If someone is dumb enough to use their own cc then I hardly think they have the wherewithal to proxy the requests through indonesia.

Rereading it maybe your right; it shouldn't have gone so far.

Maybe you don't realise it, but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice. There is no "maybe" about it. And it shouldn't have gone anywhere at all. The state has fucked this guy's life up for no reason other than its own incompetence.

I get the feeling that those in law enforcement are so brainwashed as to the monstrous nature of their "enemy" that they rationalise away "collateral damage" like this guy as a necessary evil.

> but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice

Sorry, not my intention.

I dont think this is considered a "necessary evil". I think fuck ups and mistakes happen; yes this should be investigated (I have no idea if it has been) and it should be considered how to stop mistakes happening. I think this guy has been screwed by society and his employer as much as the system of law. It's an extreme case and we need to find ways for it not to occur.

However I am also of the opinion that we shouldn't second guess what happened on the basis of a news article. It's hardly a complete investigation.

We have no idea what happened; if there is an investigation then I personally would be happier forming an opinion :)

At the end of the day it comes down to a wire choice for the investigator. Does he pursue this aggressively and risk tarnishing an innocents reputation. Or does he back off from his cases and risk letting a pedophile go free. The LE officers I know tread this line with skill and dedication: I dispute the idea that this mistake, a situation where the line was crossed in the wrong way, is representative of the entire picture. :)

When accusing someone of a crime that serious you tread with care. There is no 'undo' button on that operation.

I can sneak large numbers of files on to your computer without your notice (you'll have to trust me on that one, I'm not going to explain here how for obvious reasons, but if you want we can correspond by email about it, I'm sure I'm not the only HN'er that can think of tricks like that but I don't want to give the less capable ideas), one phone call later to some anonymous reporting facility and you'd be in a world of trouble.

It shouldn't be that easy to ruin somebody's life.

If a case isn't iron clad why spook the suspect (after all, simply monitoring them would give you hard proof or reason enough to drop the case quietly, maybe issue a warning that the guys card was cloned, which after all is what the police was for).

In the current system you might as well be guilty, even when you are not.

I personally hate child pornographers with a vengeance, for very good reason (they occasionally use my websites as their means of transportation), but I hate sloppy police work even more.

> When accusing someone of a crime that serious you tread with care. There is no 'undo' button on that operation.

Agreed. Im of the opinion we can only deal with the facts of the case; and we have very few of those. Random scenario: he refused to answer questions (for example on the advice of a lawyer) or provide an alibi (I know I am making that up - but things can slant this either way).

> after all, simply monitoring them would give you hard proof

There are strong arguments against that. Firstly, of course, cost. Secondly the privacy argument (could you imagine the fuss if it turned out the police were monitoring potential suspects secretly? :P).

> In the current system you might as well be guilty, even when you are not.

Agreed. I think this is a general problem with the society as well as the system. Im not sure why this investigation was not confidential - most are. Indeed most of those accused and cleared of CP offences are not generally affected (according to the references I have read at least; which are solid, but I admit not my first hand knowledge).

> I can sneak large numbers of files on to your computer

Ofc. Those sort of cases are difficult. We do get cases which come in where a girl has accused an older male of abuse and looking at child porn where the officer has noted they think she may be maliciously lying. The problem is how do you prove things like that - the best way is to grab his machine and have a look for solid physical evidence then go from there.

I dont think you could accuse someone anonymously quite like you suggest and have them arrested straight away.

In this case the CC payment is tangible. In retrospect your probably right and they should have taken more care in investigating his alibi (if he gave it) before pushing the case one. But again we have no information on the sequence of events and who did what - so ultimately all of this is speculation :)

At the end of the day, as you say, it comes down to a question of incentives, power, and consequences. The problem is that there is little or no consequence to an LE officer ruining someone's life. Every incentive is there to pursue further, make sure they're not a threat, err on the side of presumed guilt. Having no incentive other than personal morals to treat the guy fairly is a big, big problem.

I personally respect you and I'm sure your colleagues are equally stand-up guys. But the system as a whole is sick. For LE officers to whimsically decide whether or not to ruin someone's life with charges of kiddie porn is too much power. Way too much.

"Child porn" has outgrown all reasonable legal bounds and i now used as a general person justification for doing basically anything. Look at us in Australia - it is now used as an excuse for censoring the entire internet. Other countries cannot be far off. You must realise this. I am not even sure where to start putting down the child porn bogeyman but it is absolutely, absolutely, a manufactured fear.

Child Pornography == Emmanuel Goldstein

I see what your saying; and in truth there is a good point in there.

> For LE officers to whimsically decide

I dont think that is the case necessarily. It's more a careful choice I think.

> "Child porn" has outgrown all reasonable legal bounds and i now used as a general person justification for doing basically anything.

On this we are in agreement. I actually just contributed to a book about the new French web monitoring/filtering laws which are being "legitimized" using child porn as an excuse. We argue that really it has no effect on the "business" of CP and basically it is just political posturing (Ill provide a link if your interested).

> I get the feeling that those in law enforcement are so brainwashed as to the monstrous nature of their "enemy" that they rationalise away "collateral damage" like this guy as a necessary evil.

I'm sure that on some level they feel bad about it, but they find ways to rationalize it away so they they can continue their job, and the politicos in the department try to keep everyone hush-hush to avoid lawsuits and a PR storm if someone were to admit to a mistake.