![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37263-100x100.png\")
Great story. I just love it when the wrong are done right.
Great story. I just love it when the wrong are done right.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-446358-100x100.png\")
Was there actually porn on it? The description \"suggestive and explicit poses\" doesn't equate to porn in any world I live in. \"Suggestive and explicit poses\" could easily describe the photos in a Wet Seal advertisement. Is that porn too?
Both \"suggestive\" and \"explicit\" modifies \"poses.\" Since when is a \"pose\" equated with porn without at least some nudity?!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-562864-100x100.png\")
@GMFish: As a former Grand Juror participating in many child pornography cases, you're just wrong.
Graphic descriptions of the porn was given for every charge, and I promise it wasn't \"naked hineys on a playground\".
Under the law, child pornography is clearly defined and includes things like \"lascivious exhibition of the genitals\" among other things. Check out the USC for it sometime.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223549-100x100.png\")
The USC is only relevant in federal prosecutions, which this isn't. Moreover, I'm glad the prosecutions your grand jury was involved in were clear-cut, but inasmuch as there /are/ acquittals in child porn cases, perhaps the categorical \"you're wrong\" statement is, well, wrong.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-340258-100x100.png\")
This is @GMFish:
This is America. If the pictures were of kids at the playground, he'd be going away. Even if they were his kids.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@YamiNoSenshi: Yeah we definitely have some advertisers over the line. And there's some child beauty pageant show on TV now which is pretty sickening.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-11194-100x100.png\")
be sure to remove all traces of child porn before hauling your computer in to your local Apple Store's Genius Bar.Better yet, don't download child porn in the first place.
@karmaghost: I'm glad someone else mentioned that, for a minute I thought this was a \"How to not get caught\" article. Creepy.
@Devidence: it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. I'm sure most semi-intelligent readers understood that.
So is overreacting. It wasn't meant to condone the act, it was a joke. Feel free to head over to www.senseofhumor.com and download one.
@DefineStatutory: Oh wow. That reminds me of a Denis Leary joke from the 90s. He would put \"www\" and \".com\" with everything he wanted to say.
I always wonder whose job it is to ID the age of the kids in these photos. Maybe it's because I'm a horrible judge of age, but I'd hate to be that person who has to get shown these photos and then asked, \"How old do you think they are?\"
@GitEmSteveDave_SameGreatTaste!:
My fiance is a swede, and they can look fairly young even into their twenties. As she isn't the most buxom gal out there, I could probably give her some make up, put her in pig tails, and a little photoshop and make her appear 13.
I bet just doing so would get me 10-20
@GitEmSteveDave_SameGreatTaste!: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children maintains a database of known pornographic images which law enforcement uses to compare seized images against. They both compare with hashes (files will be hashed the same way if they are unmodified) and, barring a match, having an actual person do the comparison.
The law is written in such a way that in order to convict someone of possessing child pornography, you have to show that the image was real and not computer generated. The database that is held by the NCMEC contains images known by law enforcement to be real children, not computer-generated images.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-54738-100x100.png\")
@GitEmSteveDave_SameGreatTaste!:
Last year a computer popped up on my radar showing a virus, when I pulled the computer up remotely the first thing I saw was porn... wow, someone is surfing porn on a classroom podium computer.
As I took a couple of screen shots for proof I realized it was child porn. It at least looked like child porn going by the pictures. I am not an expert on child porn so I could only go by what I was seeing.
I immediatly notified campus police and we went to the classroom and found the guy there, sitting in the dark. He was arrested and charged with many things, including having some dope on him.
I later had to return to the computer and show the history our campus chief of the police. Since the computer was under DeepFreeze once it was turned off it would erase all tracks of what happened...
Having to view each page with the officer (who is female!) and print them was not fun at all...
The guy was convicted of a felony... and I also learned that he was fired from Boomers (mini-golf/arcade joint) because he felt up little girls as he \"assisted\" them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1261540-100x100.png\")
@GitEmSteveDave_SameGreatTaste!: It is probably a sick bastard who figured out a way to legally keep a library of this disgusting garbage under the guise of law enforcement.
@Devidence: Well, I mean, saying 10 to 13 is pretty specific. This means that someone is considered an \"expert\" by the courts at how old naked children are/look. Where do you learn that, unless you are a Dr.?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
@GitEmSteveDave_SameGreatTaste!: It's not that hard to tell how old a kid is. Do you have children? Nieces, nephews? Young cousins? Most people can tell how old a child may be and in this context, it's pretty much a given that one should call the police. Even if the person in the photos was 16, it doesn't change that the person looks 10 to 13, which is an indication that that age range is precisely what this guy wanted to see.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-132151-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: Especially if it's a 10-13 year old naked girl. There are uh, signs. But agreed, it's a creepy job. I guess you have to keep reminding yourself it's for the better good.
@pecan 3.14159265: Like I said, I can't tell. I have no ability to judge age. But the article said according to court documents, which meant someone had to give sworn/affirmed testimony as to the age of the children shown. Very icky.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1255625-100x100.png\")
Is midget porn illegal?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24726-100x100.png\")
I wonder who volunteered for the role of \"accused pedophile\" in the photo above.
In the meantime, I'm sure his next pursuit includes some manner of magnum opus of a hip-hopera.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-255368-100x100.png\")
@Gilbert: Glad it's a real one. It's bad enough for Doctors, but we really don't need \"I'm not a pedophile, I just play one on TV\".
@Gilbert: Perhaps if you actually clicked on the article link, you wouldn't stick your foot in your mouth?
@Gilbert:
What do you mean \"who volunteered\"? That's a picture of Raymond Miller, accused pedophile-no quotes needed.
The photo credit link goes right to the news article.
So, it sounds like he got some nasty porn-serving virus.
I see this guy suing apple in the near future..... even though they are in the right!
@pmcpa4: No. You cannot use a contract to protect illegal activity. The only people who have any obligation to keep quiet about illegal activity are doctors, lawyers and priests, and then only if the crime is not immanent.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-232165-100x100.png\")
@Deleriumb32: There's nothing in the law stating that I have to report a crime witnessed. Then again they can (depending how much of a jerk the prosecutor is) slap me person with obstruction and sometimes aiding and abetting.
Sorta a screwed up legal system. If you do report on somebody you're interfering,and often the first suspect if they can't find the person you claim did the act; if you don't you're hindering.
@Skankingmike: That's true for most crimes, but most if not all states do have laws making it a criminal offense to *not* report suspected child abuse or neglect (and providing various immunities and protections for the reporters). I'm pretty sure child pornography is covered by that.
@Skankingmike: For fun, look up why Dog, The Bounty Hunter, is a convicted felon, and thus not allowed to carry/own/license a fire arm. It's pretty weird.
@GitEmSteveDave_SameGreatTaste!:invasion of privacy. They may have to sign something though to leave the computer over night though that may not hold up in court.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-543146-100x100.png\")
@Skankingmike: Even if he was snooping, and reporting the crime would have implicated him in a minor breach of law, or even just policy, he still did the right thing by reporting the crime. Didn't you see that episode of the Simpsons where Bart could clear Freddy Quimby of a crime, but to do so he had to admit he was cutting class? Similar situation.
@RecordStoreToughGuy_Has$240WorthOfPuddin': I didn't say what he did wasn't morally correct, but it doesn't prevent law suits.
@Skankingmike: If you ask someone to help you with X, its pretty clear that you consent to their viewing or probing of said X. So, invasion of nothing.
@Deleriumb32: Even further, the technician has a duty to report illegal activity.
@Skankingmike: It's pretty clear that the guy signed over any rights he had to privacy when he sent in his computer to be looked at specifically for an issue regarding images being overwritten. It's not like he sent his computer in for a monitor problem and the employee started looking into his hard drive and found the photos.
That sort of depends on what the technician did, specifically. If he was just perusing the hard drive, not trying to actually solve an issue, hoping to score some free porn, the guy may have a point.
And no, I'm not defending a child porn guy. I'm just saying that we're making a hero out of a tech who probably copies everyone's home made shots of themselves onto his own computer to Fap to later. In this case, it was a positive. In a lot of cases, these cretins snooping around isn't.
@pmcpa4: How? If anything, if an Apple employee witnessed the crime, and didn't report it, HE'D be in trouble. Even Dr.'s, Lawyers, and Clergy can break confidentiality if it's in regard to an ongoing crime or immanent danger to another life.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-612567-100x100.png\")
You should've used Myriad Pro, that's the fonts they use in almost all Apple ads since 2002.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-60345-100x100.png\")
Be ready for the defense that those porn images were part of what was randomly overwriting his other photos, that those werent his but belonged to whatever malware that was rewriting his stuff.
@Red_Eye: It said it was pulling images from his hard drive and overwriting other pictures on his hard drive. The kiddie porn was already there.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
@nstonep: But do you have to be looking at child porn to get porn malware? How would a prosecutor prove that you can't get child porn malware without looking at something illegal first?
(I don't see why malware programmers should care that you're looking at something related to what it's going to do to your computer though. Seems if you're going to be writing malicious code you'd go all out and put it on a site that has nothing to do with it.)
I think the bigger news article is that MACS can get viruses too.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-293448-100x100.png\")
@Skankingmike: It's likely not a virus, but a trojan: the user downloaded a program and ran it. A virus can self-run and replicate without user involvement.
Macs - it's not an acronym. And yes, it's possible to write malicious software for Mac OS. I can't remember the last time I heard (or if I ever heard) of a case of malicious software spreading on Mac OS X without the user granting permission for it to be installed. Of course the user wouldn't knowingly grant permission to install malicious software, but malware has been found in pirated Mac software before. You can't protect the user their own stupidity.
I bet his cat was responsible for it.
Maybe the cat did it
This seems like the absolute easiest way to frame someone for a crime they'd spend serious time in jail for. All you'd need is a USB drive and access to their computer for 30 seconds. Next time they take their computer in for repair, they're screwed. Kind of scary to think about.
I doubt that the existence of the photos will be the only evidence they use against this guy. If the guy downloaded the pictures himself they will no doubt find other evidence such as his source(s) of the child porn, perhaps traffic logs from his ISP.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-659687-100x100.png\")
@LupusGray:
Except it probably wouldn't be hard to determine that the photos were written to the computer when it was at the store, which would point the finger squarely at the employee
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-939413-100x100.png\")
@LupusGray: oooh, true. But after 3 or so times of being \"the person\" who found child porn on laptops of the repair shop you work in, people might get suspicious.
Sadly, I had a close encounter with one of these people, and I don't know why I never called the cops.
I was working on the road setting up car shows and he borrowed my laptop (he was my roomie). I came back from dinner one night and he was in the shower. The computer was on and downloading for Kazaa.... he was downloading child porn. If I had a chance to go back, he'd be doing hard time right now....
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-172388-100x100.png\")
Unlike geek Squad, who would just copy everything to a flash drive and pass it around the office.
Seriously though, good on Apple. I feel really sorry for the tech who had to discover that, though. Poor guy.
@emona:
We don't know that the \"genius\" doesn't do exactly that with every other computer. In this case, he foujd something illegal, and reported it. He probably does the same thing geek squad does the rest of the time.
@DefineStatutory: Again, I find absolutely no reason to think everyone is a dirtbag. Then again, if an Apple employee digs through my computer looking for something juicy, all he/she is going to find is a ton of wedding photos and photos of my rabbit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17616-100x100.png\")
Sidebar question...why do they never seem to track down the sick fucks that actually take the pictures?
@Cant_stop_the_rock: Especially the fact that in some countries the age where a person can legally pose nude is lower than in the US. For a good while you only had to be 16 in the UK. Now kids are getting arrested for taking pictures of themselves with their cell phones.
The same reason I can't track down the person who posts as \"Smashville\". The Innanet does a pretty good job keeping people anonymous most days.
@Smashville: First, it's hard to track exactly where things come from. Second, even though the FBI is a nationwide organization, they can't just step in and arrest someone unless they have confirmation that this guy on the internet is the same guy they think is living in Spokane on West Street in Apartment 100. It takes a lot of time and a lot of people, and they can't just step over local police.
Also, countless hours have to be spent tracing the origins of a photo. It's like an onion, and it's like a viral video, only there's no YouTube link and you're receiving it through e-mail or on a disc. Every group of people sending it is a layer to the onion. And because it just spreads through this network of sleazebags without any signature or originating link (not like YouTube, which has identifying markers like user accounts), it's hard for the authorities to get on the front line as the photo is being uploaded.
Even if they monitor every single network of sleazebags and do catch someone uploading a photo, there's no proof that person took the photo, merely that he or she has the photo.
@pecan 3.14159265: Well. Here's the thing...and maybe it's just me when I was a kid.
I would have told my parents if some creepshow tried this.
But we rarely hear about them catching the people taking these pictures (granted, as Cant stop the rock pointed out, most of them are foreign). It doesn't require internet policing...it just shocks me that there are that many kids who don't tell someone.
@Smashville: Another thing to keep in mind is that you don't have context for who the person in the photo is. A lot of the kids who are being exploited are, like Cant_stop_the_rock said, in other countries, but are also orphans or have been placed in the prostitution trade. So it's not so much, \"why don't these kids tell someone\" - it's that there's no one to tell. Many of these children don't have parents. They've either been abandoned or taken. There's no one they can tell.
@Smashville: Some of those kids are either kidnapped and taken advantage of or the people taking the photos are the parents/relatives. I'm sure there are other instances but that's mostly what you'll find.
But what Pecan said most of these pictures are taken outside of the US where there is no laws about child porn or the police and government are lax.
This guy probably wishes his computer would have, you know, just worked.
Wait...wait...I got it! \"Dude...you're getting a cell\" Schaweet!
As a tech support guy, computer illiterate pedophiles are one of the only good points about computer illiteracy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-446416-100x100.png\")
In high school and early college I worked for a local computer repair shop and this is sort of thing is more common than you might think. We never went looking for files that weren't part of the computer's problem (this was in an age before widespread use of digital cameras, anyway) but turned in three of our regular customers over the course of about 18 months.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
I'm not entirely sure the dude should have been looking at the pictures - the way the problem is described doesn't give me enough information to go by - when he says overwrite, does he mean new pic, old file name? Or perhaps that pic is gone entirely and this new one exists that didn't before. Or some other thing. I mean I'm pretty sure this was legit, but part of me doubts that he was supposed to be looking at that (and even if he was, if there's something malicious overwriting pics, what's to say they were all his to begin with)
Why wasn't this genius fired for looking at personal data?
This is a breech of Apple security why weren't these Geniuses FIRED???
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63807-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169958-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1211801-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-535508-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-391013-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-570288-100x100.png\")
![[www.hillcrestdesigngroup.com]](\"http://www.hillcrestdesigngroup.com/Mac-pedophile2.jpg\"){kind=link}
Stupid criminals, there should be an app for that.