7 ms·

If, during the entire history of the USA, some FBI agents had never been proven to be corrupt, if judges had never been proven to be corrupt, if evidence had n

by SeanDav 11y ago

If, during the entire history of the USA, some FBI agents had never been proven to be corrupt, if judges had never been proven to be corrupt, if evidence had never been proved to be planted by authorities, then maybe, just maybe this would be justified. In the real world, however, this is very, very scary and I consider myself lucky I am not subject to this travesty. Since there does not appear to be any proof that he downloaded the images, or was involved in any way, other than pictures being found on various hard drives, it is quite plausible to me that the FBI/NSA/CIA planted evidence in order to blackmail him.

lsh123 11y ago
The past does not predict the future. Even if all the "ifs" were true, then it is still a bad idea and scary thing to do.
- x1798DE 11y ago
  The past is not a guarantee of the future, but it's very often a great predictor of the future.
threatofrain 11y ago
I'd also add that the FISA court rubber-stamps almost all government requests. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-rubber-stamp http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence...
boosting7669 11y ago
And yet a jury convicted him. This kind of thing is far beyond the comprehension of the common juror. Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace, even from thousands of miles away, I'd have to see video evidence of the defendant downloading the material as it happens before rendering such a verdict, especially if it's going to mean decades in prison.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nxzero 11y ago
  In the US, juries are not required to follow the law: SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification RELATED TEXT: "A jury can similarly unjustly and illegally convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot)."
  - boosting7669 11y ago
    I don't understand how this is relevant to my comment. Please explain
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Your comment appears to me to assume that if a jury knew someone was not guilt by law, that they would vote not guilt. My point is that a jury in the US can intentionally convict someone as guilty that they're aware is "legally" not guilty.
      - boosting7669 11y ago
        They can also intentionally acquit someone they know is guilty of the law simply because they don't think the law should exist, this is called jury nullification. My point was that the typical jury is just not sophisticated enough to understand how easy it is to plant digital evidence. I doubt they'd convict in a case like this believing the defendant to be innocent.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- patcheudor 11y ago
  "Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace." This right here is the conversation which needs to happen around this particular topic. In the security community the topic of forensic discovery of child porn tends to get a hand-wave because child porn. It's there so someone must be guilty. The fact is, it is trivial to plant such evidence on anyone's computer and honestly, if a computer is connected to the Internet, define ownership. Is your computer connected to the Internet? Then it's not your computer. Ever used public WiFi? It's absolutely trivial for someone to inject image requests which never get rendered, but which remain in the cache. This can be done en-mass without anyone ever noticing until someone's computer gets searched. Based on digital evidence alone no one should ever be arrested, let alone convicted on these charges, but the fact is, to catch someone who is guilty is very difficult. Difficult to the degree that it should require video and/or photographic evidence of the perp at the computer looking at the images. Therefore it seems law enforcement and the justice system has decided that the easy way out is to just go with what's on the hard-drive. If a few innocent people get caught, no big deal, it's for the greater good.
vermontdevil 11y ago
Yep. Ever since the days of John Adams willing to defend the British soldiers, it's obvious those with mob mentality of those in power can roughshod over anyone they deem guilty. A right to defend yourself against any charges is a critical right and I fear it's being eroded with all these "national security" excuses.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever. -John Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0...
rconti 11y ago
Yeah, the disturbing/relevant line is: "During his initial appearance in a federal courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif., the prosecutors indicated a willingness to reduce or drop the child pornography charges if he would tell them about the C-17, said Sara Naheedy, Gartenlaub’s attorney at the time."
- themartorana 11y ago
  After: “When law enforcement lawfully obtains evidence of a serious crime, in this case a crime against children, we will pursue further investigation of that crime,” he said. We will pursue! Unless you tell us what we want to hear.
stegosaurus 11y ago
You don't even need to assume governmental malice! What happens if I hack into your machine and plant something? I might have reason not to like you. I might just be a troll. It might give me a competitive advantage in some market to take you out. Perhaps we're both candidates for local government and I want to win. Strict liability crimes are poisonous, illegal numbers are simply absurd.
kefka 11y ago
My view of having a mens rea requirement with child porn statues are derided with comments like: "Congratulations, you're now on an FBI watch list." ( (s)he did agree with me) Yet if there is no guilty mind, there should be no crime. Frankly possession of CP shouldn't be a crime at all, because it is proof of a crime. Snuff videos aren't illegal. Rape videos (of 18+) aren't illegal. Just horrible videos are that: horrible. They aren't illegal. And that's not to go after the idea of "I plant CP on your machines..." Strict liability means you lose. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11431128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11431128
- danielvinson 11y ago
  While you do have a point, I don't think there is a single first-world country where it is legal. That means that everyone in power, everywhere, agrees on this at least to some degree, meaning that it probably won't change any time soon.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  > Rape videos (of 18+) aren't illegal. Just horrible videos are that: horrible. They aren't illegal. They are in the UK. sigh EDIT: oops, believed the hype
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Only if they're actually rape. People can give consent for BDSM style role play video. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-etc http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheadi... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/37/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/37/enacte... And there are some limited defences of images of actual rape - a 3rd party secretly planting the material doesn't count.

by SeanDav 11y ago

lsh123 11y ago

The past does not predict the future. Even if all the "ifs" were true, then it is still a bad idea and scary thing to do.

x1798DE 11y ago
The past is not a guarantee of the future, but it's very often a great predictor of the future.

threatofrain 11y ago

I'd also add that the FISA court rubber-stamps almost all government requests. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-rubber-stamp http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence...

boosting7669 11y ago

And yet a jury convicted him. This kind of thing is far beyond the comprehension of the common juror. Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace, even from thousands of miles away, I'd have to see video evidence of the defendant downloading the material as it happens before rendering such a verdict, especially if it's going to mean decades in prison.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nxzero 11y ago
In the US, juries are not required to follow the law: SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification RELATED TEXT: "A jury can similarly unjustly and illegally convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot)."
- boosting7669 11y ago
  I don't understand how this is relevant to my comment. Please explain
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Your comment appears to me to assume that if a jury knew someone was not guilt by law, that they would vote not guilt. My point is that a jury in the US can intentionally convict someone as guilty that they're aware is "legally" not guilty.
    - boosting7669 11y ago
      They can also intentionally acquit someone they know is guilty of the law simply because they don't think the law should exist, this is called jury nullification. My point was that the typical jury is just not sophisticated enough to understand how easy it is to plant digital evidence. I doubt they'd convict in a case like this believing the defendant to be innocent.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
patcheudor 11y ago
"Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace." This right here is the conversation which needs to happen around this particular topic. In the security community the topic of forensic discovery of child porn tends to get a hand-wave because child porn. It's there so someone must be guilty. The fact is, it is trivial to plant such evidence on anyone's computer and honestly, if a computer is connected to the Internet, define ownership. Is your computer connected to the Internet? Then it's not your computer. Ever used public WiFi? It's absolutely trivial for someone to inject image requests which never get rendered, but which remain in the cache. This can be done en-mass without anyone ever noticing until someone's computer gets searched. Based on digital evidence alone no one should ever be arrested, let alone convicted on these charges, but the fact is, to catch someone who is guilty is very difficult. Difficult to the degree that it should require video and/or photographic evidence of the perp at the computer looking at the images. Therefore it seems law enforcement and the justice system has decided that the easy way out is to just go with what's on the hard-drive. If a few innocent people get caught, no big deal, it's for the greater good.

vermontdevil 11y ago

Yep. Ever since the days of John Adams willing to defend the British soldiers, it's obvious those with mob mentality of those in power can roughshod over anyone they deem guilty. A right to defend yourself against any charges is a critical right and I fear it's being eroded with all these "national security" excuses.

alanwatts 11y ago
>it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever. -John Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0...

rconti 11y ago

Yeah, the disturbing/relevant line is: "During his initial appearance in a federal courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif., the prosecutors indicated a willingness to reduce or drop the child pornography charges if he would tell them about the C-17, said Sara Naheedy, Gartenlaub’s attorney at the time."

themartorana 11y ago
After: “When law enforcement lawfully obtains evidence of a serious crime, in this case a crime against children, we will pursue further investigation of that crime,” he said. We will pursue! Unless you tell us what we want to hear.

stegosaurus 11y ago

You don't even need to assume governmental malice! What happens if I hack into your machine and plant something? I might have reason not to like you. I might just be a troll. It might give me a competitive advantage in some market to take you out. Perhaps we're both candidates for local government and I want to win. Strict liability crimes are poisonous, illegal numbers are simply absurd.

kefka 11y ago

My view of having a mens rea requirement with child porn statues are derided with comments like: "Congratulations, you're now on an FBI watch list." ( (s)he did agree with me) Yet if there is no guilty mind, there should be no crime. Frankly possession of CP shouldn't be a crime at all, because it is proof of a crime. Snuff videos aren't illegal. Rape videos (of 18+) aren't illegal. Just horrible videos are that: horrible. They aren't illegal. And that's not to go after the idea of "I plant CP on your machines..." Strict liability means you lose. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11431128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11431128

danielvinson 11y ago
While you do have a point, I don't think there is a single first-world country where it is legal. That means that everyone in power, everywhere, agrees on this at least to some degree, meaning that it probably won't change any time soon.
SixSigma 11y ago
> Rape videos (of 18+) aren't illegal. Just horrible videos are that: horrible. They aren't illegal. They are in the UK. sigh EDIT: oops, believed the hype
- DanBC 11y ago
  Only if they're actually rape. People can give consent for BDSM style role play video. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-etc http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheadi... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/37/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/37/enacte... And there are some limited defences of images of actual rape - a 3rd party secretly planting the material doesn't count.