Dumbest Pedo in a while

[dullard]

Originally posted by: homercles337
What are the laws on this? Seems like invasion of privacy or something. It seems to me that if someone wanted some files backed up the company should just do it and not go snooping through their computer. But to stay on topic: this guy is an idiot.

There was no snooping:

No Information Systems employee saw the contents of the file, and university police took the computer to investigate it, the employee said.

They didn't open any files or look at any files. So how is that snooping?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: pinion9
I personally believe it should be illegal for even CG images of child porn to be produced. Sick fvcks.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, unless you can define it better. What about cartoons (Such as Family Guy or the Simpsons), those are generated images of children and often have nudity. True, they aren't computer generated, but there is no reason those cartoons couldn't be computer generated. So basically, you are saying all people who watch the Simpson's are guilty of watching child porn at 1-5 years of jail time per incident.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: pinion9
I personally believe it should be illegal for even CG images of child porn to be produced. Sick fvcks.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, unless you can define it better. What about cartoons (Such as Family Guy or the Simpsons), those are generated images of children and often have nudity. True, they aren't computer generated, but there is no reason those cartoons couldn't be computer generated. So basically, you are saying all people who watch the Simpson's are guilty of watching child porn at 1-5 years of jail time per incident.

obviously the intent would be anything depicting genitalia or breasts in a realistic and lascivious manner

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: homercles337
What are the laws on this? Seems like invasion of privacy or something. It seems to me that if someone wanted some files backed up the company should just do it and not go snooping through their computer. But to stay on topic: this guy is an idiot.

There was no snooping:

No Information Systems employee saw the contents of the file, and university police took the computer to investigate it, the employee said.

They didn't open any files or look at any files. So how is that snooping?

While I agree with you, that last comment on snooping made no sense. Obviously if he saw 'the contents' of the file, he opened it in a viewer. Something that wouldn't have to be done to simply copy the files over.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: homercles337
What are the laws on this? Seems like invasion of privacy or something. It seems to me that if someone wanted some files backed up the company should just do it and not go snooping through their computer. But to stay on topic: this guy is an idiot.

There was no snooping:

No Information Systems employee saw the contents of the file, and university police took the computer to investigate it, the employee said.

They didn't open any files or look at any files. So how is that snooping?

While I agree with you, that last comment on snooping made no sense. Obviously if he saw 'the contents' of the file, he opened it in a viewer. Something that wouldn't have to be done to simply copy the files over.

THEY DIDN'T OPEN THE FILES. They called the cops. Cops looked and arrested him.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
obviously the intent would be anything depicting genitalia or breasts in a realistic and lascivious manner

Commercials frequently depict babies naked. Is that child porn if it shows genitalia and/or a topless female baby? Then define "lascivious", because to a child porn adict, anything could potentially arose them.

I'm not trying to defend child porn. I just think it is a very difficult thing to define in a way that will incriminate the child porn creaters/viewers and do no harm to the rest of us.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: bsobel
While I agree with you, that last comment on snooping made no sense. Obviously if he saw 'the contents' of the file, he opened it in a viewer. Something that wouldn't have to be done to simply copy the files over.

who saw the contents? Who opened it in a viewer? The article clearly states that NONE of the employees did either of those.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: bsobel
While I agree with you, that last comment on snooping made no sense. Obviously if he saw 'the contents' of the file, he opened it in a viewer. Something that wouldn't have to be done to simply copy the files over.

who saw the contents? Who opened it in a viewer? The article clearly states that NONE of the employees did either of those.

My bad (sorry), misread that quote as to they did see the contents.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: homercles337
What are the laws on this? Seems like invasion of privacy or something. It seems to me that if someone wanted some files backed up the company should just do it and not go snooping through their computer. But to stay on topic: this guy is an idiot.

:roll:

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
obviously the intent would be anything depicting genitalia or breasts in a realistic and lascivious manner

Commercials frequently depict babies naked. Is that child porn if it shows genitalia and/or a topless female baby? Then define "lascivious", because to a child porn adict, anything could potentially arose them.

I'm not trying to defend child porn. I just think it is a very difficult thing to define in a way that will incriminate the child porn creaters/viewers and do no harm to the rest of us.

It sounds like you are trying to defend child porn. Some people get aroused at the thought of wigs and foot jobs. It doesn't mean we should outlaw them on TV. Please tell me about a commercial wherein you are able to see a babies penis, vagina, or anus. Side of the butt doesn't count.

Child pornography is thoroughly defined. Any rendering or picture made to look real should be illegal as well. If there were ever a scene in the Simpsons where Maggie was getting it on with Homer and it showed details, yes, it should be child porn. Fortunately, that won't ever happen.

People have been busted before because they took naked pictures of their baby and filled rolls of film with it. In general, no lewd act or picture depicting lewd acts or the genitalia of children should be allowed. Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing; taking a pick of her spread eagle and zoomed in on her cooter is quite different.

 

[randay]

it was uhohs wasnt it!

 

[imported_Rat]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Link

"Can you back up my files for me?"

"Which ones?"

"The one's in the 'Kiddie Porn' folder"

Yes. Mine is labelled "Not Kiddie Porn, I swear, it is older BBWs, don't even look here, it is sorta gross."

Seriously, people are retarded. However, here is the real stinker about this (and all child porn cases.) Unless you can PROVE that the person in the photo is in fact a child, and in fact REAL, then you don't have a case. Generally speaking, the officials need to be able to see video of the child and/or be able to locate the child in real life. Otherwise it is pretty difficult to prove the photos are not doctored and not CG.

I personally believe it should be illegal for even CG images of child porn to be illegal. Sick fvcks.

not entirely true. If the image is obviously of an underage person, they do not have to prove it. There have been some borderline instances where they have had to prove the age of the child, but not that often.

Maybe it is just in Alaska. Generally they get the idiot to plea. However, given a picture of some random naked 8 year old, how can you prove that it is in fact a real human being?

simple. they can analyze the picture. if it can be proven that it is not a computer generated image, then it is assumed real.

Please tell me how to do such an analysis. How do you prove it isn't computer generated?

Get the opinion of an expert graphic artist.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Rat

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Link

"Can you back up my files for me?"

"Which ones?"

"The one's in the 'Kiddie Porn' folder"

Yes. Mine is labelled "Not Kiddie Porn, I swear, it is older BBWs, don't even look here, it is sorta gross."

Seriously, people are retarded. However, here is the real stinker about this (and all child porn cases.) Unless you can PROVE that the person in the photo is in fact a child, and in fact REAL, then you don't have a case. Generally speaking, the officials need to be able to see video of the child and/or be able to locate the child in real life. Otherwise it is pretty difficult to prove the photos are not doctored and not CG.

I personally believe it should be illegal for even CG images of child porn to be illegal. Sick fvcks.

not entirely true. If the image is obviously of an underage person, they do not have to prove it. There have been some borderline instances where they have had to prove the age of the child, but not that often.

Maybe it is just in Alaska. Generally they get the idiot to plea. However, given a picture of some random naked 8 year old, how can you prove that it is in fact a real human being?

simple. they can analyze the picture. if it can be proven that it is not a computer generated image, then it is assumed real.

Please tell me how to do such an analysis. How do you prove it isn't computer generated?

Get the opinion of an expert graphic artist.

Yes, its not hard to tell between a CG picture and a real one. If it were, pictures would be absolutely useless since anything could be faked.

 

[mattpegher]

Given the ease and relative availability of backup media, USB drives, CD burning etc, I find it odd that he would outsource such a project. Maybe he wanted to get caught.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Given the ease and relative availability of backup media, USB drives, CD burning etc, I find it odd that he would outsource such a project. Maybe he wanted to get caught.

or he did not know how to do it. or could afford the equipment.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: randay
Yes, its not hard to tell between a CG picture and a real one. If it were, pictures would be absolutely useless since anything could be faked.

Ummm...almost anything can be faked. Even a novice with photoshop can do decent. We had a lecture from an FBI official talking about child porn being a huge problem in Alaska. I am simply telling you what he taught us. One of the things he taught us is that you cannot PROVE without a shadow of a doubt that a picture is not CG. Burden of proof is on law enforcement. If they find a picture and I tell them it is CG, they need to find some objective proof (or even proof from an authority in the field) that it is in fact not fake.

I don't want to argue. Believe me, don't, I don't care. However, it isn't as simple as seeing a picture and saying "Oh yeah, that is real."

 

[acemcmac]

Rofl. I'm in the data backup biz. Thats hilarious.

 

[Spineshank]

lmao

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: pinion9
It sounds like you are trying to defend child porn. Some people get aroused at the thought of wigs and foot jobs. It doesn't mean we should outlaw them on TV. Please tell me about a commercial wherein you are able to see a babies penis, vagina, or anus. Side of the butt doesn't count.

Child pornography is thoroughly defined. Any rendering or picture made to look real should be illegal as well. If there were ever a scene in the Simpsons where Maggie was getting it on with Homer and it showed details, yes, it should be child porn. Fortunately, that won't ever happen.

People have been busted before because they took naked pictures of their baby and filled rolls of film with it. In general, no lewd act or picture depicting lewd acts or the genitalia of children should be allowed. Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing; taking a pick of her spread eagle and zoomed in on her cooter is quite different.

Child porn is easy to spot in most cases if you see it. However, it is exceedingly difficult to define properly in laws because every situation is unique.

I think you nailed it when you said "Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing". How can you say a picture of your kid naked in the yard is perfectly ok, but a picture of a kid naked on a computer is child porn worth 1-5 years of jail time? The difference is the INTENT of the person taking the photo and the INTENT of the person viewing the photo. Intent is notoriously difficult to prove and even more difficult to define in laws. True, in this particular case, I think the intent is easy to prove. But that isn't true in general.

In my hometown (Columbus, Nebraska) a doctor was arrested for child porn. Why? A mother brought a young child in for a painful growth on the child's genitals. The doctor had never seen it before, and really wanted another opinion. Columbus is a small town and there aren't experts around. So the doctor took a photo of the growth and sent it to a doctor who is an expert on the issue. It was an up-close photo of a child's genitals, spread eagle, and zoomed in. That doctor was arrested, paid probably well over $100k in legal bills, lost his practice, was essentially kicked out of town where his family had been rooted for many years, and yes, he was finally found innocent. But the damage has been done. His reputation, his pocketbook, his business, his friends, his hometown, etc are all gone. Are you to say this is an ok situation?

I'm 100% against child exploitation and child porn. However, I'm simply stating that a one-size-fits-all law will never fit all in this situation.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Rofl. I'm in the data backup biz. Thats hilarious.

How much, exactly, would you charge to backup 10 gigs of child porn?
Do you charge more based on the content being backed up (e.g. word documents vs. a dvd collection)

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Given the ease and relative availability of backup media, USB drives, CD burning etc, I find it odd that he would outsource such a project. Maybe he wanted to get caught.

or he did not know how to do it. or could afford the equipment.

Why the need to back it up to begin with though? Not like he couldn't find it again. It strikes me as odd that 1. he would label it that in the first place and 2. he would take it to someone and point to that folder to be backed up. He had to have known that it was illegal.

It seems like there must be more to this than we know.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: pinion9
It sounds like you are trying to defend child porn. Some people get aroused at the thought of wigs and foot jobs. It doesn't mean we should outlaw them on TV. Please tell me about a commercial wherein you are able to see a babies penis, vagina, or anus. Side of the butt doesn't count.

Child pornography is thoroughly defined. Any rendering or picture made to look real should be illegal as well. If there were ever a scene in the Simpsons where Maggie was getting it on with Homer and it showed details, yes, it should be child porn. Fortunately, that won't ever happen.

People have been busted before because they took naked pictures of their baby and filled rolls of film with it. In general, no lewd act or picture depicting lewd acts or the genitalia of children should be allowed. Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing; taking a pick of her spread eagle and zoomed in on her cooter is quite different.

Child porn is easy to spot in most cases if you see it. However, it is exceedingly difficult to define properly in laws because every situation is unique.

I think you nailed it when you said "Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing". How can you say a picture of your kid naked in the yard is perfectly ok, but a picture of a kid naked on a computer is child porn worth 1-5 years of jail time? The difference is the INTENT of the person taking the photo and the INTENT of the person viewing the photo. Intent is notoriously difficult to prove and even more difficult to define in laws. True, in this particular case, I think the intent is easy to prove. But that isn't true in general.

In my hometown (Columbus, Nebraska) a doctor was arrested for child porn. Why? A mother brought a young child in for a painful growth on the child's genitals. The doctor had never seen it before, and really wanted another opinion. Columbus is a small town and there aren't experts around. So the doctor took a photo of the growth and sent it to a doctor who is an expert on the issue. It was an up-close photo of a child's genitals, spread eagle, and zoomed in. That doctor was arrested, paid probably well over $100k in legal bills, lost his practice, was essentially kicked out of town where his family had been rooted for many years, and yes, he was finally found innocent. But the damage has been done. His reputation, his pocketbook, his business, his friends, his hometown, etc are all gone. Are you to say this is an ok situation?

I'm 100% against child exploitation and child porn. However, I'm simply stating that a one-size-fits-all law will never fit all in this situation.

He was found innocent though. That says more about the legal system and the town than it does the alleged crime.

Some child porn is easy to spot. Like I said before, some people get off on wigs and foot jobs. If I take a picture of my kid naked in the tub, that is okay. If I take 200 pictures of my kid in the tub, that is bad. If I publish it online and let other people see, there is probably something wrong because someone may find that picture and LOVE it....

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: pinion9
He was found innocent though. That says more about the legal system and the town than it does the alleged crime.

Even if he was found innocent, the law still created this massive damage (legal fees). This damage is regardless of the town he was in.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: pinion9

People have been busted before because they took naked pictures of their baby and filled rolls of film with it. In general, no lewd act or picture depicting lewd acts or the genitalia of children should be allowed. Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing; taking a pick of her spread eagle and zoomed in on her cooter is quite different.

Child pornography laws are to protect children. If no children were hurt, it should be LEGAL. Virutal pornography hurts no one... People are different.. the government should not regulate thought. People get off on all sorts of weird cr*p... its none of my business what they get off on... heck, I'm not into foot fetisesse, fat women.. trangender, etc.. but I don't really care if other people do.

The government has gone too far with the child pornography laws... no harm, no foul.. if people don't act on their urges then its fine by me...

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: pinion9

People have been busted before because they took naked pictures of their baby and filled rolls of film with it. In general, no lewd act or picture depicting lewd acts or the genitalia of children should be allowed. Taking a pic of your kid in the bathtub or standing naked in the yard with his tricycle is one thing; taking a pick of her spread eagle and zoomed in on her cooter is quite different.

Child pornography laws are to protect children. If no children were hurt, it should be LEGAL. Virutal pornography hurts no one... People are different.. the government should not regulate thought. People get off on all sorts of weird cr*p... its none of my business what they get off on... heck, I'm not into foot fetisesse, fat women.. trangender, etc.. but I don't really care if other people do.

The government has gone too far with the child pornography laws... no harm, no foul.. if people don't act on their urges then its fine by me...

DIAF