Having Your ID Stolen Leads to Job Loss, Prosecution 404
ConfusedVorlon writes "The BBC reports on the sad case of Simon Bunce. Mr. Bunce had his identity stolen, and credit cards were made to capitalize on the theft. Some of those cards were used at sites offering child pornography, and as a result Mr. Bunce was swept up in Operation Ore. The poor man was prosecuted for his 'crime', and was eventually found innocent, but in the meantime he lost his job. It took him six months to find another at a quarter of the salary. 'The police's computer technicians take several months to examine [his computers and records], and Mr Bunce could not afford to wait to repair the damage done to his reputation. "I knew there'd been a fundamental mistake made and so I had to investigate it." Recent surveys suggest that as many as one in four Britons have been affected by it. In 2007 more than 185,000 cases of identity theft were identified by Cifas, the UK's fraud prevention service, an increase of almost 8% on 2006.'"
and yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
All ongoing posts will be the back and forth on this concept.
I disagree... (Score:3)
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I disagree... (Score:4, Insightful)
By all accounts I've read (and some old timers I've talked to) each generation expects more from the governments, pays far more and gets far less. The same is true of medicine. More toxins find their way into our food, our entertainment and such. I have old timer friends who used to be coke heads in the 50's. They tell me that clean coke (not crack and the like) made people relaxed, not hostile and seeking to kill for another fix. Strange? I get similar stories from potheads I've known in college. Strange that the police would punish nonviolent criminals, while violent rapists and murderers get acquitted? And not even acquitted on technicalities, but on mere "good behavior" or "time served" or more precisely "to make room in prison for tax cheats".
Tax cheats?? Wtf are we getting for our "fair share" that we have been paying? Highways? There's fucking potholes in DC! Nation's capital has goddamn potholes!! I've seen private toll roads with NO POTHOLES!! I've seen private estates and gated neighborhoods, "End Municipal Maintenance Here" read the sign. Far better roads, lower crime, and my friends living there all owned weapons, and didn't ever call the cops. They had armed security, well paid armed security at the neighborhood gates. Perhaps until people stop demanding things of gods and governments, those gods and governments will have no reason to demand things of their ignorant worshipers.
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, Snow Crash was a novel, not a manual.
Re:Strange... you missed the whole thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I picture the scenario as such:
... and scary as hell, I imagine. However, it's still an inferior threat.) A blade may scare away that burglar with a knife, or the rapist with a box cutter, but will do nothing when they have a pistol, and may even aggravate their intentions.
Person enters my house without permission.
Person is either unarmed, or armed.
Person's intentions are either to steal from me or to hurt/rape my family.
Now, finding that an invader is in my home, I do not know how armed or hostile the adversary is. In such a case, it seems imprudent to be overly optimistic. If my goal is to maximize the safety of my family, I need to assume the worst: the adversary is both armed, and intends to harm my family. My threat-response choices should be based on this expectation.
So, versus an armed hostile adversary, my options are, in increasing levels of severity:
1) Run away. Get everyone out of the house, in the car, and Far Away.
2) Threaten adversary. Accept possibility that I will be harmed in the process.
3) Harm adversary. Accept possibility that I will be harmed in the process.
4) Kill adversary. Accept possibility that I will be harmed in the process.
Let us examine the viability of each of these.
1) Run Away.
If this is possible, I want to do it. I'd much rather avoid confrontation, and make sure that no one gets hurt. However, in the case of a home invasion, the invader is quite likely to be between my family and the exit. If the adversary is hostile, we could be at risk. (Yes, we could open a window and escape that way; this isn't always guaranteed.)
Additionally, if I were to find the adversary already harming my family (or me), it's too late to do this (to an extent).
2) Threaten Adversary.
-- Call the police, and notify the adversary that they are on the way. Unarmed assailants are likely to be scared off, but I am not optimistic that an armed assailant would be convinced to go. They might take hostages. I realize this is not reasonable, but crazy people, psychos, or people who are high on $Drug are unlikely to be thinking completely rationally.
-- Any other threat I might make (to harm or kill the adversary myself) requires that the adversary believe I can and will do such a thing. Thus, this requires that I arm myself in a manner which will be percieved as a threat by all attackers.
A knife, sword, or spear won't do. A firearm is the weapon of choice, and I'd prefer a shotgun. Anything less is an automatic failure versus an assailant with a gun. (Yes, I know about the lethal distance. Yes, a short spear would be fantastic for CQ fighting in my house
Threats also have a chance to escalate into a combat situation ("You're welcome to try, have at thee!"). In such a case, I'd much prefer that I have an unfair advantage.
3) Harm Adversary.
This is both legally and ethically problematic, to me. If someone is an active threat to the life of my family or me, I do not feel it is prudent to try to "injure" them (not to mention that it's likely to impede my performance, as "shooting to wound" doesn't work). If someone is NOT an active threat to my life or my family, then I would be liable (legally) for having assaulted the invader. Anyone that I'd feel it's ethical to harm in self defense is an enemy which would be better completely unable to harm me, and therefore dead.
If I could disarm them safely, and then further ensure that they couldn't hurt me or my family, that see
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Strange... you missed the whole thing. (Score:4, Informative)
And then you claim that police are highly trained!
HAhahahaha!
Just google "how often do police have to qualify" and you will get this as the first link: http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-9835.html [officer.com]
Reading it you will find out that some police have to qualify ONCE a year, if that. And the qualification is to hit a man sized target at 10 feet. Some departments don't even provide funds for the officers to train and qualify and they must do it on their own time and money
Certainly there are police departments where the standards are much higher. But your erroneous statement of "getting shot with your own gun" is a complete fabrication.
Re:Strange... you missed the whole thing. (Score:4, Informative)
Your wish is my command.
A gun in your home is 22 times more likely [nih.gov] to kill a member of your family than an intruder.
Re:Strange... you missed the whole thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strange... you missed the whole thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shooting at paper targets is a lot different from shooting at live human beings while amped up on adrenaline in a low light situation such as your home.
And the police have practiced shooting at live human beings in low light situations? Understand, the police aren't magical. They shoot at paper targets too, most less frequently then a lot of gun enthusiasts. A lot of the local sheriff's deputies practice at the same range I do, and they're not out there as often as I (nor most of the other regulars) am. The bottom line is like most things in life, most people are always looking for someone else to to the hard work. The "shit rolls down hill" mentali
Re:I disagree... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
...Um... (Score:2)
Okay, yeah, I've got nothing to say to that. I think I'm just going to go sit in my corner & cry about the state of the world.
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they'd wait if, I dunno, we didn't advertise the details of suspects publicly on the basis of some random allegation that has yet to be proven in court?
Getting back to this specific case, I'm not sure what's more disturbing:
And on an unrelated note, what gives with the weird styling on Slashdot since earlier this evening? Loads of HTML formatting, such as the list above, is completely broken. :-(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It keeps getting worse in this respect in the US.....they'll confiscate most any and ALL property if you're suspected of a number of crimes. It started out as a way to battle the 'drug lords'...but, now, if they catch you with a roach, they'll impound your car and whatever else they think is connected to your drug money. Now.this spills over into many more
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Child pornography is the new witchcraft (Score:5, Insightful)
This one is not. (Score:5, Insightful)
And we've been over, often enough, the various means of solving "identity theft". The problem is that the burden is on the victim, not the bank issuing the cards. Despite the bank having far more information and resources than the victim.
If we would just validate the transaction instead of the "identity" of the purchaser, we'd be able to eliminate this fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This one is not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Each data broker intentionally has all of the information that's required to open any kind of loan account, from a credit card to a car loan to a marker at a casino. And so all it takes is one clever hacker to get that data out for a few thousand (or a few tens of thousands) of customers and *poof* he's able to create tens of thousands of fake loans by impersonating the customers whose information he just stole.
Until we see some legislation regulating security for data brokers we'll never see the end of identity theft.
And a criminal organization with patience ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Next, start gathering whatever information you can and entering it in that database. By theft or purchase or whatever.
How long will it be before you can, digitally, "prove" that you are any person in that database?
The attacks you are talking about are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be possible to perform such fraud on a nation-wide basis. Against just about any person in the nation.
And our system is NOT equipped to deal with such.
Re:And a criminal organization with patience ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of database problem was pointed out back in 1967 in a fascinating article in Atlantic magazine.
Dispute on bills... (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you wonder why so few people are responsible nowadays... perhaps because all they have to do is be robots at work, and vege at night. Had they had to live up to what it was they said, life might be a bit different... for all of us.
The question that must be asked is... "what makes a bunch of bankers and liars for a living, make their word more worthwhile in people's eyes than the word of a man who actually produces something tangible and sells it for a living and therefore has at least some chance that he isn't just a liar for a living?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And a criminal organization with patience ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The company should pay. (Score:4, Informative)
That's the theory. But in practice... well, let me quote the attorney who taught the class I took on "the laws involved in hiring":
"California is an at-will state. That means the employer and employee can terminate employment at any time without cause, barring a few exceptions. In practice, those exceptions make up about 90% of the rule."
Re: (Score:3)
Not so much. This is holdover terminology from the Cold War.
Re:and yet... (Score:5, Funny)
The USDOJ Strikes Again (Score:5, Informative)
Not content with this, they then took Landslide's entire customer list, sorted it by country, and sent it out to foreign law enforcement organizations demanding they raid everyone on it. They couldn't prove anyone on it had even visited an alleged child porn site, or what they had looked at if they did, but they could use the list for "probable cause" to search the victims computers, and if they found illegal porn while doing do, they could prosecute them for that.
Most countries ignored the US demands, except for those conducting their own child abuse moral panics like the UK. The UK ran with the list, and called its version "Operation Ore."
So they ran around raiding everyone in the UK who had purchased an age verification code from Landslide, and managed to find porn on a few computers, and sometimes were able to terrorize people on the list into making incriminating admissions. Of course, everyone so targeted was featured in the UK press as "a person who had paid for access to child porn."
The problem here is not identity theft. The problem here is a fishing expedition into the lives of mostly innocent people based on something which no reasonable person would consider probable cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that he didn't pay for porn, but had his life ruined anyway kinda disproves your point, dontchathink?
Re:and yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange." - Thomas Jefferson
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:and yet... (Score:4, Funny)
This is what is wrong with... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is way too much leniency given to law enforcement in the process of stopping child pornography. WAY TOO MUCH.
I'm not saying that child pornography is good or even just 'not bad'... I'm saying that lynch mob mentality in prosecuting anyone suspected of it is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Sex crime laws and their enforcement (at least in the US) are criminal in themselves. They are, at best, mostly subjective in nature and enforced with the tact of a nuclear weapon.
Victims are stigmatized, penalized, emotionally brutalized, and then forever branded as someone that people can't trust.
Laws are good to have. Not all laws are good laws. A law set by a community that cannot be amended or repealed is not a law, it's a dogma. These laws need some changes, big ones.
Re:This is what is wrong with... (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife and I have over the children from our in-laws. And they sleep in the bed with my wife. Just like kids do.
Though when that happens I on purpose stay away and sleep in the guest bedroom or what have you. The first time I did this my wife looked funny at me. I said, "think about it, think really hard about it."
It took her a moment or two and then she realized that I as a male cannot easily show emotion to children... There is a barrier that I have to erect, as I don't want people to ever think the wrong thing. Why? Because of the reason you said, Guilty first, innocent later.
And often it depresses me...
Re:This is what is wrong with... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But in Germany it seems to be sport to throw rocks off the bridge. Remember this is the autobahn and several people have been killed.
And in each of the cases, teenagers... My question WTF goes through their minds...
Re:This is what is wrong with... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is what is wrong with... (Score:5, Funny)
<VOICE TYPE="BEAVIS">Heh, heh...you said 'erect'.</VOICE>
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is what is wrong with... (Score:5, Funny)
Automated System Note: put SerpentMage on the watchlist.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you are not kidding here. My wife and I have over the children from our in-laws. And they sleep in the bed with my wife. Just like kids do. Though when that happens I on purpose stay away and sleep in the guest bedroom or what have you. The first time I did this my wife looked funny at me. I said, "think about it, think really hard about it." It took her a moment or two and then she realized that I as a male cannot easily show emotion to children... There is a barrier that I have to erect, as I don't want people to ever think the wrong thing. Why? Because of the reason you said, Guilty first, innocent later. And often it depresses me...
See, this is what I was afraid of. The lawmakers in these cases have absolutely no expertise or even basic knowledge about how the online community, or how computers work, yet they make laws which govern something they know little to nothing about. Why don't they ask people who know the internet how to best govern it? Some of the laws are the sorta laws which by design will create situations just like this one.
Re:This is what is wrong with... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
sometimes i hate humans. really.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a barrier that I have to erect, as I don't want people to ever think the wrong thing. Why? Because of the reason you said, Guilty first, innocent later.
I know exactly what you're talking about. In high school I wanted to be a grade school teacher.
Unfortunately, people automatically assume the worst when a man wants to work with kids; I was strongly advised by my teachers and guidance counsellors to change my mind. I did.
Looking back on it I'm still somewhat sad about it, but at the same time I'm glad about it to. With the current climate I would have lived in constant fear of the kid who got a bad grade, couldn't take it, and them making a false accusa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is what is wrong with... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, of course, is ridiculous - it's the same thing with drug possession laws. The war on child porn is as ineffective as the war on drugs, but is not criticized as often. If you criticize the war on child porn, you risk painting yourself as someone who likes child porn, which is MUCH worse than being painted a drug use
Simon Tuttle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
In a case such as this, at least in the US, a person might at least be able to sue the government for malicious prosecution and collect damages specifying that since the accusation ruined his life, that the government should therefore pay for it for a long, long time.
I have personally experienced what an accusation can do to one's employability... not even a conviction, just an arrest or an accusation. Is this an acceptable part of the justice system? I don't think so. While it's important to 'care for the victims' it's EQUALLY important to protect the rights of the accused until there is enough evidence to prove something is wrong.
In the particular case under discussion, they should never have arrested him based on credit card transactions. That is not proof of identity or of anything other than a transaction was made. And if no other evidence of a crime was present, the most they should have done is attempt to verify whether or not it was actually he that made the transaction or someone else. They could do much of that without even bothering the poor guy.
The reality is that this man is a victim of a crime... not necessarily a crime that is actually described in law, but still a violation of his life. I can't see that as acceptable. I think England is one of the last places I'd want to live... but then so is the U.S... and that's where I am now.
Re:It's terrible (Score:4, Interesting)
I have personally experienced what an accusation can do to one's employability... not even a conviction, just an arrest or an accusation. Is this an acceptable part of the justice system? I don't think so. While it's important to 'care for the victims' it's EQUALLY important to protect the rights of the accused until there is enough evidence to prove something is wrong.
I was accused of aggravated battery and for 6 months I was unemployable. Though the charges were thrown out my life was ruined, my family's future and security was in question, my wife left me (wow I should write a country song) and I was treated like a leper. Thanks a lot over ambitious prosecutor, especially since I have no recourse over what you did to me for nothing.
I'm doing fine now & on top of the world career-wise. I have my pride though & those employers who were happy to hire me once the that portion of my life was over got a thanks but no thanks letter from me- I see their true colors and how they would treat someone based on a rumor and nothing more. I wont forget.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is no.
Re:It's terrible (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't they investigate these cases *discretely*, so that if the investigated party is innocent, his life isn't ruined? Do it in a way that neighbors, friends, and employers won't find out. It should be between the accused and the government until the person is proven guilty. This way, if they are found innocent, they can continue with their lives as if nothing happened.
Unfortunately, law enforcement and the government likes to make a big show of things. Breaking down doors at 6AM, multiple police cars, so much attention that it attracts news media. The result? The person's life is ruined before it's even known if he's guilty or not.
Discretion. Is it really that hard?
Re:It's terrible (Score:4, Interesting)
Suspicion, not ID Theft (Score:5, Insightful)
This man's problems were caused not by ID theft, but by suspicion of crime. It would be no different if someone seeking revenge reported him on an "anonymous tipline".
The real problem, as I see it, is that even though one may legally be innocent until proven guilty, when it comes to dealing with the public at large, the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent, and sometimes even afterward.
Mr. Bruce's problems were caused by the society in which he lives, not the ID theft.
Re: (Score:2)
A lifetime in wages is probably cheaper than the CEO's bonus this year.
In any light, anyone and everyone that wrongs a person based on suspicion should be liable and forced to pay restitution to those harmed by their actions.
but that will never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Next, while the court system in the US has a presumption of innocence, the police do not. If they think they have cause to think you might be guilty, they are going to arrest you. It is then up to the prosecutor to decide if they think you can be convicted or not. Then, finally, you get to court where there is this presumption of innocence.
Re:Suspicion, not ID Theft (Score:5, Informative)
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't even found in the US Constitution, it's simply assumed as a part of the Common Law, otherwise known as English Common Law. It is, however, explicitly in the EU Constitution.
But of course, the word "children" has been the magic word to dispel it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ, touchy much? I'm saying it's a well-enshrined principle, much in the same way that they didn't need to spell out what habeas corpus meant, the mere mention of it was enough.
> Absolutely wrong.
You have an interesting definition of "absolutely". None of those amendments give a mention to the presumption of innocence, but to "the due process of law" of which it is presumed to be a part.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And guess what clause 2 of article 6 says?
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Trying to get the public to accept things? (Score:2)
So many things have been happening like that, I wonder if there is an intent to overthrow the U.S. and U.K. governments. For example, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said yesterday [youtube.com] that he thinks the attack on the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition [minnpost.com].
The U.S. Senate voted against Habeus Corpus [crooksandliars.com], which provides legal protection from unlawful detention [wikipedia.org].
The U.S. government has been building prisons [alternet.org].
Thats what the laws were designed for (Score:2)
Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I work in the finance industry and I know that for many employers reputation is everything. If an employee messes up, even on his/her own time, it could be grounds for dismissal. I've said a friendly goodbye to a co-worker one day on
This Isn't Just About Child Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In most cases, absolutely no forensic work was undertaken, arrests were simply made without assessing the evidence. In some case people with sufficient technical nous have been able to prove that their cards were used fraudulently, but many people have accepted cautions that will remain on the records for ever, and a significant number of pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think other posters have missed the point a bit by focusing on the fact that this case was about child pornography.
But what other crime could be committed using a credit card that carries even half the societal scorn as child pornography? With other crimes you face financial ruin and possible jail time; with a child pornography arrest you get the financial ruin, the jail time (lengthier than most other crimes you could commit with a CC), and there is the added bonus of being transformed into a living monster who nearly all of society wishes to punish over and over again.
This kind of thing could happen in USA (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3100544 [democratic...ground.com]
"You're fired!"
Those are the words that millions of Americans could hear if Congress passes the SAVE Act.
The SAVE Act would require every employer in the U.S. to use so-called "electronic employment verification," cross-checking all current and potential employees' citizenship status against databases that the government itself knows are filled with errors and inaccuracies.
And what if the Social Security Administration (SSA) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) get it wrong and can't verify a person's citizenship or right to work using their buggy database? Tough luck. That person is out of a job, with no right to appeal. And you don't even need to have your identity stolen to be so unlucky.
Does this idea bother you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn lies (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? One in four? are you insane? that would be 15 million people. Does that really seem likely? Anecdotally I know substantialy more than four people and *none* of them have had their identity stolen. They are still the same people I used to know (although with ID theft the way it is who can tell?).
OK, Cifas (whoever they are) pursued 185k cases last year. There are 65M people in the uk. 65,000,000 - 185,000 = 65,000,000 (rounded up). That is not 25%, more like 0.025%. If they can only identify 0.1% of the fraud what are they actually doing? I know the gubment wastes money, but that is crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
(*In the specific areas chosen just to give a scary result.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you limit it to financially affected, significant others and children of someone who suffers from identity theft are all affected directly.
So basically it is a useless made up number... ;
Re: (Score:2)
The statement doesn't include any kind of time period for the 1 in 4 stat. Also, they do not define "been affected by".
So, 1 in 4 may have been affected by ID theft in their lifetime. Is this a surprise? Think about how many ways people can be affected by identity theft... one of which being bearing the cost of ID theft when purchasing goods, another one is needing to jump through hoops in order to complete a simp
He had nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He had nothing to hide (Score:4, Insightful)
Corrections (Score:5, Interesting)
Fixed it for you.
Another one here (Score:3, Informative)
Not actually prosecuted (Score:5, Informative)
My reading of the story may be wrong, but I can't find anywhere in it where it says that he was prosecuted. Perhaps this is a transatlantic definition problem. Here in the UK, there are basically four stages to a criminal prosecution (yes, I have simplified).
- Arrest: The police suspect that you might have committed a crime.
- Charging: The police decide that their suspicions were correct and ask for the case to go to trial.
- Prosecution: The Crown Prosecution Service (a body independent from the police) decide that the case is likely to succeed and will be in the public interest. They prepare the prosecution case and go to the courts.
- Conviction or aquital: A court decided whether or not the defendant is guilty and if guilty imposes a penalty.
So far as I can tell, in this case Mr Bunce only passed through the first stage. The police eventually decided that he had not committed a crime and therefore didn't charge him. Now, that is not to minimise his suffering. He has clearly been very badly treated and he hope he succeeds with legal action against not only the web site, but also the police and his ex-employers. I should also point out that here in the UK police state, he will have had his finger prints and DNA taken and that these will now be retained forever (even after his death) even thought the police accept that he did nothing wrong.
Fraud, not theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a case of fraud, not theft. This man's identity was not "stolen," but used fraudulently in an attempt to gain illegitimate access to goods and services under the guise of someone else. Using words like "identity theft" is no better than the RIAA calling copyright infringement "theft."
You make a good point. I would go further and say that the phrase "identity theft" is deliberately promoted by corporations and governments as a way of avoiding responsibility for the problem. Unfortunately, all indications are that it has worked spectacularly so far.
The phrase "identity theft" implies that you are responsible for keeping your identity away from the evil thieves. Never mind that an identity cannot be kept secret, that it cannot be replaced, and that there is basically no way to prev
Its because of f@cking "think of the children" (Score:5, Insightful)
yea it is. im no psychopath, badass wannabee or anything. i just recognize stellar shit when i see it.
this 'child pornography' scare has been made into a modern day witch hunt. its totally stupid and idiotic. no less than a medieval witch hunt - you just need to be accused by someone to be prosecuted. try it. just accuse someone, and watch their computers getting confiscated. their sensitive data, passwords, everything passing through some obscure personas in local police department.
mankind really lacking in wisdom. higher the level of disgust/horror a crime induces, the higher they are regarding that crime.
hundreds of thousands of people around the world are dying every year due to various atrocity related events, genocides, strifes, terrorism, repression, disease, hunger. but our current overly politically correct public is more appalled at the wake of pathetically negligible percentage of child pornography cases than hundreds of thousands of people dying. what ? when a child grows up, s/he is not important anymore ? s/he dying due to hunger whilst the world has the means to aid them is not something more horrible than a child pornography case ? if you just read this last sentence, and thought that child pornography is a more horrible and bigger crime, even if a second, you need to really straighten up yourself and get smart - because you yourself are judging the seriousness of a crime by the horror it induces, not its real merit. right to life is the foremost right on the face of the earth.
An ongoing problem; maybe getting worse (Score:3, Interesting)
Are there people who are child molesters? Yes. Is everyone who is charged, convicted, or treated for child molestation a child molester? Nope.
What happens with this crime and several others is they become weapons for women to use against men. It's very simple; accuse your husband / boyfriend of this crime and the police will arrest him immediately. Make that complaint Friday evening and you'll have 3 or 4 days to clean out the bank accounts, conceal assets, etc. before he can bail out.
Does this happen? You better believe it does. More often than most people can imagine. This abuse of the legal system (and others like it) are brought to you courtesy of your elected representatives who are giving you what you ask for: crack down on child molesters, wife abusers, etc. Too many are getting away, let's make the laws a bit more general and a bit more "guilty until proven innocent". For the win, make them so that the accused is guilty until proven guilty.
Nope, not me. But I've seen this scenario play out time and time again. I feel bad for what our country has become and cast a worried eye at England. They seem to be leading the way in the race to Fascism...
The summary is incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
He shouldn't have been arrested either, given how slight the evidence against him was. A search was justified, but no more.
Sue the government, then. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)