Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
A fourth-grade teacher was charged with using a minor to produce pornography after a picture of one of his students partially clad was found on his computer hard drive.
John Earl Whittaker, 30, also has been charged with 100 counts of possession of child pornography in connection with hundreds of images found on his computers in the classroom and at home.
Whittaker, a teacher at Dearing Elementary School, near Lamb Boulevard and Boulder Highway, became the eighth Clark County School District employee arrested this year on suspicion of sexual misconduct when he was taken into custody May 29.
Whittaker initially was booked on 59 counts of possession of child pornography, but further investigation brought more charges by prosecutors.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Doug Herndon said Whittaker had taken several students on an unauthorized field trip to a recreation area when he pulled down the pants of a young boy and took a picture of the boy's bare buttocks.
Such a picture in itself could be considered harmless, depending on the situation, Herndon said. "But when you look at all the hard-core porn he has and his affinity for child pornography ... it kind of leads me to believe that picture was being utilized by him for sexual reasons."
The student resembled another boy depicted in several hard-core pornography images found on one of Whittaker's computers, Herndon said.
Whittaker teacher initially came under suspicion after a computer technician upgrading software on Whittaker's classroom computer came across an adult pornographic image last month, according to the arrest report.
When Assistant Principal Sharon Brewer talked to Whittaker about the incident, he told her he "wishes it was only adults that he was viewing," the report said.
"He stated that he also views children on the computer, but limited it to male children," the report said.
Whittaker told Brewer he only viewed the images at school because he didn't want his wife to find out, the report said.
School officials notified detectives with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, who then seized Whittaker's classroom computer. They found 59 images of children under the age of 16 involved in a variety of sex acts, according to the report.
Herndon said the school district's computers typically don't allow access to such things, but Whittaker did some work as a computer technician at the school and may have used his expertise to bypass the controls.
Detectives later took Whittaker's home computer and used special software to recover hundreds of recently deleted images, Herndon said.
Prosecutors rounded off the possession charges to a representative 100 counts.
In a typical case, charges of this number would be plea bargained to four or five. But, because of the additional charge of using a minor in the production of porn, Herndon said he was not inclined to cut much of a deal for a guilty plea.
If plea negotiations aren't satisfactory to prosecutors, Herndon said, the case also could be recommended for federal prosecution.
Sgt. Tom Keller with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force said detectives have interviewed Whittaker's students and found no evidence any of them were molested or had access to the computer images.
"In my opinion, we caught him before he did anything," Keller said. "When there's hundreds of pictures of little boys ... there's a high probability they'll go on to molest children."
School district spokeswoman Mary Stanley-Larsen would not comment on how Whittaker managed to make an unauthorized field trip or bypass control measures on a district computer.
She said the district does not issue statements on current investigations into personnel actions.
Whittaker is being held at the Clark County Detention Center on $306,000 bail and is scheduled to appear at a preliminary hearing Monday.
Whittaker is the second teacher to be charged in connection with possession of child pornography on a computer. Byron D. Covert, 53, of Laughlin was arrested last month as a result of 16 images found on his home computer.
Police have determined that none of the images in the Bennett Elementary fifth-grade teacher's computer was of local children, Keller said.
The other six district employees have been charged in
connection with sexual contact with teen-age
students.
if they were Boy Scouts, there wouldn't be a problem.
IMPORTANT POST; but a YAWN, also.
The guy was married.
Whittaker told Brewer he only viewed the images at school because he didn't want his wife to find out, the report said.
What a dumbass!!! Sound like he got the lobotomy instead of the castration he deserves.
I agree that this guy is a sicko and a moron, but does anyone else have a problem with the following:
Detectives later took Whittaker's home computer and used special software to recover hundreds of recently deleted images, Herndon said.
Prosecutors rounded off the possession charges to a representative 100 counts.
How can you be in "possession" of something if it has been deleted... Seems to me that there is a fine line here...
What if something has been stored in your cache - is that the same as you downloading it and keeping it in a separate file?
What if instead of porn, in the future the government is searching for "militia manuals" (gun books/copies of the Constitution/etc.) and the like?
Seems a little scary to me.
Child pornography was found on a computer he used at school. That is enough probable cause, I would think, to look anywhere for more and to recover what he had deleted. Especially considering he took children on an unauthorized "field trip."
You're not alone. While I find chil pornography to be horrendous, I think most laws outlawing its posession have nothing to do with children at all and are an excuse to target and entrap individuals for the mere posession of an item rather than any crime he may commit.
it kind of leads me to believe that picture was being utilized by him for sexual reasons."
Thought crimes.
>>>Whittaker had taken several students on an unauthorized field trip to a recreation area when he pulled down the pants of a young boy and took a picture of the boy's bare buttocks.<<<
He should have been a Scoutmaster for "Scouting for All!" Hell, this is what they want for all of our children.
Police have determined that none of the images in the Bennett Elementary fifth-grade teacher's computer was of local children, Keller said.
How do they know that? Do they have the names/addresses of the kids pictured? Or did they look at all the local kids naked to try to get a match?
When you put a file into your computer's Recycle Bin and tell it to "Empty Recycle Bin", that doesn't mean it's gone. Forensic software can analyze a hard disk and get deleted files (or fragments) back easily. The cops may not be able to retrieve an exact file that they are looking for, but they can get back quite a few whole files and fragments if several hundred were deleted.
This is why you should be very careful if you are buying a used computer from somebody. You are responsible for content on that hard drive (deleted or not) whether you know it is there or not.
Detectives later took Whittaker's home computer and used special software to recover hundreds of recently deleted images, Herndon said.
Easy cheese, Norton System works, availlable to you can accomplish this
How can you be in "possession" of something if it has been deleted... Seems to me that there is a fine line here...If it was ever on your computer it's still there, only way to get rid of it is to do a low level format. Wipe it clean and start fresh. They say that ghosting your computer will do this also, but Norton claims they can recover even that.
What if something has been stored in your cache - is that the same as you downloading it and keeping it in a separate file?That will be up to a court of law, but odds are, they will rule against you. Possession is 9/10 of the law.
What if instead of porn, in the future the government is searching for "militia manuals" (gun books/copies of the Constitution/etc.) and the like?It will probably of more significance to the media than a court, but depends on the court, the judge and the jury.
Some advice: Don't keep anything on your computer that you don't want to share with the rest of the world. Don't spout things on the internet that you don't want to share. It is a fact that the State Police of Massachusetts regularly monitors internet porn activity. Every site is monitored at one time or another by someone, even this one. Ever been in a chat room and seen the porn links come and go quickly? That's because someone is watching every minute, and deleting the "inappropriate". You have the right to free speech on the internet, you do not have a right to privacy.
Seems a little scary to me, too.
You have the right to free speech on the internet, you do not have a right to privacy. Well and truly said! Going on line is an act of public use in the eyes of the courts ... and, frankly, that's as it should be.
Disturbing....so many in one place.....wonder what the story is behind that......
Child pornography was found on a computer he used at school. That is enough probable cause, I would think, to look anywhere for more and to recover what he had deleted. Especially considering he took children on an unauthorized "field trip."
I'm not debating (or excusing) his horrendous actions or saying that it is not sufficient for a warrant to search his computer.
However, I am asking the (somewhat philosophical) question of what constitutions "possession" if we are talking about digital items?
If you are videotaped smoking pot you cannot be jailed for "possession" right? That is, if you HAD pot at some point, but don't HAVE it now, you cannot be arrested, right?
So, how does that transfer over to the digital realm? How would one get rid of something that he no longer wanted in his life? That is, if you were a drug user and decided to turn straight and get rid of all your drugs, you could do so. However, if you were a child pornographer and got "rid" of all the child porn on your computer because of a decision to leave that lifestyle, at what point would you have "disposed" of the incriminating material?
Also, does it seem a little frightening to you that someone could place and then delete these sorts of images on your computer? A small tip to the FBI later and YOU would be arrested for the pictures, that were "deleted" on your hard drive.
I simply think that the Constitutional questions surrounding cases such as these are interesting. When the person being prosecuted is a child pornographer, I don't think that anyone has any sympathy for him; however, what happens when the person is someone who stores writings of gun-building instructions, the Bible, or old Free Republic threads?
They are still on the computer.
What if instead of porn, in the future the government is searching for "militia manuals"
What if they don't?
When you put a file into your computer's Recycle Bin and tell it to "Empty Recycle Bin", that doesn't mean it's gone. Forensic software can analyze a hard disk and get deleted files (or fragments) back easily. The cops may not be able to retrieve an exact file that they are looking for, but they can get back quite a few whole files and fragments if several hundred were deleted.
Yes - I certainly understand the technical details (I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and minor in Computer Science). In reality, I believe that the only way to get RID of the files is to dismantle and incinerate the hard drive.
However, I think that the legality of the cops "finding" this information needs to be questioned. What happens if you type something innocuous into a search engine such as "Games for little girls", trying to plan for your daughter's upcoming birthday party, and then click on the first link, which has pictures of child porn? At this point the graphics would be stored in your browser's cache on your hard drive. From the article above, even if you then deleted them, they could be used to prosecute you.
This is why you should be very careful if you are buying a used computer from somebody. You are responsible for content on that hard drive (deleted or not) whether you know it is there or not.
I don't see how that could be true. What if there was a secret compartment in a car that you bought from someone that had marijuana or another drug in it. If you didn't have any knowledge about it should you go to jail for drug-trafficing?
what happens when the person is someone who stores writings of gun-building instructions, the Bible, or old Free Republic threads?
That's called a Slippery Slope argument. We are talking about a pedophile, not people conversing on a website.
If it was ever on your computer it's still there, only way to get rid of it is to do a low level format. Wipe it clean and start fresh. They say that ghosting your computer will do this also, but Norton claims they can recover even that.
Yes, and be assured that the FBI and other government agencies have MUCH BETTER technology that can "retrieve" data that has been REWRITTEN over several times!
You have the right to free speech on the internet, you do not have a right to privacy.
Seems a little scary to me, too.
Glad I'm not the only one!
What if there was a secret compartment in a car that you bought from someone that had marijuana or another drug in it
What if there wasn't? What if YOU had a secret compartment where you kept bombs and when you got caught, you swear you had no idea it was there?
They knew the guy was using kids for sexual purposes. The porn was merely evidence. Don't turn this into an exercise in tediousness. It's pretty cut and dry.
That's called a Slippery Slope argument. We are talking about a pedophile, not people conversing on a website.
Does calling it a "Slippery Slope argument" somehow detract from the argument itself? I think not.
Kind of like arguing that gun registration leads to confiscation - isn't that a "Slippery Slope"? It is true though - as we have seen in New York, California, and many other places.
You are right to be concerned about the law's obsession with thought crime and here's the tipoff right from the horses mouth:
Sgt. Tom Keller with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force said detectives have interviewed Whittaker's students and found no evidence any of them were molested or had access to the computer images.
"In my opinion, we caught him before he did anything," Keller said. "When there's hundreds of pictures of little boys ... there's a high probability they'll go on to molest children."
Anyone else see anything wrong here?
No. Having child porno is a crime whether one goes on to molest kids or not. I would assume the police comments were in response to parents who called asking if this teacher had molested any kids.
i just saw this post and am about to see how many people are using this for ANOTHER argument for home schooling. here we go!
I'm surprised the teachers union doesn't protest his firing and arrest!
"Chief Deputy District Attorney Doug Herndon said Whittaker had taken several students on an unauthorized field trip to a recreation area when he pulled down the pants of a young boy and took a picture of the boy's bare buttocks.
Such a picture in itself could be considered harmless, depending on the situation, Herndon said. "But when you look at all the hard-core porn he has and his affinity for child pornography ... it kind of leads me to believe that picture was being utilized by him for sexual reasons.""
WHHAAAT!?? Am I misreading this, or is Herndon saying it's OK to pull the kid's pants down and take a picture of his rear, as long as the picture doesn't go into a large pornography collection and get used privately later? Excuse me, what if the boy had an objection? Or was traumatized? Tough bananas?? Am I the only one noticing this?
Having child porno is a crime
Yes,I understand it is,however can they PROVE that the individuals in the pictures are under age? Or is that just supposition?
Wouldn't they have to prosecute the persons who put the pix on the net.
Yup, me, see # 26.
If you didn't have any knowledge about it should you go to jail for drug-trafficing?
Of course not, but you probably will be prosecuted. It isn't right.
I really do agree with you. I don't like that a person could be prosecuted for websites that he/she visits by accident or content that was put on a computer before it was purchased. That type of law enforcement should be questioned.
I beg to differ
I suppose your right. I forgot about secure e mail, and that link looks interesting. (I checked it out). Could be I'm a just a little paranoid, or maybe it's because I don't care what people see me do, I will pass on it. The system looks cool, but how do you know it isn't a trap for jailhouse lawyers? The CIA and the FBI have been known to use techniques like this before. Will this company go to bat for you if you were caught doing something that other services would deny you?
I think it is far safer to just watch you say, and be careful. If you treat the internet like a huge stadium where everyone is watching you, you will get into no trouble at all. Just like using good manners.
PROVE that the individuals in the pictures are under age?
Don't think this is a case of a dissipated 17 year old mistaken for 20. The teacher taught fourth grade and had a picture of one of his students with his pants down.
ANOTHER argument for home schooling.
You'll find 42 more arguments on a thread posted by karebare today:
Alleged sex with coach sparks civil lawsuit
What if there wasn't? What if YOU had a secret compartment where you kept bombs and when you got caught, you swear you had no idea it was there?
This country's judicial system has always been built on the premise that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail. Perhaps you have a different perspective.
They knew the guy was using kids for sexual purposes. The porn was merely evidence. Don't turn this into an exercise in tediousness. It's pretty cut and dry.
Pay attention here. I'm NOT arguing the facts of this case - I am questioning the ability of the government to "retreive" digital data that has been erased from digital devices such as hard drives (although it could be anything else - cell phones, memory chips, etc.)
Please don't allow your mind to be so fogged by this particular crime (which we ALL abhor), so that you cannot participate in discussions of much more important questions/debates.
"In my opinion, we caught him before he did anything," Keller said. "When there's hundreds of militia writings, gun manuals, and other writings such as the Federalist Papers and Constitution... there's a high probability they'll go on to commit a terrorist act."
Words changed in the hopes that some will realize where we are headed here.
I am questioning the ability of the government to "retreive" digital data that has been erased from digital devices such as hard drives
I think, though, that just because you "delete" you have not erased it, all you are really doing is changing the status of the document, down to "basement storage." So its really still a file you own, and if the come up with probable cause (ha) they can retrieve it.
I have a utility that restores all deleted files. But, if I open the file, delete the contents, save, then delete the file, this seems to work. The file is still there , but nothing in it. May a computer technician out there can help.
I am questioning the ability of the government to "retreive" digital data that has been erased from digital devices such as hard drives
Deleting a file does not overwrite the file content, it merely erases the file pointers and marks the space as available for reuse. If the physical space is not reused the old data may well still be there and the file, or part of it, reconstructed.
What is not reported in this article is that Clark County has a high percentage (probably around 30%) of gay and lesbian staff in senior positions in the administration. This is way above the national average and appears to be to the detriment of the students.
You miss the point.
Having child pornography on a school computer is a prosecutable (and fireable) offence.
Everything else is just speculation, it may be inappropriate to extrapolate, but that's not what he's charged with.
Interesting. Any more info on this? Not that I doubt it.Anyone inclined to abuse kids and who reads the NEA resolutions knows where he or she wants to work.
The Clark County school district is also a rip. taxpayers pay dearly to be propagandized. Friend of mine worked in the district PR department over ten years ago. They picked a former sportcaster (AA hire) as head of the department. Over 50K a yr for doing nothing. His two secretaries, each making 28K, did all the work.
The last two superintendants have been gay, (one male, one female) I believe, and have been promoting their agenda agressively through promoting gay personnel to run many of the schools.
You miss the point.
Having child pornography on a school computer is a prosecutable (and fireable) offence.
I didn't miss that - nor have I debated that.
Everything else is just speculation, it may be inappropriate to extrapolate, but that's not what he's charged with.
No - go back and read the article:
John Earl Whittaker, 30, also has been charged with 100 counts of possession of child pornography in connection with hundreds of images found on his computers in the classroom and at home.
Also:
Detectives later took Whittaker's home computer and used special software to recover hundreds of recently deleted images, Herndon said.
Prosecutors rounded off the possession charges to a representative 100 counts.
The simple conclusion: The police found DELETED images on his computer and he IS being prosecuted for them.
Again, I am not debating child pornography - I am asking what the Constitutionality is of this "evidence" that the police "recovered".
Argh, you are misreading this. I have the pre-requisite "naked baby pictures" of my infant son, lying on a receiving blanket, an adorable toothless grin on his face, his little toushe showing.
Perfectly innocent, absolutely precious, and not the least bit sexual.
That is harmless (at least until he brings home his future wife, and then I get to trot those pictures out!). They are the kind of pictures that make women go, "Oh, isn't he cute?" I believe this is what the officer meant; not that pulling the kid's pants down against his will was "harmless."
The pics this pervert had in his possession were undoubtedly sexual in nature (may the creeps who took them suffer for it!). A friend of mine who is a detective can tell you stories about these types of photos that would make your hair turn gray. After volunteering to describe just one, I was sick to my stomach and asking him to stop.
The difference is WORLDS APART.
Thought you would be interested in this thread.
Yes, let's get our kids in a safe education environment.
While we also stand and fight for the children left behind, to give them hope.
we caught him before he did anything
Anyone else see anything wrong here?
Yes I do ! He did do something as Argh pointed out in reply 26.
HE TOOK.
several students on an unauthorized field trip to a recreation area when he pulled down the pants of a young boy and took a picture of the boy's bare buttocks.
I seen that one too Argh when I read this. What kind of Double talk is this ?
Why wouldn't it be constitutional if they were found under a search covered by a warrant?
Just because he deleted them doesn't absolve him of the crime of (former) possession if they can prove he downloaded them any more than a burglar is is absolved after he has got rid of his stolen goods.
What if something has been stored in your cache - is that the same as you downloading it and keeping it in a separate file? That will be up to a court of law, but odds are, they will rule against you. Possession is 9/10 of the law.
Suppose someone emails you a file full of kiddie porn? E.g., a doc file that appears innocuous but has a bunch of deleted dirty pictures? (MS Word tends to leave deleted junk in .doc files.) Then on a tip the cops turn their fancy forensic tools loose on your drive and find the images! Sounds like a nifty way to frame someone you don't like.
It is a fact that the State Police of Massachusetts regularly monitors internet porn activity.
That's nice. They're trying to unbench a superior court judge up there for turning loose a known molester who was caught with his pants down in a car with an 11 year old he had abducted. The prosecutor wanted 10 years. She's the wife of the publisher of a local entertainment weekly that runs obscene classifieds.
Isn't Clark County also the county where the D.A. declined to prosecute a police detective who was at least accused of sexual abuse of a 14-year-old boy?
nice job of taking my words out of context. is that you mr. rather???
Suppose someone emails you a file full of kiddie porn? E.g., a doc file that appears innocuous but has a bunch of deleted dirty pictures? (MS Word tends to leave deleted junk in .doc files.) Then on a tip the cops turn their fancy forensic tools loose on your drive and find the images! Sounds like a nifty way to frame someone you don't like.
I'll bet this could happen, too. I am sure I miss some good e mail because I instantly delete any I don't recognize or expect. It's the price I pay to keep the fascists at bay. The worse part is, the tip to the police will probably come from whoever sent you the crap in the first place
How can you be in "possession" of something if it has been deleted...
Because the windows "delete" merely changes the filename, and the actual file stays on the hard drive until it is overwritten.
FWIW, I use a file and free space shredder called "eraser".
I know what you are saying. But there won't be many people who will see anything wrong with the police catching this guy, or how they did it.
"You have the right to free speech on the internet, you do not have a right to privacy. Well and truly said! Going on line is an act of public use in the eyes of the courts ... and, frankly, that's as it should be. "
Absolutely. The internet is a public place. Many people use this privacy thing to excuse illegal/immoral acts on the internet. The internet should be controlled.
If you want to make sure everything is gone from the hard drive, just write zeros to it. Then you will have to fdisk, format, and reload the system.
If there are files that you don't want appearing on your hard drive, simply put the files on a floppy, zip drive, or some other external system.
"Does calling it a "Slippery Slope argument" somehow detract from the argument itself? I think not."
TexRef, if sounds as though you are getting a little paranoid. The cops caught a sex offender, possibly before he could act out his fantasies. They did good work. You are going a little far with your theories of government intrusion. You can carry out your thoughts on things like this to the point where the cops would not be able to investigate any crimes if you had your way.
""In my opinion, we caught him before he did anything," Keller said. "When there's hundreds of pictures of little boys ... there's a high probability they'll go on to molest children."
Anyone else see anything wrong here? "
No. What do you see? I am happy that he was caught before he molested children. You are not?
"Yes,I understand it is,however can they PROVE that the individuals in the pictures are under age? Or is that just supposition? "
I believe that they know who the kids are.
How does one completely erase old files? Is there a method....short of burning the computer?
How does one completely erase old files?
See #50. You have to overwrite them between 7 and 35 times.
I would not have taken your comment out of context if you were more clear and simply said sexual abuse by teachers is or is not a valid reason to home school.
I didn't know if you were being facetious or not. But it seemed unlikely anyone would maintain the character of government teachers is not a deciding factor. My intent was not to distort what you said. I welcome the debate over whether a seeming epidemic of sexual abuse in government schools is a valid reason to pull kids out.
I am a product of east coast suburban public schools. I get a little agitated when someone tells me how evil these schools are (not that you did that). Yes, there are some viciously horrendous scum-bag school teachers out there. But there are some heroes as well. It is up to the parents to find the best schooling for their child, and yes for some the answer is home schooling.
Get involved in your kids lives, I say. Don't let television and their friends raise them. The character of the teachers is a major factor, but it is not hard to find good ones. The media only tells us about the molesters and the other sickos. Telling us about the good teachers isn't news I guess.
Just because he deleted them doesn't absolve him of the crime of (former) possession if they can prove he downloaded them any more than a burglar is is absolved after he has got rid of his stolen goods.
I don't think that this is really analogous to burglary. It's more analogous to drug possession.
That is, having once had drugs in your possession is NOT a prosecutable crime - being in possession of drugs is.
any potassium chloride and sodium pentathol left over from Tim McVeigh's gig?
TexRef, if sounds as though you are getting a little paranoid.
Of course I am. When I see people's cars, homes, etc. being confiscated by the government without due process; stormtroopers busting down doors and suiciding the people inside; an ever-expanding federal government that cares less and less about individual freedoms and privacy; etc. - do you blame me?
The cops caught a sex offender, possibly before he could act out his fantasies. They did good work. You are going a little far with your theories of government intrusion. You can carry out your thoughts on things like this to the point where the cops would not be able to investigate any crimes if you had your way.
I don't want the police NOT to be able to investigate their crimes, but I do want to ensure that our freedoms are protected.
I'm not saying that they didn't do a good job in this case, but just debating the legalities of certain aspects of the case. It's interesting and a new area of law - however, too many people are blinded by the fact that this particular case involves a child pornographer too have a rational debate on the issues.
I'm all for getting dangerous drunk drivers off of the road, but I don't believe in checkpoints. AND I'm all for stopping child pornographers, but I don't believe in giving up individual freedoms and liberties to accomplish it.
How can you be in "possession" of something if it has been deleted... Seems to me that there is a fine line here...
That's because a "deleted" file isn't really deleted at all. Windows/DOS doesn't waste time overwriting deleted files. It just alters the filename and marks the space on the drive as available for use. If nothing uses that space, the file stays intact. He was still very much in possession of the images even though the files were marked as "deleted".
That's because a "deleted" file isn't really deleted at all. Windows/DOS doesn't waste time overwriting deleted files. It just alters the filename and marks the space on the drive as available for use. If nothing uses that space, the file stays intact. He was still very much in possession of the images even though the files were marked as "deleted".
Yes, I understand the technical aspect of this. However, also understand that the FBI and other government agencies have devices that they can use that can detect old files even if they were deleted and WRITTEN OVER SEVERAL TIMES.
I don't see how that could be true. What if there was a secret compartment in a car that you bought from someone that had marijuana or another drug in it. If you didn't have any knowledge about it should you go to jail for drug-trafficing?
Actually, there was a USSC ruling a few years back that upheld the taking of a woman's car, even though she was acknowledged to be unaware of the fact that it had been used in a drug deal.
IOW, you wouldn't go to jail, but you'd probably lose the car.
If you want to make sure everything is gone from the hard drive, just write zeros to it...
Not quite. There is software that can measure the subtle differences in the magnetic domains caused by hysteresis. A 0 over written with another 0 is distinguishable from a 1 overwritten with a 0. It is thus possible to reconstruct the file. (It takes a while, but it works.) A program like PGP can overwrite the file multiple times with a pattern of 1s and 0s that effectively degauss the domains.
"He stated that he also views children on the computer, but limited it to male children," the report said.
Ah, the much-heralded restraint and discerning of the porn afficionado.
I suppose I owe several on the board an apology in this instance.
You're not alone. While I find chil pornography to be horrendous, I think most laws outlawing its posession have nothing to do with children at all and are an excuse to target and entrap individuals for the mere posession of an item rather than any crime he may commit.
ah, the libertarian perspective.....
see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil...and guess what...SHAZAMM! NO EVIL!
If only we would get rid of all those pesky laws we would have no crime in America...then these fine upstanding young teachers can go on pulling down the pants of their young students and there wouldn't be all this fuss....
"In my opinion, we caught him before he did anything," Keller said. "When there's hundreds of pictures of little boys ... there's a high probability they'll go on to molest children." Anyone else see anything wrong here?
i get your point now back it up and have this guy take your sons, grandsons or whomever on a 3 day camping trip..only him and the kids....I'm sure you can trust him..
an excuse to target and entrap individuals for the mere posession of an item
Mere possession of child pornography? It's pathetic that you consider child pornography to be no big deal.
Thought crimes
It's not "thought" crimes. Possessing child pornography is an "actual" crime.
You can think whatever you like in your own mind, but once you possess this type of pornographic material, you've crossed the line from what is legal to what is illegal.
I never adressed the question of whether I would trust the bum with my kids or anyone else's.
The answer is: Of course not!
My point about the cops admitting that the guy hadn't done anything remains.
In fact in my mind there are questions about the whole area of possessing digital images of anything.
If this guy committed a crime by pulling a kids pants down (and I believe he did) prosecute the bastard for that.
Anything else is a thought crime, unless you get him for masturbating (over the digital images) on school property.
Punishment for thought crimes must be stopped and stopped now.
This scum thinks of little naked boys. I think of a free Republic operating under the Constitution. A government that can make one thought a crime, can make any thought a crime.
We make it easy for them when we turn on a scum like this who had bad thoughts.
Absolutely. The internet is a public place. Many people use this privacy thing to excuse illegal/immoral acts on the internet. The internet should be controlled.
Then let's start controlling the 'net by eliminating you and your neo-facist attitude.
---max
Mere possession of child pornography? It's pathetic that you consider child pornography to be no big deal.
The word "mere" in the sentence applies to the word "posession" not to the words "child pornography." You do understand english?
Posessing something is not a crime. It causes no harm to anyone else and does not infringe on anyone elses rights.
If only we would get rid of all those pesky laws we would have no crime in America...then these fine upstanding young teachers can go on pulling down the pants of their young students and there wouldn't be all this fuss....
Wrong. What you describe above is a crime ( a teacher pulling down the pants of their young students) Posession of an inanimate object is not a crime.
Not quite. There is software that can measure the subtle differences in the magnetic domains caused by hysteresis. A 0 over written with another 0 is distinguishable from a 1 overwritten with a 0. It is thus possible to reconstruct the file. (It takes a while, but it works.) A program like PGP can overwrite the file multiple times with a pattern of 1s and 0s that effectively degauss the domains.
Well then why can’t they use this fancy software to read Bill and Al’s e-mail ?
The word "mere" in the sentence applies to the word "posession" not to the words "child pornography." You do understand english?
What are we talking about here? We're talking about possession of child pornography, not possession of carrots.
Posessing something is not a crime. It causes no harm to anyone else and does not infringe on anyone elses rights.
Except that, most likely, in order to obtain that child pornography, you had to buy it. Again, a crime.
If you downloaded it for free off the Internet, then someone is making child pornography available. They are trafficking in it. Again, a crime.
If you're making your own child pornography, by creating "virtual" images on your computer, for your own use, then no, that is not a crime.
Once you sell it, trade it, offer it, or whatever, then it's a crime.
Are you so fond of child pornography that you make up your own rules?
"but I don't believe in giving up individual freedoms and liberties to accomplish it."
In this case, I don't think this is an issue.
"Not quite. "
Oh, well. Just don't put it on the hard drive, I suppose.
"We make it easy for them when we turn on a scum like this who had bad thoughts. "
This guy combined bad thoughts with bad actions. Probable cause is a factor here.
"Then let's start controlling the 'net by eliminating you and your neo-facist attitude. ---max"
Max, I suppose that you will just have to find another play ground. Would it be the school playgrounds when the little kiddies are there?
It causes no harm to anyone else and does not infringe on anyone elses rights.
what in tarnation are you talking about....possessing child porno. causes no harm????
the harm happended when some perverted evil person decided that they could molest, rape, torture, vidio-tape and photogragh some little child for said perverts' twisted needs and desires.. you are driving the market!!!!..
When will real men come back into this world?
When will real men put a stop to this?
Real men do not hide behind some glorified concept to humanize monstrous atrocities against children..
i might add that this is why conservative/libertarian/constitutional/blah-blah-blah parties will never,ever run this country....
you hide behind some stupid constitutional phrase to justify the most abhorrent acts....
almost like the lawyers for Simpson...you can not see the forest for the trees...
sometimes I do wish for vigilant justice......
Posessing something is not a crime. It causes no harm to anyone else and does not infringe on anyone elses rights.
One can argue that whether possessing evidence of a crime without notifying the authorities should be illegal or not, but that's what it is.
It was the first thing that leaped out at me. Teacher takes kiddies on UNAUTHORIZED field trip, photographs bare buttocks of fifth grader not authorized to even be with the teacher let alone have his rear end photographed by a pervert, and all the police can say is "We caught him before he DID ANYTHING"?? Taking those kids without permission is doing something. Photographing buttocks is doing something. The coercion involved in making a fifth grader pull down his pants for Teacher is doing something. Does he have to actually rape an eleven-year-old before this stupid #@%$ing cop thinks he's "done something"?
"He stated that he also views children on the computer, but limited it to male children," the report said.
Was that supposed to make it sound BETTER? I want to scream and hit things right now...
Argh, you are misreading this. I have the pre-requisite "naked baby pictures" of my infant son, lying on a receiving blanket, an adorable toothless grin on his face, his little toushe showing.
Yah that is harmless, but keep in mind that this is of your *infant* son. Are you going to be taking a picture of him like that when he is in the 4th grade?
Well then why can’t they use this fancy software to read Bill and Al’s e-mail ?
No doubt, the 'consultants' they hired utilized software that erased file to DOD spec's or beyond.
There are several programs available that will do just that. BCWipe is one that is free to download. Evidence Eliminator is another, free for 30 day trial that can even render files unreadable by 'electron microscopic' recovery.
I think ZDNET.COM has both of these programs available for download.
For every technology...there is a counter.
The media only tells us about the molesters and the other sickos. Telling us about the good teachers isn't news I guess.
The media rarely goes after teachers. No where near the way the military or religious groups are treated. I do not see anyone tracking sexual assualt by teachers on a national basis.
I too attended New England schools. CT coastal town. Creme da la creme of the government school system .I disagree that they are a positive force. First of all, they rip property owners off so badly that many are forced to move out of the area. Secondly, they are inherently racist. Connecticut zones minorities out of decent schools. Thirdly, they are little more than socialist indoctrination centers. Rich schools turn out elitist overseers (Madison CT for instance) poor ones (Bridgeport, CT) turn out a criminal under class.
After watching decades of "reform", I am finished giving anyone the benefit of the doubt or withholding comment lest some decent teachers be offended.
Because teachers are tied at the hip to the Democrat party and the NEA, they are fast becoming one of the more despised groups in the country. I intend to advance the distain for government teachers as much as I can. Government schools cannot be reformed. If enough children leave, however, the government system will collapse. Then, hopefully, with the unions gone, teaching will once again be an honorable occupation.
"Yah that is harmless, but keep in mind that this is of your *infant* son."
I believe the example I used above was what the officer had in mind when he said that pictures like these can be "harmless." Although I am not a mind reader, I posit the notion that even the officer on the case realizes there are times when no sexual content is involved or desired.
"Are you going to be taking a picture of him like that when he is in the 4th grade?"
Of course not; I strongly expect my son will have an established sense of modesty, propriety, and self well before the age of 8. Further, I also openly stated that IMHO the officer did not view "pulling down" that child's pants and taking the picture against his will as "harmless." I certainly don't see it that way; if some pervert did that to my child, the perp better run to the police for protection against my husband and myself.
Look if this clown took some hard copies of his vile pictures and threw them in his garbage pail but forgot to take the garbage out, he is still in possession of vile pictures. I hope they stuff the pictures, his hard drive and his computer right up his butt.
Probable cause is a factor here.
Then get him for what he did (unauthorized field trip, pulling the kids pants down and taking pics), not for what he thought.
what in tarnation are you talking about....possessing child porno. causes no harm????
Exactly correct. The harm is in the physical act of abuse to the child.
Except that, most likely, in order to obtain that child pornography, you had to buy it. Again, a crime.
Not really. A crime is when you move to harm someone or restrict their human rights.
Posession and the actions involved to posess inanimate objects (excluding theft) are not crimes. They have been defined as such, but they are not crimes.
They've been arresting people for taking pictures of their own children. Calling it child porn.
The crime is in the assault, theft and murder. Not in the posession. Now, one can posess evidence of a crime. But that doesn't mean that they were the perpetrators of that crime and it doesn't even mean that they knew a crime occurred or that their posessions are evidence.
Yes - I certainly understand the technical details (I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and minor in Computer Science). In reality, I believe that the only way to get RID of the files is to dismantle and incinerate the hard drive.
And have a belt sander within arm's length for your CD-ROMs.
(And remember to sand the label side!)
<)B^)
What if instead of porn, in the future the government is searching for "militia manuals" (gun books/copies of the Constitution/etc.) and the like?
That would be covered by the 1st amendment. It would however be turned over to the media, (ministry of information) and would be used to insure a guilty verdict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |