5 ms·

Every new article I see about this story appears to have more and more pointers towards a child porn investigation. I hope someone sensible thinks very seriousl

by ErrantX 17y ago

Every new article I see about this story appears to have more and more pointers towards a child porn investigation. I hope someone sensible thinks very seriously before deciding to do that...

ct4ul4u 17y ago
I suspect that is inevitable. This is a heinous violation of the privacy of minors in their parents homes. I suspect that prosecutors will be forced to reach for the biggest hammer they have.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Well my US law grounding is only the basics but they have some fairly big hammers they can bring to bear before CP law are required. I'm not sure if the state this is in has Voyeurism laws but that is a good place to start. Then you have unlawful recording, various surveillance laws and lots of privacy law violations. Of course if this woman has taken the images with a sexual intent (or used them with a sexual intent) then totally; throw the book at her :)
branden 17y ago
Child porn laws, like any laws, should be enforced without respect for the defendant's status. If the definition of child porn is so broad as to include what this school has done, then they should be prosecuted as mercilessly as anyone else would be.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Well, yes, if the CP laws have been broken then definitely. However, from what I have read (and based on my experience) this does not fit any of the profiles of an child pornography case. It is actually damaging to other cases if this is prosecuted badly.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    I think it depends on what the intent was. If the intent was to surreptitious take pictures of minors with the hopes of catching some nudity, then I'm guess it falls into the CP bucket. I think it would be hard to show though that there could be a different intent though for surreptitiously taking photos of teens at random times.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      A big part of my job is proving intent in just such cases. It is, as you point touch on, really difficult. There could be a very "innocent" reason; the sysadmin could be simply obbsessed or interested in individuals lives (it's actually not an uncommon problem) and not even consider that something indecent might appear on screen. She might not find it sexually interesting etc. If the intent really was to photograph nude children then I'd fully expect there to be lots and lots of evidence showing this (particularly in terms of other indecent material on her computers).
      - elblanco 17y ago
        Supposing intent was not CP, but was some kind voyeuristic intent, what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? What about the administration of the school who signed off on this debacle (particularly the forced use of the laptops under penalty of expulsion that contributed greatly to this mess?)
        ErrantX 17y ago
        > what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? Well pretty much what I listed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 > What about the administration of the school Yeh, that's a complicated one - I hope they don't get off the hook or anything silly. But I don't see how CP laws could apply to them in any way. I presume they will get them under negligence / malicious neglect laws.
        17y ago
elblanco 17y ago
As the revealed number of taken pictures increases, the probability of there being child porn increases as well.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Taking the image of a nude child is not, by default, child porn. If it was taken as part of the process (i.e. had not been specially taken, has not been copied elsewhere, taken home etc.) then proving intent is difficult.
jerf 17y ago
Are you implying that you think the child porn laws shouldn't be used? I know they are abused horrifically at times, but if the accusations being made here are true, I can't even begin to call this an abuse of a child porn law. I can imagine a world in which someone could think this is a good idea without thinking through all the implications, but at the first picture of someone (anyone, child or otherwise) in an even remotely compromising position that landed on the school's drives, the sane, sensible, and basically legally-mandated thing to do would have been to immediately terminate the program. They failed this test and it is perfectly just that they be prosecuted. Deterrence is a perfectly reasonable motive here; we absolutely do not want anyone to think this is a reasonable solution to any problem. Save your objections for the actual abuses, lest you dilute your argument. (Assuming that is what you are trying to imply. Which isn't clear, though I'm not sure what else you could mean.) (Edit: In other posts you talk about intent. As I argued above, if intent had been pure the program would have shut down at the first sign of trouble. I do not have problem imputing bad intent to these actors, again, given the truth of the accusations. If they wished the benefit of the doubt, there were actions they can and should (in every sense of the term) have taken, which they did not.)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I see your argument; actually it's very good and I mostly agree with the point made. But still I'd prefer to see other, more applicable, laws used. Proving somebody saw these nude images (if there are any) is going to be a huge legal minefield. And even then classing it as child pornography is difficult for a variety of reasons. When I talk about intent I mean the intent to see it as sexual content. Clearly the proper thing to do is delete any inappropriate images - and in this respect there may be some indecency laws that apply. But CP is about the sexual abuse of children and the use of indecent material in a sexual context. This has already been watered down here in the UK to the point of making a conviction barely an inconvenience to them.
  - drivebyacct 17y ago
    School administrators were overhead talking about how they liked the cameras because it was a mini drama of the personal lives of students in their building... how is that not clear intent? They were looking at the photos for fun. Sure you can't prove their cornea lined up with the image, but come on, have you ever heard a pedophile say 'I took the pictures with my eyes closed and didn't look at them, I just made them available to others'?

by ErrantX 17y ago

Every new article I see about this story appears to have more and more pointers towards a child porn investigation. I hope someone sensible thinks very seriously before deciding to do that...

ct4ul4u 17y ago

I suspect that is inevitable. This is a heinous violation of the privacy of minors in their parents homes. I suspect that prosecutors will be forced to reach for the biggest hammer they have.

ErrantX 17y ago
Well my US law grounding is only the basics but they have some fairly big hammers they can bring to bear before CP law are required. I'm not sure if the state this is in has Voyeurism laws but that is a good place to start. Then you have unlawful recording, various surveillance laws and lots of privacy law violations. Of course if this woman has taken the images with a sexual intent (or used them with a sexual intent) then totally; throw the book at her :)

branden 17y ago

Child porn laws, like any laws, should be enforced without respect for the defendant's status. If the definition of child porn is so broad as to include what this school has done, then they should be prosecuted as mercilessly as anyone else would be.

ErrantX 17y ago
Well, yes, if the CP laws have been broken then definitely. However, from what I have read (and based on my experience) this does not fit any of the profiles of an child pornography case. It is actually damaging to other cases if this is prosecuted badly.
- elblanco 17y ago
  I think it depends on what the intent was. If the intent was to surreptitious take pictures of minors with the hopes of catching some nudity, then I'm guess it falls into the CP bucket. I think it would be hard to show though that there could be a different intent though for surreptitiously taking photos of teens at random times.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    A big part of my job is proving intent in just such cases. It is, as you point touch on, really difficult. There could be a very "innocent" reason; the sysadmin could be simply obbsessed or interested in individuals lives (it's actually not an uncommon problem) and not even consider that something indecent might appear on screen. She might not find it sexually interesting etc. If the intent really was to photograph nude children then I'd fully expect there to be lots and lots of evidence showing this (particularly in terms of other indecent material on her computers).
    - elblanco 17y ago
      Supposing intent was not CP, but was some kind voyeuristic intent, what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? What about the administration of the school who signed off on this debacle (particularly the forced use of the laptops under penalty of expulsion that contributed greatly to this mess?)
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        > what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? Well pretty much what I listed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 > What about the administration of the school Yeh, that's a complicated one - I hope they don't get off the hook or anything silly. But I don't see how CP laws could apply to them in any way. I presume they will get them under negligence / malicious neglect laws.
        17y ago

elblanco 17y ago

As the revealed number of taken pictures increases, the probability of there being child porn increases as well.

ErrantX 17y ago
Taking the image of a nude child is not, by default, child porn. If it was taken as part of the process (i.e. had not been specially taken, has not been copied elsewhere, taken home etc.) then proving intent is difficult.

jerf 17y ago

Are you implying that you think the child porn laws shouldn't be used? I know they are abused horrifically at times, but if the accusations being made here are true, I can't even begin to call this an abuse of a child porn law. I can imagine a world in which someone could think this is a good idea without thinking through all the implications, but at the first picture of someone (anyone, child or otherwise) in an even remotely compromising position that landed on the school's drives, the sane, sensible, and basically legally-mandated thing to do would have been to immediately terminate the program. They failed this test and it is perfectly just that they be prosecuted. Deterrence is a perfectly reasonable motive here; we absolutely do not want anyone to think this is a reasonable solution to any problem. Save your objections for the actual abuses, lest you dilute your argument. (Assuming that is what you are trying to imply. Which isn't clear, though I'm not sure what else you could mean.) (Edit: In other posts you talk about intent. As I argued above, if intent had been pure the program would have shut down at the first sign of trouble. I do not have problem imputing bad intent to these actors, again, given the truth of the accusations. If they wished the benefit of the doubt, there were actions they can and should (in every sense of the term) have taken, which they did not.)

ErrantX 17y ago
I see your argument; actually it's very good and I mostly agree with the point made. But still I'd prefer to see other, more applicable, laws used. Proving somebody saw these nude images (if there are any) is going to be a huge legal minefield. And even then classing it as child pornography is difficult for a variety of reasons. When I talk about intent I mean the intent to see it as sexual content. Clearly the proper thing to do is delete any inappropriate images - and in this respect there may be some indecency laws that apply. But CP is about the sexual abuse of children and the use of indecent material in a sexual context. This has already been watered down here in the UK to the point of making a conviction barely an inconvenience to them.
- drivebyacct 17y ago
  School administrators were overhead talking about how they liked the cameras because it was a mini drama of the personal lives of students in their building... how is that not clear intent? They were looking at the photos for fun. Sure you can't prove their cornea lined up with the image, but come on, have you ever heard a pedophile say 'I took the pictures with my eyes closed and didn't look at them, I just made them available to others'?