
Exhibit A – the “child pornographer” - q_revert
http://abarristerswife.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/exhibit-a-the-child-pornographer/
======
speeder
I never understood why all the paranoia with pedo...

I mean, I can see why it is a bad thing, but I saw even some really silly
stuff, like a muslim friend that I know, being resolute that anyone having sex
with a minor is evil and must be punished immediately.

Then I pointed that their prophet had a 9 year old wife (that by the way this
girl also wrote good part of their holy book) and then she said that this does
not count...

Why?

You know, my grandmother married when she was 14, and she is still married
with the same guy, they make a great couple (last time I saw them, it looked
like a typical teen couple, with my grandma JUMPING into my grandpa and
hugging him like if it was a japanese anime or something, it kinda startled me
to see old people do that, but then, why not?), and I have a hard time
believing that a 14 year old girl is so dumb to the point of needing heavy-
handed state protection in deciding her relationships.

Likewise I can say that I am a perverted evil man too... I started seeing porn
when I was 14, and I found out girls of roughly the same age attractive, not
some random aunt... Probably the hard-drives with that porn is still somewhere
on my electronic quasi-junk stash... What happen if someone fiddle with my
junk and find them? According to our current law I will go arrested for
posession of child porn, even if I got it when I was a child myself...

Kinda child...

At least, Brazil only buckled to US pressure regarding the porn laws (That I
think are absurd and silly, you should prosecute those caught in the tape
abusing the kids, and maybe use the fact they filmed it as a aggravating
factor, prosecuting random people for having any kind of porn or media is
really stupid), the child sex laws make more sense... (here people above 14
can have sex, not 18 or 21... and if you think the law is wrong about that,
then tell me how you will punish half of the 14 year old people in your area)

~~~
parfe
How disappointing to see anti-Islam polemic as the top comment. The comment
then ties a marriage from 1,300 years ago to his justification for possession
of child pornography. Real quality content the community is endorsing.

~~~
speeder
It is not anti-Islam polemic...

The person is very dear to me, and I was only pointing how there is a clear
dissonance between values, even in the same person...

The Bible is also full of things that most people dislike, and I am fine with
them. Most people think I am evil because of THAT.

I got kinda tired of avoiding commenting about Islam, or Jews, because every
time someone talk about Islam people think it is a anti-Islam thing (mostly,
because many times it is, unfortunately... I still remember when I told a
person that rode the commuting bus every day with me how sad I was about Libya
civil war, and he replied that muslims were all stupid evil dirty people and
deserved to die, I never talked with that guy again, who knows what other
shocking shit he might say), and every time someone say something bad about
Jews it turns into anti-semitism (even if the object of the criticism is
true).

I guess maybe I should have invented some fictional names for the historical
figures mentioned, to still give a example of my point of someone that favours
throwing the baby with the bathwater but at the same time respects a
historical figure that clashes with their own values.

~~~
jbooth
If you find yourself having to constantly restrain yourself from making bad
comments about (all/most) Muslims and Jews, maybe the problem isn't just that
society is too uptight.

This story has nothing to do with any religion whatsoever, messianic or not,
yet your first instinct is to go on about Islam and then call people overly-PC
for wondering what the hell you're on about.

~~~
speeder
This also applies to many other things, several of my opinions are
controversial, I know...

But where I live at least, you cannot talk about blacks, muslims, jews, gays
(both for, or against), and on, and on, and on...

Slandering asians is fine though (I dunno why... but everyone is cool with
that here).

~~~
saraid216
Hi. I'm Asian.

Fuck you.

~~~
gizmo686
Sorry but, historically speaking, Asians are by far the most hated people in
the US.

Our first laws restricting who can immigrate were designed to prohibit Asians.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (the Supreme court case which upheld racial segragation
on trains), the dissent for that case made the arguement: "There is a race so
different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become
citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few
exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese
race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same
passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of
the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the
preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the
political control of the State and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by
reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the
legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals,
liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of
the white race."[1]

During WWII, the only people we locked up in concentration camps were the
Japanese, despite the fact that many other countries were clearly hostile to
us, and the fact that many of the Japanese clearly had no loyalties to Japan
(they often didn't even speak Japanese).

So sorry, but Asians do have a special place in this country for being
discriminated against.

[1] <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/case.html>

------
danso
This reminds me of what David Simon called the thesis of "The Wire", that
institutions inevitably corrupt and destroy the individuals within them. It's
possible that just about everyone in the system (except the original person
who makes the accusation, though he/she may just have been made overly
paranoid by the system) is a very decent person who, at any point, could've
looked at the photos and called bullshit on it. But that opportunity doesn't
arrive once the momentum of bureaucracy is involved.

Of course there's the poor grandfather here within our institution of justice.
But his arraignment was the result of a chain of bumbling actions. At some
point, someone in authority made a terrible decision. But the decision
involved something that generally, almost no one wants to be on the defending
side of ("Oh, but are you _sure_ it's child pornography?")...and soon, you
have the momentum of one bull-headed decision just propagating to other
agencies and departments until anyone with the decency to stand up in the
bureaucracy and say "Wait a minute" will already have been deterred by the
mountain of echo chamber-derived evidence.

The incident as described here is abhorrent. But I can see why most of the
actors here did what they did...certainly, no one at CPS wants to be the one
who says, "Let me see those pornographic pictures just to double check"...And
no one in law enforcement wants to be on the hook when a _real_ child
pornographer is caught, and it's learned that police had investigated him
months/years before and did nothing about it.

------
api
A good piece of advice I got from a lawyer once:

If you are ever arrested, don't say a word _especially if you are innocent_.

The cops never arrest anyone unless they think they're guilty, so anything you
say -- as the saying goes in America -- can and _will_ be used against you.
It'll be filtered through that cognitive bias.

Part two of his advice was: even if you are guilty of something, don't assume
you're being busted for what you're guilty of. (So again keep your mouth
shut.)

He related a case of someone busted for trafficking drugs. (Turns out he was.)
He wound up being charged with murder. (He didn't do that!) Apparently someone
had been killed in a way that made the police suspect it was drug-related, and
there was circumstantial evidence linking the suspect to the scene, so...

~~~
m0nty
> If you are ever arrested, don't say a word especially if you are innocent.

In the UK (which is where the OA is set) we don't really have that option. The
police will warn you when arrested:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not
mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything
you do say may be given in evidence."

So basically, you're required to mount your own ad-hoc defence when arrested,
or "it may harm your defence" in court. This when you might be under extreme
emotional stress from the arrest, or the incident which led to it. When your
state of mind might be borderline rational or worse. Effectively, we do not
have a right to silence.

~~~
boothead
Surely that questioning has to take place with a lawyer present though? The
police can't question you (or get you to say anything) before you've had
access to legal advice.... right..?

~~~
nicholassmith
Nope, the police can start questioning right away. You can decline to answer
without a lawyer, which isn't an admission of guilt and cannot be used as
evidence of guilt, then the solicitor can council you on what you can and
can't say. However, if during the questioning even with a lawyer present you
omit something and use it in court, the prosecution is allowed to say "Well,
this is a new piece of evidence" and use it against you however they can, or
ask for it to be disallowed.

I think. It's been a while since I looked at the strict policy and regular
interpretations. Police don't have to wait for a solicitor though, that's up
to you and you have to ask for one straight off. If you're in the UK and you
are arrested, be very polite with them, ask for a solicitor and wait, even if
you know you're innocent. Actually, especially if you know you're innocent.

~~~
porker
Who pays for the lawyer/solicitor in the UK? Do I have to, even though I'm
innocent?

~~~
nicholassmith
You have to, unless you want to use the duty solicitor who's a free resource.
The duty solicitor should be perfectly fine for most situations unless you
really actually are guilty, or you think you've been stitched up, to use TV
crime drama parlance.

~~~
darkarmani
> The duty solicitor should be perfectly fine for most situations unless you
> really actually are guilty

But should you choose to use your own solicitor, it may adversely harm your
defense, because innocent people use the duty solicitor...

------
scythe
It is a pretty weird world we live in where nudity is automatically
pornography. But that doesn't compare to the recent prosecutorial practice of
trying to avoid a trial at any cost, including innocent lives, which has
become a truly disgusting game, and now includes trying to bullshit the
process of discovery. How many innocent people, with worse legal connections,
went to jail over similar mishaps?

~~~
Alex3917
To be fair the UK is much better than the US, where we have little kids who
are on the sex offenders list for life for taking naked pictures of themselves
with their parents iPads. Some of them probably aren't even old enough to read
yet, and they're not allowed with 2,500 feet of school. And if they're lucky
they have to go door to door to tell their neighbors that they're sex
offenders, if they're unlucky they have to live under a bridge with a bunch of
50-year-old child rapists. The US is basically like the arab countries where
the victim gets blamed for rape, only in this case we have judges ruling that
kids need to go on the sex offenders list because they're too sexy and
tempting for adults or whatever.

~~~
venomsnake
Can you provide links about that? I am in a "humanity is doomed" mode today
and could use some dark infotainment.

~~~
scythe
A sister story to this one is _far_ darker:

[http://abarristerswife.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/exhibit-c-
th...](http://abarristerswife.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/exhibit-c-the-
paedophile/)

~~~
saalweachter
Far darker, but a great piece on "innocent until proven guilty".

------
bwresponse
Any crime or supposed crime involving children always brings out the worst in
society and demonstrates just how flawed the justice system in this country
is. These problems exist with most crimes but they're exacerbated when
children are involved because people have this innate need to prove they care
about children, to prove that children are the most important thing in the
world and anyone that doesn't sacrifice everything to protect children is sub-
human scum. If the police hadn't tried to prosecute this man and a year later
he was caught with actual child pornography the police officers involved would
have campaigns against them, demanding they're sacked, demanding they lose
their pensions and some would go as far as to demand they are put in prison.

Ask the average person what a paedophile is and they'll say someone that rapes
children. Ask the average person what should happen to paedophiles and they'll
say they should be given the death penalty. People are not rational in normal
circumstances, add children and abuse to the mix and any semblance of
rationality is lost. A justice system built on the values of a society that
acts like this can never be good and will always have problems like this.

------
dkersten
The book "How to bbe invisible", by J.J. Luna[1] gives stories like this as
one of the (many) reasons why privacy is important. The media jumps on stories
like these and the victims are labelled in some way. When it later turns out
that they are innocent, no amount of apologies will remove the label. For this
reason (and many more), one should not make it easy for others (media or
whoever) to find out things about you without your knowledge and consent, even
for seemingly innocent purposes...

Having said that, I'm not nearly as anonymous as I'd like to be. In fact, its
pretty easy to find out who I am and lots about me.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/How-Invisible-Revised-Protecting-
ebook...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Invisible-Revised-Protecting-
ebook/dp/B000FC1BQA/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370437474&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+be+invisible)

------
etanol
_He took it to his local computer repair shop. The geeks there went to work.
In the course of their work they found a number of images of naked children._

I want to believe that the blame is on the image thumbnails on the Desktop or
some folder that is difficult to circumvent. But still, such privacy violation
and lack of professionalism from the technicians is not ever mentioned again
in the OP.

~~~
hnal943
I believe many repair shops do a CP scan as a matter of course as a way to aid
the authorities in catching predators.

------
jusben1369
I guess I'm struggling with a) Computer technicians view photos and are
distressed enough to call the police. b) Police view photos and believe it
serious enough to press charges and prosecute. Yet the photos are simply of
naked children playing in a back yard with a hose and buckets? And it was drop
dead obvious to the Crown prosecutor upon first look but not at all to the
shop technicians and police etc? The police were just gunning to go after an
elderly man with a completely clean rap sheet? I suspect we're missing some
key piece of this story - not surprising given the author.

~~~
DanBC
Technicians don't have any context.

They have no idea if these are his grandchildren and they're happy, or if
these are his grandchildren and he's abusing them, or if these are his
grandchildren and he's on the sex offender's register and prohibited from
being anywhere near them.

So, when they call police they're not saying "This guy is a paedophile, lock
him up" they are saying "There _might_ be a problem here, but we're not child
protection experts and we don't have access to all the information, so please
could you take a look?"

It's very annoying that police totally overplayed this case, and that CPS
didn't look at the images before taking it to court.

But still, in general, you want people to report early and report often. The
fight isn't against them, it's against overworked underfunded poorly trained
social workers (many of whom are fucking idiots) and overly aggressive police
forces.

What is totally baffling to me is to contrast this case (naked children on a
drive; arrest and prosecution) and the child grooming gang cases (14 year old
girls telling police that they were being gang raped, drugged, forced into
prostitution, and police not doing anything and child protection social
services telling the family that a child working as a prostitute was a
"lifestyle choice". We must do something to stop abuses of the system like
that, but we must also make sure innocent people don't end up in court
needlessly. Especially because, as the blog says, access to legal aid is
getting tricky and barristers are expensive.

~~~
leephillips
I would advocate making what the repair technicians did a criminal offense.
They should be obligated to treat the contents of the drives as confidential
unless they are _clearly_ evidence of a crime. And it is quite suspicious that
they were examining images at all.

~~~
jusben1369
Good Lord really? Think that through. It's like a pedophiles greatest wish
come true "IF you bring something to the attention of authorities and it
proves baseless we will criminally prosecute you"

------
jpdoctor
Somebody needs to plant child porn on the supreme court justices' computers,
so that judges understand the implications of "possession is 9/10ths of the
law."

~~~
larrys
"Somebody needs to plant"

That actually is a concern. It would be exceedingly simple for someone to
plant images on another person's hard drive. Much easier than planting other
physical contraband.

Taking it one step further entirely possible that the person who was the
object of the plant had other borderline images as well which in some way
enhanced the guilt of the truly law breaking images. (For example let's say
the grandfather had the hose pictures and some really bad stuff. The existence
of both would seem to make a stronger case for the law breaking images than
just the clearly law breaking images alone.)

~~~
jpdoctor
Hell, install the porn as part of a setup.exe payload and put it in an obscure
folder 9 levels down from C:\Windows\System32\drivers. Who would ever look
there besides the friendly officers inspecting your machine?

Child porn pretty much tops the list of scumbag behavior, but the fact that
the judicial, legislative and enforcement arms are such technological noobs is
not helping the world be a better place.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
This is just another reason I am very scared about the Government's proposals
to push through the "Snoopers' Charter" giving government agencies a record of
all emails and SMS messages sent, web pages visited, and phone calls made.

~~~
objclxt
I'm more worried about the very real and considerably more developed plans to
drastically change how the legal aid system works in the UK.

In brief, the UK government is planning to stop the current legal aid system -
where solicitors (lawyers) are paid based upon how much work they've actually
done on the case - and replace it with a flat rate. The flat rate is the same
regardless of a guilty or not guilty plea. It should be immediately obvious
that this means it's in a solicitor's best interests for a client to plead
guilty, as they'll the same amount of money but for considerably less work.

Additionally, the government plans to remove the right to choose your own
lawyer when on legal aid, and allow law firms (or, indeed, any company) to
'bid' to provide legal aid services exclusively across a geographic area.

What's particularly bad is that these proposals are being brought in as
secondary legislation, which means they don't require a debate in parliament.
That's very much _unlike_ the 'snoopers' charter', which has a very strong
chance of either being killed outright or considerably watered down as it
works through parliament.

The end of the blog post linked to here discusses this a little - there's also
a petition that UK residents can (and should) sign:
<https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628>

~~~
fr0sty
> solicitors (lawyers) are paid based upon how much work they've actually done
> on the case - with a flat rate.

Which is it: a flat rate or an amount based on the amount of work done?

~~~
estel
At the moment it's based on the amount of work done, the proposals would see
this replaced with a flat rate.

------
Edvik
The problem here wasn't that he was accused, but that the entire case was
seemingly going through based on an interpretation of the primary evidence, as
opposed to the evidence itself, which seems ridiculous to me.

~~~
user24
One wonders what would have happened if he had, in fact, pleaded guilty.

~~~
betterunix
I am more concerned about the possibility that this is not unique, that it
happens all the time, and that people wind up pleading guilty because they
think they have no chance of winning the trial.

~~~
user24
Yes, indeed.

------
jmaygarden
There is an interesting story in "Three Felonies a Day" where an employer
discovers child pornography on an employee's computer [1]. They contact their
attorney, and the lawyer deletes the offending content to protect the company
since simple possession of child pornography is crime in the United States. He
then alerts authorities to the employee. The attorney is eventual prosecuted
for evidence tampering.

[1] <http://amzn.com/1594035229>

------
mixmax
Paul Graham wrote an essay that fits the peadophilia scare quite well -
<http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>

------
snowwrestler
I don't know if this is some quirk of the UK system of justice, but in the
U.S. federal system, people don't even get charged, let alone go to trial,
unless the prosecutor has reviewed all the evidence and determined that the
case should go forward.

------
joering2
Reminds me somehow the story of my friend, convicted killer.

His ex got pregnant and he did not want the child but she did not want to
abort. You talking about state where abortion was legal for many years (side
issue to many including me its immoral). So he was at the party with bunch of
friends drunk. One of his friend asked him about her and they start talking.
My friend was drunk and angry and said to him: "damn I wish someone would just
punch her in the stomach that would solve my problem". I know him long enough
to know he wasnt serious but he was drunk and upset and let's be honest -- who
has never wished another person bad in their mind or outspoken while drunk?
Next morning he got cops knocking at his door. Long story short -- because of
his friend testimony and his ex testimony that she "is afraid of him", he is
sentenced for more than 10 years for a solicitation of 1st degree murder. A
decent good guy with nothing on his record. Its been 20 years ago and he was
released after couple years for well behave and never broke the law again, but
honestly shake someone's hand and tell them: hey, I am ex-con convicted of 1st
degree murder, nice to meet you.

------
tn13
Last year I wrote a story based on my real life experience which revolved
around my love story. It did contain some implicit references to the
protagonist sleeping with his girl friend on a bed.

My wife however said that I should not publish this story as it was based on
my life and I was a minor at that time and people might conclude that I had
sex with another minor girl (which I did not).

The story is still in my drawer.

Off topic:

One thing about US that competently baffles me is that you pay a woman for sex
and it is crime. You pay a woman for sex and film it and publish it as a movie
and you are in porn industry.

------
Houshalter
The scariest thing about the anti-pedo craze is that it is incredibly easy to
get falsely convicted. If you don't like someone, you can download some child
porn on their computer, call the cops on them, and there is absolutely no way
for them to prove themselves innocent (which they shouldn't have to do, but in
our system this is the case.) Yes there are measures you can take against
this, but if the person knows what they are doing and has physical access to
your work place or computer, then all but the most paranoid of individuals is
vulnerable. I remember reading a case where a sociopath did this just to get
rid of an employee whose parking place she wanted (who knows how many others
have done the same and gotten away with it.)

It's also easy to accidentally download or access a site with it, or have a
suggestive picture or drawing, etc. Not to mention teens "sexting" and stuff
like that.

Years ago many people were falsely convicted of child molestation by
unreliable child witnesses who were basically told what to say.

Many of the people who did get falsely convicted were heavily abused in prison
by guards and other inmates because of the stigma associated with pedophiles.
If you ever get out, being a registered sex offender can destroy your life.
Even if you aren't convicted, just the accusation can destroy families and
reputations.

And yet on the other hand child abuse is absolutely terrible and I want to do
everything possible to stop it. But way too many innocents are sacrificed for
it.

------
e40
To me, this really doesn't have to do with CP, but with police that over reach
and are not punished for that. It happens in non-CP cases, and the result is
the same, no punishment.

------
tn13
I am from India. Recently Indian government wanted to pass a law legalizing
consensual sex between people above 16 years old (the current limit is 18).

I wrote a lengthy blogpost supporting the move.

I was also applying for US immigration during that time and my attorney
advised me that I better take it off my blog before applying because if the US
authorities search for my name on Google and find it they might think I am a
pedo.

------
telecuda
One day I hope to bridge law enforcement and the tech community over the
massive CP problem. I know there are many talented people here that would
contribute solutions if they only had access to the right information and knew
they could build something to help.

For now you'll have to take my comment at face value, but you would be shocked
at the number of major offenders in each community - and I'm not talking about
the Sex Offender Registry. Too few sheriff's offices take advantage of funding
for internet crimes against children, and just as few prosecutors pursue these
cases. If your local law enforcement doesn't make it a priority, you won't
hear about CP arrests in the paper. That doesn't make it any less of a
problem.

I encourage tech companies on HN to send someone to
<http://www.cacconference.org> in Dallas to join the likes of FB, Google, and
Yahoo! for education on the topic, or contact me. In the future there will be
more I can share.

------
KaiserPro
As the majority of this thread seems to be about the morals of pedophilia, I'd
thought I'd chime in with the _specific_ issue at hand here.

The cutting of legal aid will mean that only the rich or lucky will be able to
afford justice. The crucial point is this: you are assigned a lawyer who will
get a fixed sum regardless of the outcome. As a defendant, you will _not_ be
able to fire your lawyer if he/she is shit.

In the new system there is no need to specialise. All you need to be able to
do is persuade your client to plead guilty as quickly as possible. Failing
that finding a way to get the case dismissed as quickly as possible with the
minimum amount of work.

It is a cruel and deliberately unjust system. Potentially it will be brought
in without so much as a vote in parliament.

On the plus side, it will drag britian kicking and screaming into the 19th
century, which is where most torys want to be.

------
belorn
One of the more outstanding part of the story I would claim is this:

> The geeks there went to work. In the course of their work they found a
> number of images of naked children.

In what way is looking at the customers files and images in line with the work
of repairing a laptop? As a sysadmin, that looks to be both a breach of
ethics, but also borderline illegal. If a car repairman would go and rumble in
the glove box for letters/pictures/money, he could very likely be sued. If a
handyman would do the same thing while fixing up something at someones house,
he would without doubt be thrown in jail. Why do the police allow laptop
repairmen to rumble in peoples private information without consequences?

------
sbierwagen
Note: This article is set in the UK, and has limited relevance outside that
jurisdiction.

------
zalew
hey, in Poland classmates who send each other nude self-shots get accused of
distributing child pornography. have a good day.

~~~
guard-of-terra
If you don't like that you may also stop liking organized religions.

I think it's them who propagate such efforts because they'll never miss a
chance to claim people sinners over sex, especially if it's women or minors.

~~~
GFischer
Hmmm that would make an interesting poll here on HN.

Pretty sure there are a lot of atheists / agnostics here.

And I do think organized religions do more harm than good, although there are
several societal roles that they fulfill.

~~~
guard-of-terra
There are several societal roles hard drugs fulfill, still they are illegal.

Even though ahrd drugs aren't going to sue you, lynch you or pass its own laws
against you. Religions do that all the time.

------
saw-lau
Good to see lawyers sharing case information with their other halves.

~~~
ianstallings
They're lawyers, not secret agents.

------
smackay
For a bit more context you can learn more from the Today programme on BBC
Radio 4, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0213yfh/live>. They have an
interview with Conservative MP Bob Neill and Sir Anthony Hooper, a former
appeal court judge. The links to the interview and other useful info can be
found at the bottom of the page.

------
ryanhandby
Yay let's all go back to biblical times to try and explain our perversions!
Seriously guys we have come a long way since then. Scientific discoveries,
food, culture, skill sets, in fact almost everything has changed since then
yet there are people among us the beat the dead horse still. "Oh it was OK in
biblical times when women were just objects so it must be OK now!" Get a grip
guys.

------
DanBC
The problem is not with the finger pointing. The problem is with the awful
process of "investigation" and prosecution that happened afterwards.

------
PonyGumbo
The short version (for anyone who is unwilling to view the link from work):
Guy brings his computer in for repairs, techs discover pictures, he's
arrested. In court he's finally presented with the evidence (apparently
innocuous photos of naked children running around in the yard, playing) and
announces that these are his grandkids.

------
vvortex3
So what computer repair shop actually called the police on him? Spyware
typically injects all sorts of nonsense into somebody's computer and most of
these shops are pretty jaded to the things they see and I doubt that the crazy
images are almost ever actually owned by the person who is bringing their
computer in for repair.

------
rmc
Oh another story about how the biggest problem with fighting child abuse and
exploitation is all the innocent bystanders that are getting caught.

------
graycat
Too much big gumment.

------
venomsnake
If you throw a net wide enough you will catch plenty of fish. Some of it may
even be the target species.

~~~
talmand
To continue the metaphor, you don't need as big a net when you reduce the
surface area of the lake.

Meaning, write so many laws that everyone eventually breaks a law or two on a
regular basis.

