem (or lack thereof, in some peoples' opinions).
Please, though, let's not judge him until the courts do.
Regards,
-efisher
---