Man Jailed After Consulting Apple Genius

[ukgooey]

I bet the guy was thinking, "Thank fuck they only found the kiddie porn and not my illegally downloaded music. I would have been really fucked"


Joel Tenenbaum - that one was for you.

 

[kingssman]

Guilty pleasure of mine is whenever somebody brought in a PC or Mac to be fixed, as soon as the machine was running I would do a media search to find how "naughty" the customer was. While a majority was found in the IE cache from pron sites, I did run across more nude home pictures of the customers themselves than anything......... ugggggg not a pretty sight.
Tip. If going to get PC repair, delete or move your home nudy pics and videos.
For the serious, always password protect and encrypt file like Pdf documents

 

[waffle911]

[citation][nom]Kingssman[/nom]Tip. If going to get PC repair, delete or move your home nudy pics and videos. For the serious, always password protect and encrypt file like Pdf documents[/citation]
And how sad it is that this is not common sense, with any sensitive files regardless of content or subject matter.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]telim[/nom]Wait wait wait... I agree child porn is awful and disgusting, but everyone here is saying this guy physically abused/molested these girls. He did not. He simply had pictures on his MAC. No where in the article does it say he personally took the pictures.[/citation]Law of supply and demand. No demand for the pictures, no one will take the pictures. If you're part of the demand, you're part of the problem.

Now, I firmly believe that he's innocent until proven guilty. There will have to be a forensic examination of his computer to determine if he willfully/deliberately downloaded the pictures or if they were somehow downloaded by a virus, trojan, or they were just "splash" images on a porn site he did visit.

Still, all of those are highly unlikely since child porn is illegal in most/all of the world, the sites that have it tend to keep it hidden and/or password protected. Also, these apparently weren't 16-17 year olds who may have appeared older or 18/19 year olds who appeared younger. If they appeared to be 10-13 years old, that probably means pre-pubescent, it should be obvious to anyone that they're underage.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]chunkymonster[/nom]I find it hard to believe that the Mac Tech had any proof that the guy purposely, knowingly, and intentionally kept kiddie porn on his computer.[/citation]Doesn't matter, possession is illegal and you are required by law to report it if you encounter it. The law leaves no room for judgement calls, circumstances, or discretion in reporting it.

[citation][nom]chunkymonster[/nom]Child porn issues aside, I'm sure the Mac Tech feels morally justified in doing what he did, and perhaps rightfully so.[/citation]See above, the way the law is written, legally, the tech had no choice once he found it. There is no evidence that he went searching for it, just that he stumbled across it.

 

[croc]

And in other news, there are 86,000 videos on youtube of beatings of homeless people. Must be yank-wanker justice, right? They are homeless, so deserve what they get, right?

Geesh... You yank-wankers are so up yourselves.... Every single yank-wanker should be taken at birth and immediately incarcerated until they either have been 'rehabilitated' or die. That would save the world a lot of grief...

 

[Guest]

IRT to Exodite

you actually see sexually naked 10 year olds at the beach?

on TOP of that, you think its perfectly alright to jerk off to that? i wish the cops had your address....


ps, what is with the amount of pedophiles on here?

pss for the 'anti-vigilantes,' its not the person, its the act itself that everybody against(except for the pedophiles posting here). abusing the children would have been worse, but that doesn't mean that supporting it is alright(honestly, wtf is wrong with you guys[the ones that think having child porn is alright]?.

 

[anamaniac]

So, Macintosh finally has something going for them.

[citation][nom]Raidur[/nom]5 year minimum... ouch. Can you say zero tolerance or what?![/citation]

Look at Canadian child pron cases... child rapist and child porn distributor only got 3 years (on account he helped police).
I'm all for a zero tolerance policy...

 

[ajcroteau]

BOZO CRIMINAL!!!

 

[Master Exon]

[citation][nom]Bob_Villa[/nom]ps, what is with the amount of pedophiles on here?[/citation]

Not a single poster has admitted or implied being a pedophile. In addition, 90+% of the posters here have expressed a Zero Tolerance kill or imprison style policy against them. What I don't understand is why everyone out here believes they have to be self-righteous and "Moral Police" everyone's porn collection and interests. Pedophilia is a fetish no different than bondage, gay, and yiffing. Saying people who like child porn are just as bad as people who rape children is like saying people who play GTA are just as bad as cold-blooded murderes, or that people who like bondage are just as bad as real rapists. There is an absolutely huge fundamental difference between a sexual predator and a pedophile.

I find everyone's arrogant intolerance and ignorance just as disgusting as actual child abuse.

 

[compulsionnra]

This is great news.

 

[rcmaniac25]

"Genius"...

 

[Kami3k]

I don't put any weight on that des[citation][nom]master exon[/nom] What I don't understand is why everyone out here believes they have to be self-righteous and "Moral Police" everyone's porn collection and interests. Pedophilia is a fetish no different than bondage, gay, and yiffing. [/citation]

WTF? You think having child porn is just a fucking fetish?!! WTF?!!!

Holy shit, someone track this guys IP and found where they live. They seriously need mental help.

 

[azxcvbnm321]

Yup, this is the consequences of the moral relativism philosophy so popular amongst people today. Everything is equally bad. Who are we to say something is worse than something else? Who are we to say anything? Isn't killing an ant equally as bad as killing a human? Who are we to say that the ant's life isn't important? How can we say we're better than the ant? Can we say anything about anything at all? We're all equally as bad.

This philosophy is so popular because it requires little thought and little understanding or analysis of the situation at hand so one can immediately come to a conclusion without needing facts, motives, or thought. If everything is equal, then there's no need to go deeper and justify WHY something is worse than another or WHY one system is better than another. Such analysis can be hard and confusing. Easier just to say everything is either equally good or equally bad, thereby we don't have to think or to make tough judgments, yet moral relativism can only lead to nihilism. How can you say moral relativism is "right" and other systems are "wrong"? You can't by the very philosophy of relativism. In fact, when pressed further, you can't say anything about anything because that would create an objective "right" view which relativism doesn't allow. So in the end, you can't say anything period. Thus nihilism.

 

[kozmo403]

[citation][nom]Exodite[/nom]"pictures of naked 10- to 13-year-old girls in 'suggestive and explicit poses.'"Is it only I that thinks this has gone way too far?I mean, I could see something far more hardcore than that by going to the local beach in the summertime.In fact, I'm pretty sure taking, non-nude, pictures of my friends, younger, kids and keeping them around on my computer would earn me even more jail-time then.What I'd really like to know though is what kind of jail-time the tech is getting for violating his customers privacy, probably breaking all kinds of rules or even laws in the process, and in effect destroying his life.The last thing we need after ridiculous laws is public support for vigilantes trying to uphold them.[/citation]

Being a computer technician, I understand that in order to troubleshoot a problem, you need to replicate it. If your having a problem with images, you need images to work with in order to replicate and thus, fix the issue. There was no willful violation of privacy. The computer was WILLFULLY given to the Mac tech to be repaired. The tech, in doing what he was supposed to do, found things that NO PERSON SHOULD EVER VIEW and did what he was required by law to do.

Kudos to the tech. Please take you dis-concern with the welfare of children elsewhere.

 

[tanderskey]

yeah. actually i'm on the fence here.

i dont like pedophiles, right? you dont like pedophiles, right? okay. we're in agreement here. pedophiles are people we dont like. but what is a pedophile? honestly i dont know the law here, and its probably different in every state of the USA, but i think a pedophile is someone who sexually abuses kids. if this guy had pictures of himself abusing kids, then yeah, fry him with his own stuff. but if there were just random pictures of naked kids on his hard drive? we have to feed and clothe and house that guy in prison for five years? gimme a break. for pictures? pictures arent real and on a computer theyre just 1's and 0's for criminey's sake.

additionally, i have to wonder, to get someone in real trouble i just need to find some kid pictures on the internet or on a file sharing service and poke them into someone-i-hate's computer then dump their MBR or panic-out their kernel and whammo, legal problems out the yin-yang when he attempts to get it fixed?

seems to me "five years" is a knee-jerk over-reaction in this case.

let's protect our kids, for sure. but let's also maintain a level head about what makes a pedophile and the difference between what's a picture and what's real.

 

[kozmo403]

@ Tanderskey:

The fact of the matter is that for someone to view them, that persone or someone else had to take them. If it was pictures from a 3rd party (which is not mentioned in the article), it's the same as taking them in most peoples opinion. The act of wanting to have sex with underage children is technically not as bad as actually carrying out that heinous act, it does call into question that if given the opportunity, would a person go through with it?

I'd personally rather err on the side of caution. Not necessarily throw the guy in jail and throwing away the key for having pictures of questionable content, but some punishment needs to be handed down. I agree that an angry acquaintance that possibly had access to his Mac could have caused the issue, but it is rather unlikely. The part of the story that makes me believe this is that the guy was unwilling to leave the computer with the technicians.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]tanderskey[/nom]...if this guy had pictures of himself abusing kids, then yeah, fry him with his own stuff. but if there were just random pictures of naked kids on his hard drive? we have to feed and clothe and house that guy in prison for five years? gimme a break. for pictures?[/citation]The guy hasn't even been to trial yet, so he's innocent until proven guilty. 5 years is what he could serve, if he's convicted. Even if he is sentenced to 5 years, with "good behavior", the amount of time served might be significantly less.

If you don't think the law is just or if the punishment is too severe for the crime, then fight to get the law changed.

 

[tanderskey]

[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]If you don't think the law is just or if the punishment is too severe for the crime, then fight to get the law changed.[/citation]

that is a nice thing about America, we're far from perfect, but we do have a tiered justice system so that a cop's recommendation (by ticket or arrest) has be to reinforced by or modified by a community elected official (a judge). and even then we have a right to a jury by our peers and multiple appeals to higher-level judges and courts -- but appeals turn into an "as much justice as you can afford" situation which isnt quite fair (i realize that).

i hope, in this case, there are enough reasonable, fair-minded people involved who have access to the actual evidence and that they determine an appropriate punishment ... proportionate to his crime. because pictures arent illegal and even pornography isnt illegal, right? but the kind of pornography, the type he had, is apparently illegal in his community. and if his community determines five years in jail is the right amount for having pornographic pictures on his computer, then, to Geoffs point, i guess it is ... until its changed. so, i'm not suggesting he should simply get off scott-free, especially if what he had on his computer was illegal. but i'm also dont see how putting a guy in jail for five years helps anybody or fixes anything either, especially if he didnt hurt anybody.

i'm beginning to think of this guy as a kind of alcoholic and i wonder if that isnt an acceptable parallel for purposes of discussion.

drinking beer is legal in private and in certain public places, but driving a car after drinking too much beer becomes illegal. so, drinking beer is legal and tolerated, to a point. like pornography is legal and tolerated, to a point. with drinking, if you get into an accident or hurt somebody while drunk i believe the punishment is measurably more severe than simply being at fault in the same accident without alcohol.

so maybe, like beer, some people find it morally reprehensible to have a bunch of pictures of nude kids on your computer but wouldnt, by itself, be illegal. but, if reported, would be enough to get you "tagged" for some further questioning and/or investigation. maybe a sweep of your home and basement and garage to determine if those pictures were obtained legally or illegally. are they just a few random pictures or are you hording thousands of them? and did you take the photographs yourself or are you a third party? also, a physical sweep of a person's home might reveal other problems or prompt other questions (eg who is this living in a tent in your backyard?).

again, with the beer parallel, if i'm playing a reasonable person and am over at a friends house and see he has a twelve-pack of beer in his fridge, that isnt a warning sign to me that he might have a beer problem. but if i see a twelve pack in the fridge, one in the car and several in the laundry room i might ask, "are you having a party or something?" and if twelve packs are also hidden in the bathroom under the sink or he has hundreds of empties under his bed or in closets i might start to think ... you do have a beer problem, my friend. and further, if he's my friend, let's try and get that addressed. maybe not by putting him in jail for five years but by getting him into a program to get back on track so he doesnt end up hurting himself or someone else.

also, with drunk drivers, i believe its fairly common to force them to accept some counseling. so, perhaps once a person is tagged for illegal pornography they are also forced to accept some counseling to have a professional of some sort further determine if they are okay to release back into their job/home/family or if they are a risk for hurting themselves or someone else.

a complicating factor to getting any laws changed here, assuming a pornography law needs be changed to be more fair, is ... does anybody really want to get into the business of defending pornography? especially if there are kids involved? i mean, there's Larry Flynt but who else? maybe nobody, right? i dont imagine many Senators using a Fairness in Pornography bill as their ticket to Washington, ya know?

but still, the type and length of punishment in this example sounded disproportionate to the crime.

it also makes me wonder, what other crimes get five years in jail?