"Frank Merlott" <Frank@has.no.email> wrote in message
news:h072d2$f2k$1@news.albasani.net...
> >Someone recognized the girls
>> and was able to anonymously notify the authorities and
>> the girls were rescued.
>
> If he was arrested then he could not have been that anonymous...
The molester who whas the girls father was the one arrested, not
the person who turned him in.
>>Unfortunatly LEA does not want
>> any help from the public in ths matter. In fact if one tries
>> to be a good citizen and report something like this they
>> wind up being arrested and charged too.
>
> The law is very clear over this, nobody can INTENTIONALLY and legally view
> child porn images unless it is a law enforcement officer during the course
> of his work.
Whch is stupid, that person is trying to save a child. They should be given
immunuty. Hell, prosecutors give immunity to killers and drug dealers all
the time in exchange for testimony.
It's like if you call 911 to report a robery in progress the cops charge you
as an accessory.
> When some people use a password to encrypt child porn, they are making it
> very hard for someone to view those images accidentally, anyone with the
> aim of "helping the police", would have to download suspected child porn
> files first, from a suspected child porn group and then deliverately enter
> the password to view what he believed will contain child porn, it would
> extremly hard to prove in court that the images were viewed by accident
> and that persorn would end up prosecuted too if his computer is ever taken
> away.
> --
> Privacylover: http://www.privacylover.com
>
>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|