If you don't have anything to hide...

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore

So what's the sugestion here from the left-wingers/anti-authoritarians? Should we let hundreds and hundreds of pedophile perverts roam free because there's a chance soemone might be improperly arrested and charged in the process?

Was this guy subsequently convicted and imprisoned? No. Did it screw up his life in the interim? Yes. Does he have a remedy? Sure does. He can sue the crap out of the "large online retailer" that somehow allowed his credit information to be stolen, and I hope he gets millions in the process. imo, he should also be able to sue the investigators involved in Operation Ore since a little due diligence should have uncovered that this man could not have possibly been involved.

If you are going to destroy someone's life over looking at bad pictures, you better have more evidence than someone using their credit card number on a website.

They didn't destroy his life. They definitely caused him some pain for some years, but his life isn't destroyed by any means. Like I said, he has a remedy for all that pain too. No doubt a few millions pounds in recompense will do quite a bit to sooth that pain.

The investigators should also have considered the possibility of credit card fraud entering into the equation. A detailed look at the credit card bill should have demonstrated the discrepancy. They didn't pay attention which I why I feel they should be liable for damages as well. It's all part of that system of legal checks and balances.

Um, his family disowned him. They've "reconciled" but that's not something you forgive and forget. Forget his quote about not bearing grudges that he played for the papers, saying anything else would be un-pc. That scar will be there till he dies. No amount of $ will erase that. At least his wife stood by him, so his marriage is probably all the stronger for it.

If you were in a similar situation would your family disown you? I know mine wouldn't because they wouldn't ever believe something like that about me and they'd stand by my side as I proclaimed my innocence. So that implies that maybe there were some deeper issues going on within his family?

Maybe it's better that he knows who really loves and trusts him, and who doesn't? That situation sure shook the tree. The family members that abondoned him can feel like schmucks for the rest of their life too.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore

So what's the sugestion here from the left-wingers/anti-authoritarians? Should we let hundreds and hundreds of pedophile perverts roam free because there's a chance soemone might be improperly arrested and charged in the process?

Was this guy subsequently convicted and imprisoned? No. Did it screw up his life in the interim? Yes. Does he have a remedy? Sure does. He can sue the crap out of the "large online retailer" that somehow allowed his credit information to be stolen, and I hope he gets millions in the process. imo, he should also be able to sue the investigators involved in Operation Ore since a little due diligence should have uncovered that this man could not have possibly been involved.

If you are going to destroy someone's life over looking at bad pictures, you better have more evidence than someone using their credit card number on a website.

They didn't destroy his life. They definitely caused him some pain for some years, but his life isn't destroyed by any means. Like I said, he has a remedy for all that pain too. No doubt a few millions pounds in recompense will do quite a bit to sooth that pain.

The investigators should also have considered the possibility of credit card fraud entering into the equation. A detailed look at the credit card bill should have demonstrated the discrepancy. They didn't pay attention which I why I feel they should be liable for damages as well. It's all part of that system of legal checks and balances.

They were going to destroy his life based on this "evidence." They thought it was sufficient to label him a child molester. Just because he was able to defend himself, doesn't excuse their behavior and the damage they did.

They were going to destroy his life if this evidence showed he was guilty. It did not.

Maybe some people are confused? There are those that seem to believe that our legal system should be such that nobody is ever wrongly accused. It doesn't work that way. If it did work that way there'd be no need for the courts. Since nobody would ever be wrongly accused, just throw everyone arrested in jail immediately and lock them up for whatever term fits their crime.

Nothing prevents you from being wrongly accused and it happens to people all the time. What it should prevent, though, is anyone being wrongly convicted and in this case that's exactly what happened. The system worked.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The system worked.

You have an interesting definition of the word "work."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
People fit to be among society should not be given scarlet letters. Yet that isn?t really what happened here. Government made a mistake, now the question is how do they make up for it when the minds of society are made up against the accused?

Perhaps we need an official government website where those cleared have an official apology they can show to others in addition to being mailed such a letter. Popular use of such documentation might provide a more common acceptance and forgiveness to those who are branded.

I don?t think it?s up to the government to not accuse anyone for fear of repercussion. It is up to society not to be bigots against the accused. My ?solution? hardly solves this problem, but maybe an official government accusation of innocence can counter some of that bigotry.

I like my idea better, the police investigate low-hanging fruit like the plausibility of identity theft before the arrest.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
The authoritarians probably answer it with either a claim that sometimes, serving a larger need can have some smaller injustices

It is ironic you of all people say that.

LOL

Bamacre, you show with the foolish comment you are not capable of the discussion the topic warrants. You can take your hyena, too.

Craig, you are one of the biggest authoritarians on this board.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

100% true. Some people don't seem to think it's authoritarianism if that boot stamping your face gives you free health care to stitch it back up.

Wow, as big as I understand the misconceptions of some of the righties here to be, in this case they're even bigger.

It's remarkable to watch the process of the people who are challenged to actually think for themselves (i.e., the posters above) as they jump to these conclusions.

I'm far, far from authoritarian, and can see how these people simplistically rush to a straw man rather than actually read what's posted.

One of my core passions in politics is the freedom, the liberty, of the individual, and one of the biggest threats are the righties who are far too willing to sacrifice that freedom.

I recognize better when the righties are guilty of the hyperbole of equating every little tax they don't like to the SS busting in their door to take their money at gunpoint; pointing out that as hyperbole is not being authoritarian. It's not authoritarian to note, as a famous Justice did, that taxes are the price of civlization. I *love* taxes when at appropriate levels, because I recognize that without them, our society would LACK freedom, it would have barbarity. Yet, that doesn't mean I like *high* taxes; I'm against that.

I'd like to see the case attempted to be made that my views are authoritarian. It'll be amusing, and let the issue be straightened out when I point out the errors.

I guess I'm the same sort of 'authoritarian' Benjamin Franklin was, when he proposed policies for the public good such as public libraries, in the eyes of the nutty right.

But I'll note once more the combination of amusement and frustration when I see so many of posts aimed at opposing authoritarianism - a frequent theme is my insisting that the US protect its values and ability to promote them because I see other nation's lack of such values as a threat to humanity - have no effect on the views of some posters here who so utterly misunderstand my positions, apparently.

Authoritarian indeed, I call for these posters to be imprisoned and tortured at once by the government.

 

[Jeff7]

As I usually say in such threads, the definition of what is "wrong" can vary greatly. In WWII-era Germany, being Jewish was "wrong." In the old European colonies in North America, certain behaviors were "wrong" enough to have you charged and executed for witchcraft. In some societies, airing public opinions contrary to the government's established opinion is "wrong," and can result in serious punishments.

If those in power insistently say that, "if you have nothing to hide, and thus nothing to fear," then you have every right to be even more concerned.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what's the sugestion here from the left-wingers/anti-authoritarians? Should we let hundreds and hundreds of pedophile perverts roam free because there's a chance soemone might be improperly arrested and charged in the process?

Investigating the evidence for the plausibility of identity theft before arresting isn't a lot to ask.

Does he have a remedy? Sure does. He can sue the crap out of the "large online retailer" that somehow allowed his credit information to be stolen, and I hope he gets millions in the process. imo, he should also be able to sue the investigators involved in Operation Ore since a little due diligence should have uncovered that this man could not have possibly been involved.

I considered and rejected the 'sue the retailer for millions' remedy. You have to balance the issue with the need for business to be able to operate reasonably efficiently. The fact is, society benefits from e-commerce, and there's going to be some fraud, and there are protections already in general for consumers aganist identity fraud, and these can be improved as needed without crippling the industry with 'millions of dollars' for every incident being a possibility. It's an emotional reaction to want that.

Instead, the blame lies IMO largely with the premature arrest (and see my earlier post for a longer list); that's a better fix than the 'millions from the retailer' IMO.

However, I will say there's a challenge to it - governments are largely immune to lawsuits for negligence like this - and it's not easy to get the political support for fixing it when the targets are the targets of the 'mob mentality' as well. Somehow you have to hope that 'sober minded jurists' play an important role in addressing the problem, because not even the public can wholly be trusted to put pressure to do so in the political system.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where the limits of democracy - when there's a mob mentality, some people tend to get hurt - are exposed. But acknowledging the problem doesn't mean that endorsing 'fixes' that are more harm than good is a good idea, either.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
The authoritarians probably answer it with either a claim that sometimes, serving a larger need can have some smaller injustices

It is ironic you of all people say that.

LOL

Bamacre, you show with the foolish comment you are not capable of the discussion the topic warrants. You can take your hyena, too.

No, I think most people agree with him.

I have a higher opinion of 'most people' than you do, but I agree the descripton fits you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The system worked.

You have an interesting definition of the word "work."

Actually, it was "worked." On the contrary, I believe that's it's you that has the interesting definition. Somehow there's the implication that the pursuit of crimes must always be flawless and never should a false charge be issued. In an ideal world that would be true. We don't live in an ideal world though.

As I also stated, if investigators were 100% accurate 100% of the time, we'd have no need for a court system. A case would be made then police would just arrest the offenders and immediately throw them in jail.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The system worked.

You have an interesting definition of the word "work."

Actually, it was "worked." On the contrary, I believe that's it's you that has the interesting definition. Somehow there's the implication that the pursuit of crimes must always be flawless and never should a false charge be issued. In an ideal world that would be true. We don't live in an ideal world though.

As I also stated, if investigators were 100% accurate 100% of the time, we'd have no need for a court system. A case would be made then police would just arrest the offenders and immediately throw them in jail.

While we are surprisingly, and thankfully rarely, on somewhat the same side on this one, your post contains nothing balancing this view with the need for investigative responisbility.

You offer a blanket apology suitable for ANY police recklessness, no matter how severe and negligent, in your post, and I think that's a mistake.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what's the sugestion here from the left-wingers/anti-authoritarians? Should we let hundreds and hundreds of pedophile perverts roam free because there's a chance soemone might be improperly arrested and charged in the process?

Investigating the evidence for the plausibility of identity theft before arresting isn't a lot to ask.

I agree, and it's an issue I already addressed. That's why I believe the investigation group should be liable as well in this. The threat of that hanging over their collective heads should force them into more due diligence during the investigative process. Hopefully this is a lesson learned for them and in the future such programs will involve the proper diligence. The best laid plans of mice and men...teach us to learn from our mistakes.

Does he have a remedy? Sure does. He can sue the crap out of the "large online retailer" that somehow allowed his credit information to be stolen, and I hope he gets millions in the process. imo, he should also be able to sue the investigators involved in Operation Ore since a little due diligence should have uncovered that this man could not have possibly been involved.

I considered and rejected the 'sue the retailer for millions' remedy. You have to balance the issue with the need for business to be able to operate reasonably efficiently. The fact is, society benefits from e-commerce, and there's going to be some fraud, and there are protections already in general for consumers aganist identity fraud, and these can be improved as needed without crippling the industry with 'millions of dollars' for every incident being a possibility. It's an emotional reaction to want that.

Instead, the blame lies IMO largely with the premature arrest (and see my earlier post for a longer list); that's a better fix than the 'millions from the retailer' IMO.

However, I will say there's a challenge to it - governments are largely immune to lawsuits for negligence like this - and it's not easy to get the political support for fixing it when the targets are the targets of the 'mob mentality' as well. Somehow you have to hope that 'sober minded jurists' play an important role in addressing the problem, because not even the public can wholly be trusted to put pressure to do so in the political system.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where the limits of democracy - when there's a mob mentality, some people tend to get hurt - are exposed. But acknowledging the problem doesn't mean that endorsing 'fixes' that are more harm than good is a good idea, either.

Shouldn't that same reasoning apply to the police? Aren't they tasked with getting criminal elements away from harming society at the earliest possible moment? So how much leeway do we allot them as well for the purposes of "efficiency?"

Of course there's going to be fraud, just as there are going to be charges levied on the innocent. No system is perfect and expecting absolute perfection in either is ridiculous. We can hold perfection as an ideal in both to try and attain as close to that perfection as possible, but we also have to recognize that there will be exceptions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The system worked.

You have an interesting definition of the word "work."

Actually, it was "worked." On the contrary, I believe that's it's you that has the interesting definition. Somehow there's the implication that the pursuit of crimes must always be flawless and never should a false charge be issued. In an ideal world that would be true. We don't live in an ideal world though.

As I also stated, if investigators were 100% accurate 100% of the time, we'd have no need for a court system. A case would be made then police would just arrest the offenders and immediately throw them in jail.

While we are surprisingly, and thankfully rarely, on somewhat the same side on this one, your post contains nothing balancing this view with the need for investigative responisbility.

You offer a blanket apology suitable for ANY police recklessness, no matter how severe and negligent, in your post, and I think that's a mistake.

That's not what I offer. That's what you'd like to believe I am offering based on your own bias towards me. But a reading of what I've written thus far doesn't back up your assertion.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I remember 25 years or so ago, you never heard the word, now there are "thousands and thousands" of pedophiles, and "internet predators" running rampant in society... What did they all just hatch?

DOES ANYONE EVER GET THE IDEA THAT THEY ARE BEING SPOON-FED A BUNCH OF BS TO FEAR. FEAR DRUGS, FEAR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, FEAR PEDOPHILES, FEAR TERRORISTS, FEAR FEAR FEAR.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I remember 25 years or so ago, you never heard the word, now there are "thousands and thousands" of pedophiles, and "internet predators" running rampant in society... What did they all just hatch?

DOES ANYONE EVER GET THE IDEA THAT THEY ARE BEING SPOON-FED A BUNCH OF BS TO FEAR. FEAR DRUGS, FEAR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, FEAR PEDOPHILES, FEAR TERRORISTS, FEAR FEAR FEAR.

You mean as opposed to the fearmongering that the government is all behind this as one big cohesive unit working in unison with the media to spread FEAR FEAR FEAR amongst the population so they can erode all our rights and take complete fascist control of the country?

Some people appear to have paranoia issues they should deal with.

 

[Fern]

If you don't have anything to hide...
You don't have anything to worry about.

? This is about identify theft, not surveillance and wire-tapping etc. Which is usually the context of that phrase.

I don't see this as an "authoritarian" issue either?

It's fruad and an issue of police incompetence. Surely they could have questioned him prior to arresting to him. I'd guess arrests in the UK are public info, including the reason for the arrest.

Anybody here form the UK care to say whether their system is accusatory or investigatory?

If they have an accusatory system like we do, this especially eggregious.

I hope he gets some compensation.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I remember 25 years or so ago, you never heard the word, now there are "thousands and thousands" of pedophiles, and "internet predators" running rampant in society... What did they all just hatch?

DOES ANYONE EVER GET THE IDEA THAT THEY ARE BEING SPOON-FED A BUNCH OF BS TO FEAR. FEAR DRUGS, FEAR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, FEAR PEDOPHILES, FEAR TERRORISTS, FEAR FEAR FEAR.

The movie M was about a child serial killer; the Nazis soon after used its image in the propaganda camaign against Jews. Link