1 Finish Profile

Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

Locked

I run a mobile PC repair service. So I see and work on a lot of home computers. On a recent service call I was asked to change the desktop background image. When I went to change the background image and began clicking on images, kiddie porn started showing up. The client was present and seemed to be genuinely surprised. He explained it must have been left behind by his buddy who had built and worked on the computer from time to time. I could not tell if he was sincere or putting on an act. He asked me to remove it and then scan for any other images on his system. It seemed to be isolated to one folder of about 20 images. Not exactly a huge library. However, it left me feeling uneasy about the whole thing. Where there’s smoke there’s fire and if it was not his then it was his buddy’s. This was not the first time I have found traces of porn on a customers system and at times I have had customers admit to their porn usage after it had screwed up their systems. To me this is no big deal. But this was much different because of the content. With all the incidents happening as of late, I do not want to be responsible for anything that may occur because I did not take action. So, I was wondering what you all would have done if you had come across this? I ended up contacting the authorities but I am concerned about what the backlash may be on me and my business and what I may have gottem myself into.

Topic

I would

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

have reported him myself.
though I would also have used the undel list to see what had recently been removed.
if it was a lot, then he was sh|tting you about who / where it came from.

look at it this way, better safe by reporting, than sorry when some child gets molested by whoever was getting off on it.

any clients that have children will more than likely have the same opinion about it.

of course, this is assuming I kept control of my temper and wasn’t going to jail for beating the crap out of him first. 🙂

Spyware?

In reply to I would

Spyware from regular porn sites (which are not illegal) might download stuff like this?

I’ve never heard of it doing this, but if they can dial 900# and cost you hundreds, they could do this.

Sounds fishy but the guy might be innocent and if spyware did it then he his not hanging around with sleazy buddies either.

It might be spyware

In reply to Spyware?

It can do some crazy stuff, but I would report anyway who cares anyone in their right mind would. It wont hurt your business in anyway I could see and its just the right thing to do.

ideally

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

I’d remind him that legal consent is nonexistant before a certain age, and that kiddie porn is illegal, then ask if he has reported his “buddy”. As a courtesy, in case he was telling the truth about getting those files from a “friend” who obviously is careless with other people’s hard drives, I’d mention that the size of the collection was not what you’d expect from a habitual consumer of kiddie porn. But I’d definitely notify the police. Ideally, I’d be that careful about extending the customer the benefit of the doubt. More likely, I’d be scandalized. Anyway, cops are supposed to be trained to presume innocent until proven guilty and make arrests because of [b]suspicion[/b] of a crime. Your duty as a citizen is pretty much just to report observations that make you suspicious.

On the possibility of backlash on your business, you could easily turn it to your advantage by portraying your business as a friend of law and order. Some users are actually annoyed by the Wild West, New Frontier aspects of the Internet and would welcome more order. I wouldn’t worry about backlash (from desirable customers) for reporting kiddie porn, even a small amount. I have [b]never[/b] in 28 years known anybody to describe child pornography as anything other than a sickness. If I found a dead guy stuffed into a customer’s server closet, I wouldn’t hesitate to report that, even if it was “only one” dead guy. You found evidence of 20 separate crimes. Don’t think twice.

re innocent..

In reply to ideally

not with child porn.
the legal system actually work the other way.
guilty until proven innocent.

the issue of a child being harmed causes the reversal, for right or wrong.

unfortunately, during the year I worked selling porn, it was actually a common request.
usually from peoplefrom areas where it isn’t illegal, like japan, a lot from areas of central and south america.

The backlass I am worried about

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

is more along the ways of vendetta or revenge. Should this actually become something more than a suspicion those parties invloved will surely figure out how they got caught and who turned them in. I am sure the public would love me. But I don’t think I could bring myself to using something like this as a selling point even though thats a pretty good idea. I wouldn’t have though of that. That’s why I’m not in marketing.

if they

In reply to The backlass I am worried about

are convicted, they won’t be around to do you harm.

if not, then they have no reason to come after you.

Do you have the equivalent of this?

In reply to if they

it’s the UK Internet Watch Foundation…

http://www.iwf.org.uk/

May be worth a read-through for you – has some really good information on there.

From the UK point of view, we have an ethical responsibility to report any kiddie porn we find – I report to the above site, Met police and the specialist section where I work.

Due to the idiocy of the EU, we (i.e. the IT Security profession) in the UK lost our professional indemnity through a directive, but, thankfully, this has been restored lately through an amendment to statute. Just pointing that out in case one of your laws in the US means that if you’ve found it, you’ve accessed it and seen it. (That’s what the EU Directive meant over here. Needless to say, the number of infractions reported hit rock bottom)

On the other hand, try writing a Confidentiality statement for your clients to sign before any work on their PC. Get it checked out so that it’s legally admissable in court. In it, basically state that you will keep any information found on their hard drive totally confidential, be it banking details, stocks and shares, medical information etc. but that in ALL circumstances you will report child pornography to the local law enforcement. Make sure they know there will be no exceptions to that rule.

If they refuse to sign, you know there’s something dodgy about them, so I guess you really wouldn’t want to work for them anyway.

Glad you reported. In a straw poll 2 years ago at a Security conference, 100% of us said we would…

We’re a good lot really!

Hope this helps

GG

no idea..

In reply to Do you have the equivalent of this?

here in Canada they say call local police.

but here, they also specifically refuse to recognise any difference between cg child porn and the real thing.

so these 3d graphics toys that can create a realistic image or movie of it all with computer data only, will create what is legally defined as child porn, just as if you used a camera and film to make it.

which is, I believe, also the case in the UK.

This isn’t an ethical dilemma

In reply to The backlass I am worried about

There are no ethics involved here. You are absolutely, positively, unquestionably obligated to report this to the authorities.

Ethics typically involves a judgment call. Which action, in a set of actions, provides for the greatest good? That’s not the question here. You are witness to a crime, and you have a legal and societal responsibility to report what you’ve seen.

It’s not up to you to figure out if your customer put the material on the computer, or his friend as he alleges, or if aliens beamed it down from outer space. That’s up to the authorities to figure out. Suppose you came across a dead body…do you try to figure out who did it before you report it, or whether or not you should report it at all? Of course not, and it’s the same here.

You’re worried about backlash, that the word’s going to get out that you ratted this guy out. It’s natural to have a concern about that, but it’s ultimately self-indulgent. Frankly, it doesn’t matter, and although I hate to sound unsympathetic I have a pretty extreme view on this…were I you, it wouldn’t matter to me if reporting this crime ultimately caused me to lose my business (which isn’t going to happen, BTW). There’s a right thing and a wrong thing to do, and sometimes you just have to do the right thing no matter what the consequences. For a wide variety of reasons, this is one of those times.

Agreed

In reply to This isn’t an ethical dilemma

Amcol. You took the words right out of my mouth and put them to pixels. While I hate “me too” replies this is an issue that I cannot begin to ignore.

You have the legal responsibility to report this incident to the authorities. No ifs ans or buts about it. To ignore the issue makes you an accomplis to the crime itself. In other words if you don’t your just as guilty as the client and if and when this person is caught you don’t want to be on the wrong side of the law when he decides to implicate you as having put the porn there in the first place.

Protect yourself first! Then worry about the client!

– beads

No ethics involved?

In reply to This isn’t an ethical dilemma

In the past few days, I’ve been surprised by descriptions of ethics offered by a couple of different people. I’ve heard it expressed that a question isn’t an ethical question if the answer is clear and easy to supply. I’ve then heard, contrarily, that a question isn’t an ethical question if it is too difficult, too dependent on nuanced judgments, for there to be any clear rule for resolving it.

In each case, I was left to wonder what sort of point the speaker was trying to make. What, in other words, is so meaningful, so momentous about saying that a question of what to do is not an ethical question? What is the compelling notion that lies in affirming that a question about decision, about responsibility, about respect, about anxiety for consequences, about principles of habit, law, and harm is not an ethical question?

My only guess is that the speakers believe that putting a question in the realm of ethics inappropriately implies that it is foggy or highly grave, that, in other words, it is an encouragement for people to argue about it pointlessly with no end.

Unfortunately, I was not in a postion to question the speakers closely on the matter, and so I must remain in the dark. I confess that in my view the matter is much simpler. Any question about how to act in the best way is properly speaking an ethical question, regardless of how clear or how unclear the answer is. This is so because ethics as a subject does not specifically refer to doubt or certainty about correct behavior, but to the correct behavior itself. I do not feel that we do any justice by refusing to call a question ethical in order to emphasize that it is simple or complex in nature.

But then, as I have said, I really don’t understand the desire to make such distinctions in the first place, so maybe someone will explain it to me compellingly sometime.

There’s no simple answer

In reply to No ethics involved?

I don’t think I’d be able to come up with one single example of a situation that doesn’t have an ethical component. In a civilized society ethics permeates every single thing we do.

There are plenty of situations in which ethics doesn’t play a compelling role. If you have a contract to perform a certain service you are contractually obligated to perform said service. There are legal implications if you don’t. Not much room for ethics in there, except perhaps in how you go about performing the service.

Most of the time ethical questions are not of the form “Can I …” but more “Should I …”. That’s where the judgment part comes into play.

Besides, in this particular situation it’s moot. The original poster said he/she had an ethical dilemma, and the position I took was that there’s no dilemma here at all. Legally, morally, ethically, any which way you look at it, the poster was required (IMHO) to take a particular action. That’s not to say this wasn’t an ethical question, nor that there were no ethics involved. Quite the contrary, and at the same time there’s no issue of complexity either. The poster was creating complexity that didn’t exist in that he/she couldn’t determine the “correct” course of action based on factors that shouldn’t have weighed as heavily as they did.

That, in the final analysis, was the ethical question. Did the poster’s ethical obligations to society outweigh his/her own financial obligations? In my mind the answer was clearly yes.

RE: There’s no simple answer

In reply to There’s no simple answer

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. I understand what you mean now, although I should mention that I mistakenly ascribed to you the opinion that the question was not an ethical question because you began your earlier post with the words “There are no ethics involved here.”

I think there are two places where I agree with you and one where I’m not so sure. First of all, in the current case, I quite agree there’s a clear and compelling responsibility to uphold the law and to protect victims of crime. While michaels@ may reasonably pause to consider if he’s causing undeserved trouble for an innocent man, the matter is sufficiently serious that concern for the consequences of not acting must outweigh any reticence.

Secondly, I suspect we both agree that laws and ethical principles should be followed because they deserve to be followed in themselves, not merely because of what may or may not happen in particular instances. Even if michaels@ reasonably believed that making an exception in this one case would not result in direct harm to anyone, he should not be looking for ways to “get away with” omission of a duty called for by conscience and by law.

But, I disagree with the suggestion that the moral calculation involved is therefore not a dilemma. Even though there is an overriding good that presents itself clearly, I disagree that this means that someone like michaels@ is foolish or self-absorbed if he struggles with how to do justice to the other goods involved. There are a range of issues that emerge as compelling, if not terribly complex, threats to the good he is hoping to achieve. How might he do the least possible damage to his client’s reputation, who might after all be blameless? What are his exact obligations under the confidentiality that he has undertaken with his client, which, even if not contractual, are implied by the professional relationship? Does he have obligations that go beyond reporting what he found, such as refusing to do business with that client again, or sharing the experience with someone else?

This is a case, it seems to me, which is so ordinary and yet so out of the ordinary that it calls for moral reflection, not because the answer is so hard to arrive at but because one feels the importance of sure-footedness. I can well understand why michaels@ would wonder what the most carefully responsible approach might be.

Avoid overthinking

In reply to RE: There’s no simple answer

Following the law and adhering to the basic precepts of ethical behavior are certainly noble goals in and of themselves. However, the reality is that rules of any form exist to provide limits, and the main reason most people have for following those rules is the avoidance of consequences associated with rule breakage. Breaking the law will typically result in some form of punishment; unethical behavior will typically result in someone getting hurt. We obey the law and we act ethically mostly due to negative motivation.

I realize that sounds like a pretty cynical attitude. There are certainly many people (I count myself as one) who do as you say, operating within the law and agreed upon rules of ethics simply because it’s the right thing to do. The acid test, I suppose, would be to suddenly find oneself on an island as in “The Lord Of The Flies”, where all the rules are suspended…how would one act under that set of circumstances? I flatter myself by believing I’d be the same, that in a situation where there are no consequences I’d still do the right thing. From your posts I believe you’d fall into the same category.

I do think you’ve overanalyzed the moral and ethical complexities of the situation presented to us by the original poster. Wrestling with the issues as you’ve outlined them might lead him/her into a false conclusion. Although there is a clear overriding responsibility to report immediately what was found, a contemplation of ruined reputations and broached confidentiality might delay or even change that action. Might that not result in an even more unfortunate consequence? Suppose the child pornography he/she found was very recent, and originated locally. Would not the children in question suffer even more grievously if they were subjected to additional abuse because the person who knew what was going on failed to notify the proper authorities on a timely basis?

Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s pretty farfetched. But therein lies the point…when one is confronted with a series of options, and one option CLEARLY is the correct course of action, there’s no point and possibly harm in waiting to implement the action.

This is NOT a situation in which one has time to be reasonable, nor wonder about responsibility. This is a situation in which one simply needs to act.

Avoid thinking, you mean.

In reply to Avoid overthinking

(1) Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction. It presented the hypothesis that the threat of punishment is the only, or primary, motivation to act morally, by depicting some boys acting immorally in the absence of an authority. It may have been very believeable to you, and may even have convinced you of a truism of humanity. “However, the reality is that” your experience of that novel as plausible or convincing is not [b]objective[/b] evidence that the premise is correct. Your personal, [b]subjective[/b] experience only tells you — and those to whom you have described your experience — about yourself, and does not provide any logical support of your assertion that “the main reason most people have for following those rules is the avoidance of consequences associated with rule breakage”. The fact that [b]you[/b] relate to that fiction only means that [b]you[/b] can identify with the characters’ behavior in that situation. That does not constitute a basis from which it is correct to conclude that [b]I[/b] share your perspective, nor that [b]anyone else[/b] does. To support a claim about any individual other than yourself, you would need evidence about that person, and to support a claim about “the main reason most people have for” — anything — requires a statistically significant sampling of the population of which you intend to generalize. A novel is not evidence of anything but the author’s mind, and the reader’s reaction provides insight only into the mind of the reader.

(2) On a deserted island, in reality, with the scarcity of resources and difficulty of survival compared to a civilized, industrial society, any number of people of any age stranded there would have [b]more[/b] need of morality than ever before in their lives. There is simply less margin for error in the wild, and more need to reduce the risks posed by other humans when there are more non-human dangers.

(3) No emergency is so dire or immediate that reason should be, or can safely be, discarded. The more important the situation, the more important it is to act reasonably. In emergencies, it is important to react reasonably [b]and[/b] quickly, not to do one at the expense of the other. For that reason, it is important to have a consistent, integrated code of values, [b]and[/b] to know the law.

“This is NOT a situation in which one has time to be reasonable, nor wonder about responsibility. This is a situation in which one simply needs to act.”

On the contrary, this is a situation in which it is of the utmost importance to act [b]correctly[/b]. I never trust a person who claims that it is possible to think too much or “overthink”. Like giannidalessismo, what I know of the rise to power of the National Socialist Party in Germany leads me to suspect anybody who advises against thought in any scenario. If you had advised quick thinking, I would have composed a much different page, but you advised against thought. [b]That[/b] is “the most heinous of all the heinous crimes that exist”, because it is the true root of [b]all[/b] evil.

There is but one answer

In reply to RE: There’s no simple answer

Put him in if he can prove his friend did it well and good but I beleive if you look at the real picture there is times when the law can be let lie and times when it should not this is the later if you where to see first hand like I have the problems this sort of sick shit creates for the person and the family affected you would put the person in ASAP beleave me if this happend to you or a close friend you would be deverstated I know of people who live a life of hell afterwoods and some people who have killed themsevles I’m no prude the body of an adult can be a enjoyable thing but a child without the time to devolep properly can not.
I don’t know how long ago this was but by now if his friend is the problem he should be put in by you even if a while ago and if it was he has been given more than enough time to fix it and if its there again it tells me he lyed please take the time to put him in.

Thomas the Toad
(PS like the man said it was not him and my dog ate my homework)
HA HA

I disagree…

In reply to There’s no simple answer

While I have the utmost respect for you, AMCOL, and I usually agree with you, I think this is definitely not an easy call to make. And just to clarify, because people seem to be confusing Ethics with Morality, Ethics is defined as a set of rules one lives by. Everyone here, including you Amcol, seem to be assigning this as a question of morality.

There are really two issues.

1. Is the customer trafficking or recieving child pornography?

2. Is the tech responsible for reporting this customer?

In my opinion, the first question requires an ethical answer. Do I report him based on my suspicions or not? Simple question with a difficult answer. There are many ways the child pornography could have gotten onto this customer’s computer, and we all know that. So then we must ask ourselves, am I absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt that this customer is guilty of receiving this smut for his own enjoyment?

And let’s say he is, do I have a right to report him just because he is witnessing the porn and had nothing to do with the production or distribution of it? These are all questions of Ethics.

I have my own ethics with regard to this issue and I wouldn’t report him. I would tell him flat out that it is offensive to me, that it is illegal and that I will delete it all off of his computer. And that on any future call, if there is any of the smut present again, I would report him immediately. I would also let him know that it is illegal, he could be held responsible for it if investigated, and that if his “buddy” is responsible for it, that he might consider getting new friends (because frankly, the guy probably had no idea how it got on there and was probably just trying to come up with a plausible excuse on the spot). I would also, just because I will do whatever it takes to stop that kind of trash being circulated, install a keylogger and a way of checking his machine remotely so that if I see that crap on there again, I WILL report him. Now is that ethical of me? Yes it is. Is it immoral? possibly.

But those are MY ethics. AMCOL obviously has different ones that he lives by and so does the poster. It’s really up to your own set of guidelines as to what to do in this situation. There is no definitvely “correct” answer to this dilemna.

Wrong

In reply to I disagree…

It’s on his computer.
He got it from somewhere and kept it.
It’s highly illegal.
Children are hurt in making it.

This is called a “no brainer.” You report him.
Period.

“without a shadow of a doubt”

In reply to I disagree…

The question “am I absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt that this customer is guilty of receiving this smut for his own enjoyment?” is the one that a jury member is instructed to ask itself [b]in a murder case[/b]. When the death penalty is not at stake, the standard is “reasonable doubt”, not “a shadow of a doubt”, and that is only [b]in trial, for the jury[/b]. When considering whether to report a crime, the standard for investigation is “reasonable suspicion”.

The presence of child pornography — the tech’s own independent judgement of the images — means that this tech has [b]definitely[/b] observed what [b]to him[b] is the product of a crime, on a client’s computer. The only uncertain fact of this crime is how the evidence got to that computer, and thus [b]who[/b] is guilty. Unless the images are of individuals who are over 18 but appear younger, sex crimes against children have been committed and must legally be reported.

There are legitimate causes for hesitation and uncertainty, ethically, if this tech really believes his client’s story, but legally and professionally the prudent thing to do is report the evidence to the police. As long as you believe in the justice system, doing what is legal is also ethical.

I have been wondering that too, Griffon.

In reply to No ethics involved?

My impression is that amcol takes the law to trump ethics, not to ever be subject to ethical analysis, except perhaps by judges, once passed into law. That, to me, is not government of the people and by the people, and thus is unlikely to be government for the people, either.

I have to agree with amcol that the scenario described in the original post is not difficult to judge, but that judgement is specifically rooted in ethics, not separately from it. My dictionary does not include uncertainty, in any degree, in the definition of ethics. It describes ethics as “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” Alternate definitions refer to “principles”, “values” and “a guiding philosophy”. There is [b]no[/b] implication that “(e)thics typically involves a judgment call.” That would be the case only if one’s guiding philosophy was useless in real situations by virtue of omission, vagueness, and impossibility, ie if one’s “guiding philosophy” is only a set of rules, perhaps accompanied by fables, with no clearly stated fundamental [b]principle[/b] by which unstated rules might be logically derived from fundamental premises.

Mutual exclusivity

In reply to I have been wondering that too, Griffon.

In a truly civilized society the law of the land and the laws of ethical behavior are in harmonious balance. It shouldn’t be an issue of which takes precedence over the other. As an old hippie from the 60’s (minus the long hair), although one who’s grown increasingly conservative over time, I still maintain that in the event of one contradicting the other it is ethical behavior, NOT the law, that must triumph.

Laws are promulgated by society and are specific to individual societies. Ethics are common among different societies. Take the ultimate expression of ethical behavior, the Ten Commandments. No matter where you live, no matter what your religion, no matter how the laws of your jurisdiction require you to act, those ten statements are common dicta and as such must be given higher authority.

I disagree that the definitions you quote exclude uncertainty. “The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” According to whom? Who’s to say what is good and what’s bad? To what extent are we morally obligated? Ethics is most certainly a judgment call, one based on a common understanding of good behavior and bad behavior but viewed through an individual prism.

So which side of the hair do you want?

In reply to Mutual exclusivity

It may require a careful reading, but I did not actually say that the dictionary definition of ethics requires that uncertainty be [b]excluded[/b], only that the definition does not necessarily [b]include[/b] uncertainty either. In other words, ethics deals with all moral issues, as you seem to correctly understand, not [b]exclusively[/b] with difficult or uncertain ones, as amcol has wrongly said.

How interesting

In reply to So which side of the hair do you want?

For someone who calls himself “Absolutely”, you certainly don’t see too many things in absolutes, do you?

It seems to me we’re in closer agreement than I think it seems to you, but whatever…I respect your opinion, whether or not I agree with you. (Did that make any sense?)

There is one thing I think we do disagree on, however, and that’s the simple issue (if there are any simple issues in the midst of this rather fascinating thread) of how fast one must act given the parameters of a situation. I think your position is that there’s no situation in which one should not first reason and consider, weighing the possibilities and outcomes and then acting accordingly. If I’ve misstated please correct me, but if that is your thinking I don’t agree. There are those situations in which the correct course of action is so blindingly clear that there’s no added value in considering the alternatives, and doing so would just obfuscate the obvious (there’s a nice turn of a phrase). Along the same lines there are those situations where one must simply react in order to prevent a disastrous consequence. You’re on the sixth floor of a burning building…do you save the baby in the crib or do you leave her there? Think about it for more than a half second and you’re both dead.

It’s admittedly an extreme example but the point is that just because we’ve been blessed with sentient reasoning abilities doesn’t mean we have to confuse clear issues of right versus wrong with navel gazing. Sometimes you just gotta do what you just gotta do, and think about it later.

michaels did not say that the building was burning

In reply to So which side of the hair do you want?

But even in that dissimilar situation, a person trapped inside would do better to pause long enough to remember the fire escape and use it than to leap reflexively from the first window in sight.

Well I understood the poster

In reply to No ethics involved?

to be indicating a conflict in ethics customer’s privacy vs customer’s proprietry and amcol and others to be saying that the customers privacy is a vanishingly small issue.
In fact so small in my case the issue of any conflict doesn’t arise.

Reply To: Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

I do belive in the US you are legally responsible to report this to the authorities. I thought a few years ago this law was past. If a computer technician comes accross any child porn they are to report to the local police.

I don’t think this has anything to do with ethics. With kiddie porn there is no tolerance at all. In my years of working on computers, I have seen different porn on clients computers. I really don’t care if they have porn or what kind of porn it is, as long as it isn’t kiddie porn.

I wouldn’t worry about retaliation. This is an issue between the customer and the police. If it isn’t his then he will have to report who’s ever it is. Again, I’m 99% sure there is a law that states if a computer tech finds kiddie porn they have to report it. If this is the law and you don’t report, you maybe held liable. Or as the person stated to you, he had someone else work on the computer and stated it maybe that persons. Now what happens if another tech shows up and the guy uses the same excuse? Are you now the guy who may have put it on there computer? I know I wouldn’t want someone passing that around.

Sorry but that is silly…

In reply to Reply To: Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

This is now just passing the buck. And the next tech is probably just as unlikely to believe that you put it on there either.

AMCOL, you are trying to take an issue that in my opinion is NOT so obvious or black and white and making it a cut and dry issue. Well it isn’t.

This issue isn’t just about whether kiddie porn is bad or not (and like one of the posters said, SOME people actually don’t think there is anything wrong with kiddie porn). It’s also about whether the tech is supposed to accuse and possibly destroy the life of a person that could be completely innocent.

I wouldn’t be making ANY rash reactions to this. And I don’t think the poster should either.

This is NOT a simple cut and dry issue, in my opinion, but I think it’s obvious that it isn’t by the number of posts…

And just what is stopping this tech from

In reply to Sorry but that is silly…

Attending their Local Community Organization and telling all of their friends never to allow their kids to be alone with this guy?

That would get around the entire town in a very short time and he would be Guilty without any form of investigation or Judgment being handed down.

The real question here is would you trust your young kids with a person who had this type of stuff on their computer? And would you not warn your close friends to do the same?

Col

What would stop anyone from lying?

In reply to And just what is stopping this tech from

That’s the problem here. michaels@ has no idea how the stuff got on the computer and there is really no way to know definitely how it did. So anyone spreading rumors or “turning in” this person because of what was found on their computer is just as shameful as the stuff that was found.

That’s why I would make sure I knew how it got there by monitoring their computer covertly. If I saw them downloading it again, I would be able to know 1. That the person is a sicko and would be able to destroy him justly with the truth and 2. Where the porn came from and take actions to shut them down too. There is nothing in MY ethics that says I can’t be responsible for dealing with this issue myself. But I won’t be a party to spreading malicious lies and falsehoods about some guy when I don’t know for sure.

But that’s just me, I guess other people are not as protective of their own integrity.

So how many kids

In reply to What would stop anyone from lying?

would you prepared for him to take photos of before you could be be really sure you’re in the right ?
After all you wouldn’t want to do anthing rash and risk someones reputation, that would be irresponsible.

Or maybe some just do not know the LAW!

In reply to What would stop anyone from lying?

Here we have an obligation to report this type of thing or be accused of doing it ourselves. Just the same as if we see something that we consider inappropriate being done to a child in a shopping center. WE HAVE TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE!

Anyway how would monitoring that computer let you know who is actually downloading the images? The best that you could hope to prove is that certain things where downloaded by persons unknown to you at a certain time. We already know that the owner in this case doesn’t have exclusive use of the machine so what is stopping someone else downloading these images while you’re monitoring the usage? The best that you’ll be able to say is that “Well I removed things like this previously and I’ve been monitoring the usage since and seen these downloaded so I’m calling you Guys in!” That would land you on firstly a charge of interfering with evidence, the spying as obviously you wouldn’t be letting the owner know that you where monitoring the computer usage and numerous other Electronic Breaches that you have committed to find that this material has been downloaded. Sure they just might arrest the person who you have made a complaint about but he could quite rightly say that it was you who has been acting inappropriately and it was you who are responsible for the stuff being on his computer as you have access to it.

Now I’m no investigator and I know this so I leave it to the professionals in that area all that I’m required to do is report these incidents and then leave it to others to investigate and not become some form of Vigilantly Thought Police who considers it acceptable to break the rules to be happy with their own warped sense of Integrity!

Col ]:)

Since

In reply to And just what is stopping this tech from

you don’t know if he even did it you are promoting the guilty with insufficient evidence, and that when the person checking this is neither an officer, investigator or judge.

zombified PCs are regularly used by anonymous users as servers for warez, kiddie porn. In fact article on TR about company that had kiddie porn and warez server, software company and didn’t know about the server:

So if I can put some incriminating evidence in your house and frame you for something, everyone should think you’re guilty, (just in case you ARE?)

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6329_11-5055990.html?tag=search

I know that and that is why you call in the Professionals!

In reply to Since

If it is a Zombie that can backtrack to where the junk has originated and at the very least prove this persons non involvement in the issue. You can not destroy evidence and then think that you are doing the right thing only a MAD MAN would consider this as acceptable! Yes I saw some guy caring something that looked like a large heavy roll of carpet out of a building late one morning and he had to drag it because it was way to heavy for him to lift. I thought at the time that there was most likely a Body in it but I gave him the Benefit of the doubt and now as he saw me he’s coming in to get me to get rid of the wittiness and I want protection!

If this is a Zombie it will be found out very quickly and even if it is it will also be possible to find out if the images where put on it before or after the system was compromised.

Why is it that you accept responsibility for what your car can do when you drive it or allow someone else to drive it but not a computer? I’m sure if someone brought your car back all bent up and the next day you heard of a Hit & Run you would certainly rush your car off to be repaired so that your friend wouldn’t be held responsible wouldn’t you? But then again if the damage was consistent with a Hit & Run the Panel Beaters would be contacting the Police and reporting your suspicious activities by wanting it fixed quickly without going through the normal channels. Have you ever thought that IT people are not alone in being required to report things like this?

But more importantly how would you react if you saw a photo of one of your Kids on that computer in with the other 19 photos?

Col ]:)

reporting requirements

In reply to Reply To: Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

I got curious as to just what the US law said on the subject. Do I did a Dogpile search and that led me to a US DOJ search. I found an interesting document at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/append.pdf which had the following in it:
“Congress has also required ISPs that become aware of an apparent violation of any federal child exploitation statute to report that information to a designated law enforcement agency. See 42 U.S.C. ? 13032; see also 28 C.F.R. ? 81.1 et seq. (requiring ISPs to report such violations to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which in turn forwards complaints to designated federal law enforcement agencies).”

If any out there are practicing attorneys in any of the United States, its territories or possesions, an authoritative post would be appreciated, to clear the air in regard to the legal requirements under Federal and State law.

The moral and ethical requirement is much clearer: such things must be reported.

Dealing with contraband

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

In this situation, you are obligated to stop working on the PC and notify the authorities who will determine when and how the images got onto the PC (that’s why we have computer forensics). The customer can try to get rid of the images, but not you, and not at your house. Every image represents a real crime against a child.

Due to the customer possibly going berzerk and harming you, I would just notify him immediately that I was no longer interested in his business and that he should leave immediately (“Take your stinking computer and get out of my business! I ain’t dealing with that stuff.”). Then notify the authorities afterwards, 911 is applicable in case he actually created the images. If the customer is legit, he can go to the authorities also.

In this case where you called them later, I seriously doubt there will be any backlash from the police. Not that many PC shops are even thinking about computer crime and how to handle it, and the police are usually aware of that. Just be honest in the when, where, and who, when talking with them. Consider having a security cam installed to tape your whole shop area, in case anything like this happens in the future, for your own protection.

Report the Crime

In reply to Dealing with contraband

Not to beat a dead horse, but you must report this to the authorities. I work as a Computer Forensic Engineer with Kroll Ontrack. Anytime we come across child porn we report it to the FBI. If they want to return the case to us, it’s their decision.
As far as true posession, we have techniques which allow us to give an educated guess on who downloaded/created the porn. Whether you trust those techniques or not, the decision isn’t up to you. You must report it and allow those with the proper training to take over.

Chances are…

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

…there won’t be any backlash. ‘Posession’ of child porn, though illegal is seldom prossocuted on it’s own merrit.

Now if you found a lot of it, then they might prossocute for ‘distribution’ of illegal materials.

Sort of like drug abuse, the FBI tends to go after distributers rather than users. Not to say that users never get prosocuted.

Personally I probably would have deleted it and ignored it. But now that it has come up I like the idea of refusing to work on the machine and then reporting it.

Do you have children?

In reply to Chances are…

If you’re a father, or an uncle, or maybe just someone whose neighbor’s barber’s accountant has kids, how can you take such a cavalier attitude toward this?

You would have just deleted and ignored it? Shame on you.

Some things must be subject to absolute zero tolerance, and child pornography is one of those things. What were you thinking about?

Guilty as charged

In reply to Do you have children?

I guess what I’m saying is that since I have never dealt with this issue before I would have been likely to ignore it the first time I came accross it.

Now that this thread has brought the issue to my attention I am much more likely to refuse to work on the machine and report it to the authorities.

Do you know what a “hypothetical situation” is?

In reply to Do you have children?

I’d hate to see you fly off the handle if somebody actually acted on a choice you consider wrong.

You’re right about zero tolerance, but jmercha’s tendency to assume innocence is a good, patriotic trait.

Do you know what “social responsibility” is?

In reply to Do you know what a “hypothetical situation” is?

Let me get something straight. I call out jdmercha for his laissez faire attitude toward child pornography, HE AGREES WITH ME, and you still defend his original position?

How curious.

Most of the time the assumption of innocence is in fact admirable. Let’s not get into a discussion of innocent until proven guilty here…we’re not lawyers and this isn’t a court of law. We’re talking about ordinary reactions in everyday ordinary situations.

Although, as an aside, I’d love to know how you equate assumption of innocence with patriotism.

We apparently agree that child pornography should be subject to zero tolerance. Where in the middle of zero tolerance is there room for presumption of innocence? At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who’s guilty…this is the most heinous of all the heinous crimes that exist, and MUST be reported immediately. No matter what.

assumptions and absolute certainties

In reply to Do you know what “social responsibility” is?

It is interesting to me that there is such certainty (which of
course includes the concept of ‘zero tolerance’, which has always
sounded quite Hitlerian to me) and disdain of any idea of doubt
here. The original poster has incountered something she found
abberant. That reaction may be instinctive, or it may be a
learned response. It has been treated, by all posters I’ve read so
far, as an absolute fact that what was found on the client’s HD is
‘kiddie porn’. The word pornography means different things to
different people, depending on their experience. Some persons,
this definitely includes the socially conservative types, most
inclined toward “zero tolerance”, are not very experienced at all.
[EG: The shot of Sue Lyons, in her bathing bonnet on the chaise
longue, from Kubrick’s “Lolita” might be considered includeable
in a list of images “WE” should have zero tolerance for. This is a
quasi-extreme hypothetical, to illustrate a point.] At any rate
the expressions of “no matter what” and “MUST” or “it doesn’t
matter who’s guilty” and “…vanishing personal privacy” (which
that poster was all for) are disturbing. I also doubt, amcol, that
perusal of kiddie porn is “the most heinous of all the heinous
crimes that exist”; an escalated behavior arising from this
perusal would qualify, but again an EXTREME presumption,
arising from a so-called moral certainty (no ethical qualms
however) has been asserted. By late 1930’s Germany, all Jews
and homosexuals were equated with pornographers and child
molesters and rounded up into camps. This is a very slippery
slope, people.

I draw your attention to this part of the original Post

In reply to assumptions and absolute certainties

“When I went to change the background image and began clicking on images, kiddie porn started showing up.”

This quite clearly says Kiddy Porn and that is where I do draw the line. It doesn’t matter if the person who owns the computer downloaded it or not it was on their computer and is their responsibility, the only way out of this would be if the computer had been stolen then it would not be the owners responsibility as to what was on the computer.

Why is it so different between a computer and your car? If your car is photographed doing something wrong the Police have every right to came and talk to you about the actions that where going on when the photo was taken. I’m sure that you’re not advocating that it is perfectly OK to drive at 230 MPH through the heart of town and mow people down as you go!

The fact that these images where considered as Kiddy Porn by the person who viewed them is enough to at the very least report the images existence to the Police or other Authorities in the area so that they can at the very least make sure that the images originated Off Shore and where not pictures of some kids down the street being abused. Now the real problem comes about with the individuals idea of what constitutes Kiddy Porn and this is the dangerous area as some straight Laced person may consider the ability to see a bare ankle Kiddy Porn while others myself included would never see anything at all wrong with naked pictures of my kids when they where very young, but and here is the big one I wouldn’t want these pictures available to every sicko on the net either.

The original poster clearly considered these as “Kiddy Porn” and I don’t know what they actually involved so I’m limiting my comments as to what I would do if I was to run across any thing that I found offensive exploiting children. I would not hesitate to report it immediately and in front of the customer as they have a right to clear their name as well as things stand now this Tech can walk around at whatever local organization she visits and tell everyone that so & so had Kiddy Porn on their computer and that person is Guilty and unable to ever prove their innocence as the proof has been destroyed now.

Yes I know that the images can be recovered but that is an expensive process and unlikely to happen.

It must be nice to live in a place where Child Abuse is tolerated by some and maybe even considered as acceptable so they never report the matter to the proper authorities but just limit themselves to talking behind the persons back and therefore making them guilty by default. We have already bee told that this was a Custom Built machine and if it was connected 24/7 to the Internet it could very well have been a Zombie for a bunch of pedophiles who have now got off scott free without ever getting the chance to be investigated. So now that can go find another Zombie to peddle their disgusting trash around and continue their sick trade in the misery of Children.

I however live in a country where this is not acceptable and I am legally bound to report any instances that I find just the same as the ISP have a list that they have to report when one of their customers accesses this list covers Kiddy Porn and many other activities ranging from Bomb Making down.

The very least that should have happened here was to make sure that the computer had not been taken over and was being used as a Zombie for peddling this trade and the Authorities should have been informed so they could investigate and hopefully catch those responsible for these perversions and if it all originated Off Shore they could then add that URL to their list and probably block it as well.

This week we had a news report of some 34 year old sicko flying from the US to AU to meet a 14 year old girl that he had meet in a chat room for sex. Personally I don’t have a single problem with catching these people and hanging them out to dry.

I’m sure that you would feel exactly the same if you had done work a computer on one of those involved in the 9-11 and had become aware of their plans but because they told you that they had no idea of how the items had got onto the HDD you would have quite happily erased them and then gone on to find out that they had been responsible for that act of Barbarism I on the other hand would find it very hard to live with myself and more so if there where children involved who where being abused.

Col

Answer my question before I answer yours.

In reply to Do you know what “social responsibility” is?

“Let me get something straight. I call out jdmercha for his laissez faire attitude toward child pornography, HE AGREES WITH ME, and you still defend his original position?”

As you say, let’s get something straight. jdmercha concluded a post:

“Personally I probably would have deleted it and ignored it. But now that it has come up I like the idea of refusing to work on the machine and then reporting it.”

His last two sentences make [b]perfectly clear[/b] that although his habit is to take people at their word — to presume innocence — after giving the subject some thought, he has decided that the right thing to do is to report the crime.

To which amcol replied:

“You would have just deleted and ignored it? Shame on you.”

(That is not what he said. He said that would have probably been his first reaction, but that after thinking about it, he has decided there is a better course of action. Maybe thinking [b]is[/b] good…)

“Some things must be subject to absolute zero tolerance, and child pornography is one of those things. What were you thinking about?”

jdmercha then clarified his previous post:

“I guess what I’m saying is that since I have never dealt with this issue before I would have been likely to ignore it the first time I came across it.

Now that this thread has brought the issue to my attention I am much more likely to refuse to work on the machine and report it to the authorities.”

Only after jdmercha made that clarification did I find this thread, and amcol’s reaction quoted above, to which I answered:

“I’d hate to see you fly off the handle if somebody actually acted on a choice you consider wrong.

You’re right about zero tolerance, but jmercha’s tendency to assume innocence is a good, patriotic trait.”

The presumption of innocence until [b]proven[/b] guilty is an immediate and necessary logical consequence of the belief that people are endowed with rights by our nature, not granted privileges by our neighbors. If I can have you imprisoned without [b]proving[/b] that you committed a crime, then the only freedom you have is what I grant you by the favor of not accusing you unjustly of any crime that I know that you did not commit. When the fact of an unproven accusation is held against the accused and frivolous accusations that are proven false are not held against the accuser, any documents describing such a system as one of “justice” are fraudulent and evil.

Laissez-faire translate as the command “hands off!” Literally, it would be more like “let go!”, but it is used in situations where English speakers would say “hands off!”, such as when they are about to defend themselves or their property. According to legend, it began to be used as a description of a free economy when a French king in colonial times asked a council of prominent French merchants what he could do to help them succeed financially. If the answer “laissez-faire” had been spoken aloud, that merchant would have been beheaded. The story is presumed apocryphal, but also to be the origin of the association of the phrase with capitalism. To associate that economic theory with the political system of anarchism is inaccurate.

Free trade means that markets are governed by voluntary exchange for mutual benefit, and not by the king’s power of compulsion, just as sex is volitional under just law, and not subject to compulsion by anybody, including the king. You used the slogan “laissez-faire” to describe turning a blind eye to a [b]crime[/b], which is not an aspect of capitalism nor of any political system that defends freedom. In fact, command economies punish talent as surely as molesters punish innocence. A historically accurate use of the phrase “laissez-faire” in this context would be addressed to any would-be molesters. In the nation of the 1776 revolution, the command “hands off!” may rightly be given with musket, or pistol, to defend the individual’s right to be free from compulsion. I apologize for the off-topic remarks, but it bothers me to see capitalism equated with injustice, when in fact it is the most just economic system possible and the only one consistent with the ideal of personal liberty.

You’re right about one point of agreement that we have: “We apparently agree that child pornography should be subject to zero tolerance.” Exactly right. Where we differ is that I would require proof, not just accusation, before imposing zero tolerance.

“At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who’s guilty…”

At any time of day, nothing matters more.

Get over yourself AMCOL

In reply to Do you know what “social responsibility” is?

WTF AMCOL? I get that this issue is of importance to you but get a grip.

Your opinion is not the final word on this. Just because you say its the most heinous of all heinous crimes doesn’t make it so. And even if we all agreed that it IS in fact the most heinous of all crimes, your flagrant disregard for anyone else’s opinion is insulting to say the least.

You’re not God, and you don’t get to tell any of us what we MUST do. Especially in this situation that is not simple.

You ask where is there room for presumption of innocence. I submit it’s everywhere in this scenario.

You’re like the Germans who turned in their neighbors as jewish to the Nazis without any thought to the repercussions.

Just do us a favor, because this is obviously a touchy subject for you, and stop talking about it all together, because now you just sound like an A$$.

Patriotic ?

In reply to Do you know what a “hypothetical situation” is?

I know inocent until proven guilty is profound fundamental within western society, but the cost is hideous and the ones who make this informed decision do not pay the price , our children do.
While I believe wholeheartedly in the presumption of innicence, no judgement can prevail either way if a suspicion goes unreported.

I was only supporting jdmercha’s initial presumption of innocence.

In reply to Patriotic ?

Why do you and amcol ignore the fact that jdmercha concluded that after thinking about the facts, he would report what is obviously evidence of a crime? I did not try to dissuade him from that conclusion, I only responded to amcol’s hot air with the statement that it is patriotic to presume innocence until guilt is proven.

Any pornography that includes children dictates that a crime has been committed. To hesitate when told that the owner of the material is not the criminal is a good thing, it is the reaction of somebody who really believes in the principles of the Constitution. It is also good to continue thinking, and to consider that the images are nevertheless evidence of a crime, and that even if the owner did not participate, he is still responsible to make those images available to the police to investigate and ultimately prosecute that crime. And that is exactly what jdmercha described in the post to which amcol responded, “You would have just deleted and ignored it? Shame on you…What were you thinking about?” Nobody said any such thing. jdmercha said that would likely have been his first impulse, and [b]in the same message[/b] concluded that after considering the matter, he would certainly report any child pornography he found. I didn’t bother defending that decision because nobody attacked it, myself included. You and amcol seem to take my omission as disagreement. You are both wrong in that assumption.

While I agree with your closing sentence Tony, it’s also a fact that I never suggested that the right course of action is one whose result is that “a suspicion goes unreported.”

Funny me there I was thinking that true Patriots

In reply to I was only supporting jdmercha’s initial presumption of innocence.

Upheld the law of the country that they where living in and did everything possible to make sure that they where never party to breaking these laws. :^O

But I now see the error of my ways so the next time that I see something so wrong that it sickens me I’ll give the offender the benefit of the doubt and just hope that they don’t do it again right?

Col ]:)

Last time, folks.

In reply to Funny me there I was thinking that true Patriots

“Personally I probably would have deleted it and ignored it. But now that it has come up I like the idea of refusing to work on the machine and then reporting it.”

First sentence, initial reaction was to presume innocence, which I described as a patriotic impulse. Second sentence, after [b]thinking[/b] about the situation, decided the right thing would be to report it. [b]I also think that is a good, patriotic choice[/b], but didn’t mention that because nobody had criticized that [b]choice[/b] that was made after some thought, not as an unexamined reflex. Because I didn’t say “but I also agree with his ultimate decision to report the kiddie porn” does not mean that I disagree with that decision. It means I was commenting specifically on the first impulse, which was to presume innocence. To that, amcol responded “Some things must be subject to absolute zero tolerance, and child pornography is one of those things. What were you thinking about?”, as if jdmercha had not [b]already[/b] said “But now that it has come up I like the idea of refusing to work on the machine and then reporting it.” Is that clear yet? Does everybody here understand yet that neither I nor jdmercha recommended — ever — that the correct course of action is to ignore this incident?

Agreed

In reply to Do you know what a “hypothetical situation” is?

AMCOL, you might want to open up your mind a little bit and consider more than your own point of view.

If you were the person whose computer had the kiddie porn on it, and the tech made the choice you recommend, are you so absolutely sure of the infallibility of our legal system, and computer forensics for that matter, that you would escape the situation unharmed? Talk about gullible.

It’s knee jerk reactions to situations like this that often cause more harm than good.

Yes, there is kiddie porn in the world, and it is a horrible thing. What else is new? The crime described here has already occured. Why compound it by making a bad situation worse with a thoughtless reaction.

Berating a poster because he doesn’t take YOUR course of action is what’s really shameful.

Well, I hardly know where to start

In reply to Agreed

It is, at least, very gratifying to me that this thread has generated so many intelligent and varied responses, all expressed with no small measure of emotion. The two issues we’re discussing…ethical behavior and child pornography…deserve to have this level of discourse. Quite a refreshing change from some of the other material that appears in this space from time to time.

Several posters have compared my comments and suggestions as being Hitlerian and reminiscent of Nazi treatment of Jews. I am myself Jewish, and not only is this analogy deeply offensive to me I am also frankly perplexed at how anyone can analogize that historical period with anything.

The fervor with which I have expressed my comments on the child pornography issue has apparently led to other misimpressions. I’ve been getting private messages from people who surmise my attitudes must come from personal experience. Thanks for the concern, folks, but it ain’t so…I’m the disgustingly normal product of a disgustingly normal upbringing. My strong feelings on this topic stem from my status as the chronically overprotective father of two grown children, nothing more.

I invite one and all to disagree with anything I have to say about anything. I never mean to imply I have the one and only one answer to anything, nor do I have any problem with folks doing as they will. No one needs my permission. I apologize if that’s the impression I’ve been giving.

I confess that I always try to break issues down to their simplest components. I’m a simple guy and that’s how I understand things. In my mind this entire subject is pretty straightforward, to wit:

1. I don’t need a dictionary definition of child pornography to recognize it. I don’t need a lot of analysis, or rationalization, or comparison, or anything else. If it has anything to do with anyone under the age of 18 and it’s in any way suggestive, I have a problem with it. I’m a victorian prude…sue me.

2. Where do you draw the line? There have been some suggestions that the original poster didn’t necessarily need to report what he/she found, that he/she should have investigated further, that he/she should have talked to the customer about it, etc. OK…suppose he/she decided the material was questionable and/or it couldn’t be determined if the customer was in fact responsible, therefore the observation goes unreported. The PC in question breaks down again and is brought to another tech, who DOES report the material. Would you want to be the first tech and have to explain your inaction? No thanks.

The original poster found what appeared to be child pornography on a customer’s PC. Immediately reporting that observation to the authorities allows for a proper investigation to be made, possibly prevents children from being further abused, protects the poster from legal liability, and serves the greater needs of society. I’m all for proper analysis and thinking things through, but we all have the benefit of hindsight and time here…why does this need to be made any more complicated than it is?

What a skewed set of values

In reply to Agreed

You beggar the imagination, I can’t see where you are coming from at all.

Don’t report it in case he’s not guilty and gets done up ?

What else is new ?, his next set of photos include a new victim.

The only person who’s being thoughtless here is you, you have no thought of any number of childrens welfare.

As for a fellow member expressing his point of view being more shameful than collecting , making or disseminating child pornography, I count you a danger to your own society.

One image

In reply to Chances are…

will do it in the UK.
Course you have to b careful one celebrity got investigated because she sent some pictures of her kids in the bath to be developed in the old film days.
I should point out that if there are 20 pictures in a directory and they are porn or described as porn and not in IE’s cache, this is not an accident. Not stupid user going on to a downmarket porn site. This is a dial up, P2P, Usenet or deity forfend self perpetrated crime.

Anyone capable of crossing that line in their head is capable of doing it in the real world.
Seeing as you’ll get prosecuted if you take the law into your own hands, put him in the hands of the law.

Wow, how ignorant…

In reply to One image

Sorry Tony, but if you actually work in IT you would know that it is quite easy for a hacker to take over a “dumb user”‘s machine and use it as a zombie or actually take control of the machine like it was their own. So no, you don’t get to assume that michaels@’s customer intended to have kiddie porn on their machine. And BECAUSE it is so easy to take over a windows machine, AMCOL’s advice to turn them in immediately and ask questions later is really disturbing to me. But then some of you agree with him, and I accept that you have that right. But please don’t go turning in the next person whose computer has kiddie porn on it out of ignorance.

In that case, thinking first IS a good thing.

Been a while since someone lit the blue touch paper.

In reply to Wow, how ignorant…

You ever dealt with a child who’s been abused ?
Do you know anyone who has been abused, have you any f’ing idea at all what it does to them.

It’s people like you who keep letting this crap happen. If you find you it, you report it, if they are guilty you twist their f’ing head off. If they aren’t you eliminate them from enquiry, diminishing your list of suspects by one, progress either way.

What makes you think I was basing my point of view on my knowledge of IT, why would I be that f’ing stupid. I’m a grandfather. I read about kids going missing every day, paedo rings being discovered priests being defrocked, children facing hideous levels of abuse and this is allowed to go on to protect the rights of the innocent?

You sit their in your home one night waiting for your kid to turn up because they weren’t impressed with the danger and decided to be a little late.

You look in a mother’s eyes who hid the fact the that she was abused by her father, to find out the sick bastard had transferred his attention to her daughter.

You listen to some f’ing social worker telling you your family member isn’t at risk from a convicted paedophile because they’ve cured him.

These are all situations I’ve seen, so may be I’m not that frigging ignorant after all. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

You’re wrong about the law

In reply to Chances are…

Nearly all child porn is prosecuted as a Federal crime because it nearly always comes from the Internet and as such is interstate. I perform computer forensics and have seen as few as 3 images go to trial in Federal Court and those with 5 or more qualifying for an upward departure from five years to ten, mandatory.

Re the responsibility; if a technician observes child pornography on a clients computer he/she is required under Federal law to report it (not always true if it?s in state jurisdiction though).

Generally, someone makes a report to the local police and most of the time they die there because local police hate turning over something to the feds and most of the smaller town police do not have access to computer forensics specialists and the DA?s don?t have the necessary expertise to prosecute. Ans a DA won?t take a case that they haven?t a shot at winning so more often than not your report is ignored.

If the report is made to Federal prosecutors (US Attorneys) though, they will nearly always follow through and the owner/user charged if the image count is more than 5 and there are signs that the retention was deliberate. By deliberate, images must have the following characteristics:

1. Not be in the Temporary Internet Files Folder
(may be accidental hits or pop-ups)
2. Be stored in a user created folder (this shows
intent to keep)
3. An Examination of the Index file shows a
pattern of deliberate access to prohibited
sites or images
4. Other information on the disk may also
contribute to the report such as IM
conversations, email and the like.

Usually determination of intent is made by the forensics examiner as a qualified opiniion in a report to the US Attorney; the USA will then either follow through with charges, or not, as the case may be.

Everyone should be very aware that child pornography is a real hot wire, touching it is dangerous to your health. I will not perform an examination unless I receive immunity (a legal document singed by the judge). I copy that document for my personal files and file a copy with my report.

Everyone who uses a computer should be aware that unless very special delete procedures using a file wiper are performed, I can recover nearly anything from a disk, deleted or not.

The special purpose, highly complex examination programs we use are able to index every picture, every email, most IM conversations and so on in a fully linked, fully searchable data base. If something is on that disk, I can find it; if it?s been erased, I can probably get it back. If the disk has been reformatted and Windows reinstalled it makes no difference, Encase, ForensicsToolKit can recover nearly everything.

If the disk has been wiped by a forensics cleaner using a three pass or less overwrite and it?s important enough, I can probably still get most of it back using Border and Shadow recovery methods. To do that I will require an order from the judge since Border and Shadow Data recovery techniques can only be performed on the ORIGINAL disk drive and it must be opened and physically modified for the job. The disk may well be damaged by the process.

Not even a forensics copy can be used for this type of recovery since it depends on very tiny differences in the magnetic field of each data bit and even a forensics copy can?t duplicate those.

AH

Still not foolproof way of prooving whose guilty.

In reply to You’re wrong about the law

Once again, these guidelines still do not proove who was in control of the computer. There are ways to get into a machine that make it look exactly like the owner was sitting there using their own user name and password and committing crimes like these, without the owner EVER being aware of it. We all know the clueless neighbor that has never opened windows explorer and wouldn’t know what a folder was to save their life.

My problem with this whole scenario is that people are so willing to drop the dime on people they don’t even know because they SUSPECT they have some kiddie porn on their machines.

I’m sorry but just having it on their machines should not be a crime. And wasting time on these fruitless pursuits only detracts from going after the actual criminals.

I mean, come on, do you really think that the sick f**ks that create this kind of filth are going to shoot anything in these pictures or videos that could be traced back to them? So having the pictures is going to do nothing but possibly put away someone with a sickness (the diliberate kiddie porn watcher), someone clueless, or someone completely innocent. It does nothing to stop the pornographers.

I think we all need to be a bit more proactive in stopping the root of the problem, instead of chasing after things that are, in my opinion, useless.

Hold on a second here

In reply to Still not foolproof way of prooving whose guilty.

You’re misrepresenting what we’ve been talking about.

The original poster didn’t SUSPECT there was child pornography on the machine in question, he/she actually found some. The question was how did it get there, and who put it there.

The creators of this material are the true villians who need to be brought to justice. However, that doesn’t mean that we should cast a blind eye on those who purchase this material because our efforts would be better spent on catching the originators. In a perfect world there would be no market for this stuff, and therefore there wouldn’t be anyone creating it in the first place.

“So having the pictures is going to do nothing but possibly put away someone with a sickness (the diliberate kiddie porn watcher), someone clueless, or someone completely innocent.” Go hug a tree if it makes you feel better, but if someone’s sickness results in a crime…especially a crime which can HARDLY be characterized as victimless…then IMHO society is very well served by in fact putting that person away. And at the risk of once again being taken to task for being too strident in my views, how you can call anyone who traffics in this material in any way or for any reason “clueless” is logic that totally escapes me.

Getting at the root of the problem makes sense. Does it not also make sense that addressing the demand side in turn addresses the supply side, which is where the root of the problem can be found?

You can’t avoid it though

In reply to Still not foolproof way of prooving whose guilty.

Unfortunately, it?s not so simple as ignoring what was seen. I?ll give you a real world example.

In a case I was involved in the computer was seized by the FBI in a sting. The owner was charged with possession. During the investigation it was revealed that the computer was serviced by a small company and images were found by the technician. When questioned the tech indicated lack of knowledge of the law and stated he didn?t think it was any of his business and anyway, the guy was a friend of the company?s owner and he told him not to report it.

Not good enough; the tech and company owner had a legal requirement and both were charged with conspiracy, receiving 2 years suspended sentences.

There?s no leniency in the reporting requirement.

In a related case I participated in the strategy of an appeal. The possession charge included two magazines, one video and several hundred computer images. The sentence included an upward departure (a longer sentence than the sentencing guidelines indicated for a minimum offense) because the prohibited images on the computer added hundreds of images to the count (more than 5 items or images qualifies for upward departure).

I formulated a defense for the attorney to present to the appellate court indicating that the computer images on the disk drive should only be counted as one item for upward departure since it was a physical item, exactly like the video and magazine were each a physical item, and each contained many images.

There was a bit of danger here in that it might compell the court to count individual picture in the magazine or frames in the video, but it was only a small one.

The magazine, which contained hundreds of images, was counted as only one item, as was the video tape which contains countless frames, and if the computer disk was counted as one item, then the item count would stand at three, not hundreds and the sentence would be 3-5, not 5-10.

We didn?t win, but it was close, two out of three went with us. I think the judges were simply too afraid of the number of appeals if we won. In any case, it demonstrates how dangerous the subject can be and how hard it is to defend against.

Simply speaking, if you see it and don?t report it, you could easily go to jail, especially if there?s a sting going on somewhere in the chain, and there usually is. You should know that right now child porn is the happy hunting ground of the feds. Easy convictions and plea bargains, plus lots of fools to provide cannon fodder to help the agents get promotions mean there?s always someone snooping about. If there?s a child porn ring distributing, trading, whatever, you can take it to the bank the feds are watching it and when they jump, they pull in the net on everyone involved.

If you?re caught in the sweep because you didn?t report then you?ve only yourself to blame.

Be warned!

And you forgot to add

In reply to You can’t avoid it though

That you’ll be listed on the Sexual Offenders Register as well so it can have a massive impact upon your life by not doing the right thing.

Col ]:)

Few things

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

First of all, check the create dates of the folder and images. If old, well he could be sincere, if not, knock him out.

Ethical was the wrong word to use,

In reply to Few things

its was really more of a dilema. As soon as I left, I’m thinking what should I do. It never would have ocurred to me that deleting it would be a crime in itself. I did not empty the recycle bin, a fact I passed on to the authorities. The files were dated Feb of 2005 with dates several days apart. If his buddy was working on it and left this behind, then he had for several days. It was also isolated in its own folder which somebody had to create. He also was running a really high end custom built system yet seemed to be technologically challenged. Not sure if that all fits some profile.

A man after my own heart

In reply to Few things

It’s better to be safe than sorry.
Can you imagine thinking oh well it’s probably a mistake and then finding out some misbegotten unhuman f**kwit had molested a child and you could have prevented it and did n’t through what was basically cowardice.
If I ever felt responsible for such an incident,you’d find my suicide note next to the corpse of the b’stard who benefitted from me fooling myself.

One OTHER possibility

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

If someone had turned his system into a zombie and loaded a web server on his system.

They do it with SPAM, and I THINK I recall this happening with the porn too. This way when the system gets tracked down, it isn’t them but they can still share files.

Did you look for any trojans? Open ports?

Competent examiner

In reply to One OTHER possibility

A competent computer forensics examiner always does scans that look for viruses and trojans. Dates, times, locations of files, and other information is all taken into account to show how the files got there. (There are definitely some incompetent “experts” out there that are in the business purely for the money, and they don’t care who they hang in the process.)

He didn”t claim to be examiner

In reply to Competent examiner

and most here wouldn’t qualify either. I know I wouldn’t.

Was just trying to put out one more way this could have happened, not make excuses. From the sounds of it, everyone was too shook up to even look at dates and such.

He shouldn’t be trying

In reply to He didn”t claim to be examiner

Once he sees it, his obligation at that point is to stop and notify the police. If he goes mucking about, it is like changing a crime scene. Even legitimate examiners are obligated to turn it over to the police once they see these kind of photos.

I agree it would be a very disturbing experience, especially if it wasn’t expected. I’m not trying to suggest he should have known this without asking, just trying to put forth the correct procedure.

Reply To: Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

You have to take the customers word at face value and expect that there is a lie in there.

When I had a computer store, there came a ton of systems that had everything you could possibly imagine on it, and even stuff you did not imagine.

The thing is that if he asks you to remove it because he is uneasy with it shows me that he has the ethical delimma of talking to his friend about it.

Here is what you can do:

Make note of the customer and the time you saw it the first time. Don’t make a big deal about it. Say the offending material has been removed from the system and everything else has been taken care of you asked me to take care of. Here is the bill. Chances are he will contact you again for repair service if he can believe he can trust you.

The next time he calls for service, you can then do a minimal scan while you are fixing the problem and if it is back there again, you then know that it is not his friend that is the culprit. That is a matter of the police. If it is not there, then the burden of reporting falls on your customer, not you, even though it is wrong for it to be on the system.

Once you have been convinced that your customer is innocent, then you have no delimma. But on the other hand, then you have the burden of reporting it if your customer seems to be habitual.

Calm down everyone

In reply to Reply To: Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

Sure kiddie porn is a horrendous crime.

But so is someone installing rootkit or spyware and framing someone else for kiddie porn (or simply using it as a remote server so they don’t get caught). And by all accounts some great percent of PC users have been spyware compromised. Particularly non-techie’s computers like this guy.

How many of these are adware and how many are remote zombies I don’t know. Much as you’d love to pound ANY criminal, and for particular crimes more so, the authorities should investigate, not you.

They are innocent until proved guilty. (possible exceptions to this include most non-US countries? -eh Neil & Oz?)

So if they cut off hands for theft in Saudi Arabia, I wonder what part they cut off for kiddie porn? 🙂

Absolutely no

In reply to Calm down everyone

Child pornography is in a class by itself. It can’t be compared with anything, and it’s not a joking matter.

The fact that you’re not taking this totally seriously is deeply troubling.

Seeing as you asked

In reply to Calm down everyone

Innocent until proven guilty? Yes, of course. And you all got that from our Common Law. It’s been the case here since before the first European set foot on your soil (and I do include Eric the Red!).

On the matter of kiddy porn – If you are a Security Supergeek and can guarentee that the files arrived on the PC without the aid or tacit acceptance of the PC’s owner then, by all means, warn him and help him. I’d still report the occurrence to the Feds, though, if the user didn’t want to do it himself.

Otherwise, there is surely only one action and that is to report what you found to the relevant authorites and let them sort it out.

The correct bit

In reply to Calm down everyone

I know of several people convicted of this crime who are still at large an one who was accused of it erroneously(as far as anyone can tell) and took his own life.

Under western law you either can be ‘proved’ to have committed a crime or not. I believe we should have an extra distinction where you can be proven to have not committed the crime. So there may have been a crime committed but not by the accused party.
Then you can make a judgement on why the accusation was made. If it was out of malice or for personal gain and the true victim proven innocent then the accuser has committed a crime, they’ve taken the piss.

You’re not holding up the US system as some sort or judicial paragon are you ?

Reply To: Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

In reply to Calm down everyone

My point was not to jump deep face first into the empty pool, but to make sure that there is water in it before doing so. There is nothing funny about getting sued out of business because of making a claim without substantial evidence.

There is nothing like making your customers or friends nervous in that you may kill their name and reputation over something that may have downloaded through a forsale newsgroup due to poor filtering.

a reasonable response

In reply to Reply To: Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

that is excellent. a real-world and fair, reasonable answer to the
dillemma. I commend you.

The only fact you haven’t mentioned

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

…is whether you trust this customer. Did his reaction give you absolute certainty that he was innocent, and that he had already reported his friend or would certainly do so? If not, are you willing to help conceal or destroy evidence of a crime?

He already DID help destroy evidence

In reply to The only fact you haven’t mentioned

when he deleted the files.

Not being in law enforcement, I don’t know if this can or will be held against him.

I DO know that he made it harder for there to be a case against this customer unless he is a habitual and they catch him in the act.

Note about “innocent until proven guilty”. This does NOT apply when kids are concerned. You are dead guilty until the day you die, they just haven’t been able to PROVE it yet. This will stay on someones record forever. The same if you ever get accused of ANY abuse to a child, even if they find that the child lied. This will always be with you. Happened to my bud with his step son who got mad because he couldn’t have ice cream one night. Doesn’t take much.

You can’t afford trust in a case like this

In reply to The only fact you haven’t mentioned

If I lend you a tenner and trust you to be a sound fellow who’ll pay me back and I’m wrong then I’m out $10 .
If I let you look after one of my children and you have sex with them what have I lost then?

Most sexual abuse occurs with a family, while I in know way sispect my brother capable of such a heinous crime, if evidence was brought against him. the fact that he is my brother would not make me presume his innocence.
It’s not the strange looking dude on the corner who commits this crime in most instances it’s someone close who you would never suspect.

I was trying to lead the original poster to that very conclusion.

In reply to You can’t afford trust in a case like this

Two of my favorite authors of science fiction (Heinlein & Herbert) include professionals who determine the truth of another person’s words by observation. In the real world, it is preposterous to assume that the most likely suspect is definitely innocent, just because he claims somebody else put the evidence on his computer. If that’s true, it is his responsibility to help find the true perpetrator anyway, so in either case, the police ought to be involved. I used the phrase “absolutely certain” to remind michaels that there are, in our real world, professionals whose job it is to gather and inspect evidence, and to not prosecute if that evidence is lacking, and that he is just a PC tech.

absolutely agree

In reply to I was trying to lead the original poster to that very conclusion.

I don’t believe he would do it, therefore he didn’t and I don’t want to believe he could do it therefore he didn’t has consigned to many children to hell on earth.

If someone found something like this on my computer I’d require my name to be cleared with great despatch.

Absolutely agrees.

In reply to absolutely agree

And that’s an excellent point you make about clearing your name. Anybody willing to let their reputation be tainted, even only in the eyes of one repair tech, by suspicion of [b]rape[/b], and furthermore by suspicion of rape of one or more [b]children[/b], would make me very suspicious. It’s really difficult to consider another’s perspective in such a revolting scenario. Best to refer it to trained professionals.

Don’t listen to us!

In reply to The only fact you haven’t mentioned

Hey, man. Consult a lawyer. Ethically is one thing, but think about your liability too. Spend a couple of bucks on real legal advice.

On another note

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

Are you really qualified to decern that something is child pronography? Child porn is illegal because it exploits the children in the photos.

Child porn that is not real, such as something generated with Photoshop, is not illegal. Did you ever see Blue Lagoon with Brooke Shields. There were nude scenes that would have been illeagal if it was actually Brooke naked. But the film editors superimposed the naked body of an 18+ year old on the film.

Stop

In reply to On another note

This is precisely why every single one of us needs to maintain a zero tolerance policy for this. We’re not investigators, or photo editors, or law enforcement professionals, or psychologists, or anything other than ordinary citizens unqualified to make the kinds of judgments you suggest. You can rationalize any kind of explanation you want, but at the end of the day there’s only one right thing to do…report it, without hesitation. Let someone who knows what they’re doing figure it out. If there’s nothing to it, then no harm done.

that’s rich

In reply to Stop

“let someone who knows what they’re doing figure it out. If
there’s nothing to it, no harm done” – That omnipotent someone
is, who? Your friendly neighborhood policeman?
Ever been detained by police? On a mere accusation? OR caught
up in a sweep? There person may be innocent, and the bell has
been rung, to use a court expression, IE: damage done.
Every single one of us needs to do just as you suggest, eh? Your
fear equals the fear (and subsequent moral certainty) that ALL
OF US SHOULD HAVE, and it should trump such weaknesses as
doubt or presumption of innocence.
Do you have no idea of what you’re saying here? (my fear is of
course, that you don’t.)
in Homer Simpson’s words: ‘Who made YOU Judge Judy and
Executioner’.

Do what you will

In reply to that’s rich

You have strong opinions. I have strong opinions. Others have contributed their own strong opinions. At what point did I say anything anywhere along the lines of “everyone should do as I do”?

However, since this is my week to not be defensive let’s talk about something else.

Confronted with the situation as posed by the original poster, you would give your customer the benefit of the doubt, discuss the situation with him/her, and having satisfied yourself that the person you’re doing business with is not personally guilty or deserves the right to be presumed innocent you would not report the observed material to any authority.

Did I get any of that wrong?

Good for you. Do that. Follow your own conscience.

Confronted with the situation as posed by the original poster, I would make no presumptions as to the source or use of the material, report my findings to the authorities as quickly as possible, and allow professional investigative channels to determine how the material got on the PC and who is the true culprit.

You accuse me of doing this out of fear. You’re absolutely right. I fear I’ll not act with alacrity and instead vacillate in a misguided attempt to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and as a consequence some child will suffer.

Perhaps the customer is completely innocent. Perhaps the customer’s friend is the guilty party. Perhaps the customer downloaded the material and is in fact the neighborhood child molester. Perhaps whoever put the material on the PC in the first place is just using it for their own prurient interests.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. It seems to me my approach is the AVOIDANCE of being judge, jury, and executioner. It’s not up to me, or you, or anyone else to figure out what’s going on, and why you’d want to take on that responsibility in any way is beyond me. I like to sleep at night.

This is a big problem

In reply to On another note

Where do you draw the line. As far as I’m concerned if it’s sold as child pornography it is. It could be my grandaughter’s holdiay snaps but with a different file name or context turn it from a young child smiling on the beach to a leg up for some sick ****
As far as I’m concerned if you can picture it in your head without being distressed then you should be executed, just to be on the safe side.
We should be clear local laws 16 18 , 21, married etc have nothing to do with this no informed consent = kill the b’stard.

a good point

In reply to On another note

that’s right – and there are many that would insist that your
example, or another of ms Shield’s films, “Pretty Baby”, is child
porn and that the director of the latter, Louis Malle be
prosecutable.
Under such rubrics, Vladimir Nabokov’s notes for “Lolita” could
have got him locked up or worse.
We are getting closer every day to a society such as, say, Saudi
Arabia’s. (where one gets away with all of it and much worse if
he should be ‘king’.)

I suppose it depends on where you live

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

Here we are legally obligated to report any Kiddy Porn that we run across to the Local Police. We can not remove the offending images from the computer or take copies for the police but we do have to leave the original images on the computer so that the police can track down who has access to them, where they came from etcetera. We can not break the chain of evidence as once it is broken there is no possibility of getting a conviction against those responsible. So by removing the images you have made it possible for a potential Wacko to continue on their way of damaging children.

Then again it all depends on your own ideas of just what Kiddy Porn is a picture of a young child naked is in my books perfectly OK if they are the parents of the child or something along those lines. For instance I could use a photo taken 40 + years ago of myself as my Avatar which I wouldn’t find the slightest bit offensive, but when there are older children involved and any form of penetration is involved I would have just called the Cops then and there in front of the owner of the computer. It is their computer and their responsibly that it is used responsibly. I would not have erased the images I would not have left until the police arrived to at the very least take a statement and seize the computer for evidence.

Personally I’ve only run across this once in my life and when I arrived I was asked to remove something by a Police Officer who was already there as the owner had complained about these images being sent to him via Spam Mail and had involved the local Police in an attempt to prevent them arriving. Of course they came from overseas where they where Legal so nothing could be done about them except notify the ISP involved and get that site blocked.

Col

You made a mistake

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

By deleting the files you destroyed evidence of a felony. The very act may have been a felony itself. When you find something like that and the person says it isn’t theirs you should have them immediately call the authorities.

Terrible Mistake

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

Let me relate a story first:
I received an email with kid porn in it, it was so offensive I sent it to my local police community crime person via email. She (I didn’t know that she was a she) sent it to the head of the city IT department wondering how it got through the system. He happens to be someone I work with so he calls me and tells me it’s illegal to email that. I explain I was sending it for investigation and since we know each other, he was cool with that.
An hour or so later I get a call from a detective explaining he understands the situation, forward the mail to him. He calls back a little later and says they traced the email to China so not much can be done, and that was typical of emails received by innocent people.

So, they do take this seriously. My point is that your customer asked you to remove it. At that point, as far as you know, it easily was there due to some malware. Remove it and move on.

By notifying authorities, they may seize his computer and investigate him….perhaps for no reason. If you were that interested in what was going on, you should have done scans and research to see what was really up.

But there is a world of difference between

In reply to Terrible Mistake

Receiving Kiddy Porn E-Mails and having the images in a Folder on the computer available for all to see.

I’ve seen a lot of very offensive E-Mail like that and if it gets through my Spam Filter I delete it I don’t save the images to a folder to then act all shocked and bothered over them when someone finds them.

There is a very big difference between receiving Unwanted E-Mail and saving images that are illegal.

On the rare occasions when I actually see these things sent to me I forward them on to the Computer Crimes Section of the local Police with an explanation that they arrived unsolicited and I’m making this sick material available to them for investigation. I also inform them that I’m deleting the E-Mail and that they have the only copy with all the headers etc so they can trace the source of the E-Mail from and take approbate steps.

The Bottom Line is I don’t want that stuff on any computer that I own and I take the responsibility for not having it saved on a HDD. But even if I was to actually save one of these E-Mails for the Police I wouldn’t be saving the images into a folder and I would be reporting them immediately to the Proper Authorities.

Col ]:)

Comes in spam email?

In reply to But there is a world of difference between

this is new to me. I have heard of a lot going on, but not this.

Is it trying to get people to buy memberships or something?

So you give your credit card number to someone in another country and they clean you out. How can you go to the cops that you didn’t get the illegal product you purchased?

criminals ripping off criminals, with very little that can be done against them. the perfect crime?

Agreed & I misread the first post

In reply to But there is a world of difference between

I have to agree; It’s a different situation when they are resident in a folder on the computer.
But again, the “The client was present and seemed to be genuinely surprised” makes it a tough call. I’d also want to see the folder and files properties, which could be some evidence to the client’s claim he knew nothing about them.

And it’s good advice to delete them if you do get them, after you send them along to the police. That was the detective’s advice once he received his copy with the headers, etc.

You Did The Right Thing

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

I don’t know if this is mentioned in other posts but you should build into your contracts a disclaimer that you will report to the authorities etc…..(insert legalese) Point is this guy is guilty by association & if there is one thing I will never tolerate is crimes against children in any capacity. Go easy on yourself.

I would…

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

…do exactly the same. That is; if I could stop myself from breaking the guys head open with his machine.

There is no excuse whatsoever for this kind of content. The guy must have seen it on his machine when downloading to his local files, if not he’s either blind or plain stupid.

As far as i am concerned, the guy belongs in jail for life. Period.

Backlash would be Rep of Honesty & Integrity

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

If you work on Computer that has any kind of kiddie porn on it, you most definitely “should” report it. Regardless of the excuse given by the client. We are not in the business of hiding other people Crimes, we are in the business of repairing Computers. Although I make it a point of treating their computer with the same respect as I would if I was going through their wallet, I would not hesitate to report, if I found kiddie porn there too. It is our MORAL DUTY to report such things. The authorities, being much better equipped than we are at these things would sort it out quickly enough and you will have done you job right. If it ever got around, that you have unleashed the Police on a vermin who has kiddy porn, it would in point of fact “Enhance” your reputation for honesty and integrity. This certainly wouldn’t hurt business now would it?
There is also the factor that if you do not report the crime, then you become an accessory by hiding it’s existence. It a heck of spot to be in but you didn’t ask for it. You were asked to repair a Computer and you did. If there was any kind of kiddie porn on it, it’s not up to you to make the decision as to whether or not report, the decision has already been made for you, you’ve witnessed a crime, now are you going to become an accessory or are you going to do the right thing? As a Home Tech who depends heavily on being called, I certainly understand your emotion, however this would not prevent me from doing the right thing. Reputation notwithstanding, how do you know that you might not be saving a “Child’s Life” by reporting and therefore prevent this vermin from acting on his Psycho fantasies? When in doubt, DO THE RIGHT THING, not for yourself but because it is the right thing to do.
“WELL DONE INDEED”, for having done the right thing. It will come back. It always does.
Good Luck
Regards
Aaron A Baker
PS
Regards to
Col

my input

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

a) know the “local standards” for morality for your city, county, municipality, commonwealth, etc. This is a basis for what constitutes illegal materials in your area.

b) Know what you saw. In some cases, photographs of naked children are considered “art”. You wouldn’t want to get sued for defamation or lible or slander.

But if it was children in sexual situations, positions or activities or anything even remotely questionable as such, you were smart to call the authorities. They will (if they’re smart) passively monitor your client and if he is some sicko maybe even try to bait him into a “meeting” like they do with child molesters if he is one.

I think you were right to report it. If you just told them what you saw…and you didn’t make any judgement of character…you should be fine. You should be anonymous (unless someone tells him who filed the report before then) until charges are filed and they have to turn the report over to attorneys under discovery.

U people are horrible.

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

I know from experience how easy it is to get framed. He might have been serious about the other guy. I myself have had somebody plant stuff like that on a pc while i was gone or something like that. there are a lot of people out to get me and stuff like that is their mane route to try to take me out. I don’t know why they see fit to harrass me with stuff like that.

Possibly because they are envious

In reply to U people are horrible.

of your paranoia

😀

Yep, horrible sounds about right.

No

In reply to Possibly because they are envious

I am known to be quite ghastly, obnoxious, revolting and hideous.
Horrible? You’re flattering me! 😉

You were lucky

In reply to U people are horrible.

My knee jerk reaction would have been to twist your head off. If it’s any comfort I would have been very sorry though on discovering I’d made a mistake.

No Problem

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

No problem; call the cops. Talk to the detective assigned to handle cases like this. Give him all the information you’ve got and take one more sick bastard off the street. You’ll prevent him from injuring any more little kids.

Report it to the Police

In reply to Ethical Dilemma RE:Kiddie Porn

Without question you should report the incident to your local authorities. Remember for evil to flourish requires only that good do nothing. For the sake of our children and our society and our souls we must fight this satanic perversion.

[Author]

Replies