Thinking about this from the perspective of "what do you have to hide?" is wrong-headed.

Power like this must be looked at with a healthy dose of history and what-if scenarios.

Have governments in the past violated people's rights based on speech or behavior that while not immoral/harmful to others was contrary to what the government wanted people to say/think/do? Yes.

Have governments in the past violated people's rights based on looks or ethnicity? Yes.

Would those past governments have subverted this tool and violated people's rights with it? Absolutely.

Are governmental incursions into rights (accusations of crime, conviction and imprisonment) anywhere near perfect now? No. Can this system be gamed or would a person ever be able to fully recover from a false positive? Maybe.

Is it possible to likely that a future government will come into power that will misuse or subvert this to do more than just protect children? Yes.

Is it possible to likely that that government will use the results of that misuse/subversion to violate the human rights of its citizens? Yes. Is it likely that government will curtail its use of such capability to specifically protection of children in this context and no other? No.

Therefore, I oppose this going in the wild.

I'm not the one in question here. The criminal who did it is. He *did* commit a crime to satisfy his perverted curiosity. Everyone has mentally undressed another human being. That is genetically driven behavior. However, given that the person in question *did* commit a crime, then asking the question about his motivation is, in my opinion, going towards justification of his particular criminal behavior. But I'm happy to let it rest and be considered ridiculous.

And by "minimal harm" re: voyeurism, I mean that there is no record of it which can be shared with the world, there is no physical harm. There is still an unacceptable and harmful invasion of privacy which should be redressed.

How about technological sexual exploitation? He was using technology to get his jollies at the expense of the rights of others. I get what you're saying on the term of rape. What's a word that is in between voyeur (minimal harm) and rape (personal, physical and mental harm) that doesn't diminish rape? We need that word and an appropriate charge for it.

Oh, I didn't realize I'd stepped into the part of the internet where public conversations were actually private and enforced by anon. Motivation is irrelevant. By claiming there might be some understandable motivation, it's an attempt to lessen the magnitude of the action.

No. Further, it's a disgusting suggestion that this should in any way justify this behavior or be used as a means of minimization of his wrongdoing.

Goes beyond even a peeping tom because of the level of violation and the fact that the visuals can be shared and remain in public forever. The law needs an update in this realm (and many other tech related realms). Just getting a hacking charge isn't sufficient.

That's with a server, four pcs and two gaming consoles connected to the internet on my home network by the way.

I'm on the FIOS 35/35 plan. Depending on the server I'm connecting to I get between 12 and 30 mbps up and 25 and 100 mbps down on FIOS without my neighbors interfering with my speed during the day. Can you say the same on ADSL2+?

Actually it's more like someone walks into your unlocked house, steals a bunch of dvd's, makes copies and sells them on the street and you get fined because you didn't fulfill your supposed "obligation" as a consumer of a product to make sure no one pirated copyrighted material. No matter how you look at it, it's bullshit.

In Soviet Russia the globe warms you!

What little you know is less than you think. Here's how it works Defendant is arraigned and given a bail amount Bail bondsman pays a percentage (normally 10%) of that amount to the court. This money could come from their own pocket or it could come from a surety company. Defendant misses court date and is therefore in forfeiture of the bond and a bench warrant is issued. The bail bondsman has X days, set by the court, to return the defendant to custody or they lose the money they put down. The bail bondsman could cooperate with the police to get the bad guy. Most bonds are for minor violations though and the police have more pressing issues most of the time. Nor do they care about the deadline for returning the defendant. They aren't likely to do the paperwork necessary just to track a cell phone or wiretap a phone to find the guy on the behalf of a bondsman or to get it done in the timeframe he needs. So the bondsman, if he doesn't think he can get the bad guy back in time hires a bounty hunter with the promise of a bounty if they return the guy in time. The bounty hunter can't really cooperate with the police or ask for their help. If he does he'll have to share information he has with them and if the police pick the guy up first he loses the bounty. The system puts bondsman and police somewhat at loggerheads on this. They don't often do favors for each other. Nor do most police offices have the necessary tech to make a spoofed call.

And tower triangulation simply isn't accurate enough. If they're on the lam they most likely have GPS turned off.

Bail bondsman/bounty hunters do not have access to cell phone location data. Police do but even then it isn't as good as convincing the fugitive to meet you at a place of your choosing instead of their "hideout" which may be more dangerous.

Bail bondsman, police, etc. attempting to locate a fugitive without spooking them. A call from Mom is more likely to be answered than one from Bounty Hunter Bill.