OPINION & EDITORIAL
The case: Kiddie porn vs. civil liberties
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kate MacDonald:
- Microsoft, what have you done for me lately? (November 21, 2002)
- A holiday shopping guide (December 5, 2002)
- Questioning the war (October 10, 2002)
- Church 1, State 0 (October 24, 2002)
- 'Global gag rule' harms world's choice movement (November 7, 2002)
Related Stories:
- Are there terrorists at UW? (December 10, 2001)
- We are not terrorists (October 9, 2001)
- Sprint PCS: Pretty Crappy Service (September 30, 2001)
- Civics 101 (November 2, 2004)
- Facebook emerges as collegiate trend (February 8, 2005)
by Kate MacDonald
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
Did you check your e-mail today? The FBI may have been reading over your shoulder. As part of a 14-month nationwide crackdown on child pornography, the government has implemented an investigation (witch hunt) called “Operation Candyman.”
Undercover agents are perusing websites, Yahoo! message boards, and yes, even private e-mails in order to root out kiddie-porn traffickers.
It’s difficult to determine which is more frightening: the amount of offenders the FBI has uncovered, or the means they use to do it.
According to Bureau records, over 90 people in 20 states have been charged after being discovered on three electronic message groups maintained by Yahoo!. One of the e-groups, called “thecandyman,” had an estimated 7,000 members.
There is no question that child pornography is a vile and intolerable practice. No one in their right mind will argue against the apprehension of those distributing and obtaining it.
A number of people implicated by the investigation held positions professionally that involved interaction with children. Several Catholic priests, a guidance counselor, a foster care parent, and medical and military personnel were among those discovered to be involved.
The results of this operation sound all well and good, but don’t be too quick to congratulate the FBI on their accomplishment. Unless you are a naïve subscriber to “the end justifies the means” ideology, it is dangerous to blindly accept this investigation as reasonable.
The violation of civil liberties such as privacy and freedom of speech is not acceptable under any circumstance. Although the pursuit of perverts involved in kiddie porn seems an almost reasonable cause to sacrifice these basic freedoms, it is a risky road to travel.
If citizens apathetically accept this invasion of privacy, what is stopping the government from continuing this behavior in the name of crime prevention?
Yahoo! was aware of the investigations and willingly complied with the FBI’s more than 230 searches.
Bruce Gebhardt, the executive assistant director for criminal investigations and cyber crime, commented on the tactics, saying, “I’d like to see one sweep a day. We want to keep the pressure up on all these people.”
When Internet users registered on the electronic message boards, the FBI used their e-mail addresses to obtain their private addresses and names from Yahoo!. If undercover agents on the site felt they had due cause, they seized private computers and made arrests.
Of course the government can enter your home, read your mail and listen to your telephone calls if they can provide a case of reasonable suspicion. But in this new, undefined period of Internet law, it appears that everyone is a suspect until proven innocent.
The government must be expected to adhere to the same due process in cyberspace as in any aspect of human interaction. Civil liberties must be upheld on both sides of the computer screen.
Kate MacDonald (kmacdonald@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in film and Italian.
Anonymous (June 21, 2005 @ 12:42pm):
I would like to send you some links to publications
about my criminal case. I worked for Mitsubishi
Electric Automation in Vernon Hills, IL, USA.
My case are getting public attention now as an example
of miscarriage of justice. I could not defend myself,
because I did not have enough money for computer
expert. I was forced to confess for possession of
child porn. I got browser hijackers while browsing the
web. I was redirected to illigal sites against my
will. Some illigal pictures were found on my hard
drive only after
recovering in unallocated clusters, without dates of
files creation/download.
I do not know how can courts press widely on people to
convict them, while whole Internet is a mess.
This is my story in inquisition21.com. There is all
information about case written by Irish writer Brian
Rothery.
http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~7~page_num~3.html
This is publication in Wired news
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html
This is publication in Theregester
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/13/browser_hijacking_risks/
Article in Globe and Mail newspaper
http://ctv.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040617.gttwhijac17/tech/Technology/techBN/ctv-technology
Article in ZDnet
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5344831.html
This is article in Washington Times, May 22, 2004
There is information about my case.
http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/05-30-04.html
Article in Crime research center:
http://www.crime-research.org/news/07.22.2004/506/
Article in Dallas, TX Newspaper
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13614767&BRD=1426&PAG=461&dept_id=528214&rfi=6
The problem for me now is to find lawyer, who can
review the case. When I pleaded guilty, there were no
any publications, like in wired news. This article was
posted on hundreds sites, published in newspapers,
discussed on many boards, and translated to many
languages.
I think the problem with my confession was prosecutors
pushed case to trial without any thoughts about
computer experts. Judge answered NO for any requests.
Prosecutor promised couple years in prison. My lawyer
came to me and said 'You must answer in next 5
minutes, after that they call jurors for trial'. 100%
you will get conviction, no doubt.
100% to get conviction, and go to prison for couple
years. This was opinion of very experienced lawyer.
Going to prison with child sex conviction, there were
possibilities to get raped, bitten, or even killed.
These were real, very real.
So it was pressing like criminals pressing on victim.
I am political refugee from Soviet Union, and in my
understanding, there are no difference between
prosecution, court, police and criminals. I got
another prove of this.
People are silent in this country because charging
with any crime is very easy, but defence costs huge
money. Most people do not have $15,000 for lawyer, but
this is not enough. I think $200,000 is not enough to
defend yourself. So police and and procecution enjoy
abusing of power, like masters with slaves.
I just tryed to explain why there was plea agreement.
Some people do not understand this. They asking
questions like why admitted something you are not
guilty of. Josef Stalin victims admitted to any crime
just to exchance for easy death. Also you probably
read Orwell '1984'
Fima.
estrinyefim@gmail.com
