1st ammendment violated?

[supermoneyz1]

I was listening to the radio the other day and heard about this.

-A guy takes his computer into a computer store to get it fixed.
-Technician finds child pornography on it, ( one of files was called 8 year old girl blah blah)
-The technician reports the crime to the local police, who then deal with the matter.

Is this a violation of the customers right?

Discuss.

[Pelion]

-Woman walks past a house.
-Woman sees bloke stabbing other bloke through a window (woman heard screams and looked through window)
-Woman reports the crime to the police who then deal with the matter.

Is this a violation of the homeowners rights?


No to mine and no to yours IMO.

[Greedo017]

no, why would it be?

another good example. someone robs a bank and has a ton of money, but its marked with purple ink or whatever. he brings it to a bank to deposit it, they see its covered in the purple ink, and call the police to handle it.

you have no right to privacy over something you make public. a police officer can peer in the window of your house and see you smoking weed, bust in the door and arrest you without a warrant.

[spoonitnow]

Assuming this guy gets the hell beat out of him in prison and dies shortly thereafter, and that he has no previous children, I nominate this guy for a Darwin Award on the grounds that it would be his own stupidity (for leaving child porn on a computer that's being worked on) and fucked up fetish that causes the situation.

[supermoneyz1]

There was a poll taken on a website, before I post results any guesses to what percentage believe that this mans rights were infringed upon?

[Zodiac Killer]

There was a poll taken on a website, before I post results any guesses to what percentage believe that this mans rights were infringed upon?

The same percentage of people who have child porn on their computer?

[Lukie]

Everyone,

The comparisons/metaphors in this thread are kind of ridiculous. They really don't get across the point/question the original poster is trying to get at. I would say that the technician certainly did the right thing, and I would commend him for doing such.

The question is: is this a violation of customer rights and/or the first amendment? And without a backround in law, my honest answer to this question is that I have no idea.

This doesent apply to anyone inparticular, but you can't let your emotions and sense of what is right so to speak to answer these kind of questions.

edit: Meh I think I may have taken the question too literally as if there was a clear answer in the laws or something. I dunno. Somebody help me?

[boost]

his own stupidity (for leaving child porn on a computer that's being worked on)

right right... cuz I always make sure to burn-to-cd/delete all my child porn off my HD whenever I take my comp in to be serviced.

[Pelion]

Everyone,

The comparisons/metaphors in this thread are kind of ridiculous. They really don't get across the point/question the original poster is trying to get at. I would say that the technician certainly did the right thing, and I would commend him for doing such.

The question is: is this a violation of customer rights and/or the first amendment? And without a backround in law, my honest answer to this question is that I have no idea.

This doesent apply to anyone inparticular, but you can't let your emotions and sense of what is right so to speak to answer these kind of questions.

edit: Meh I think I may have taken the question too literally as if there was a clear answer in the laws or something. I dunno. Somebody help me?

I was reading it as a moral question, not a legal one. Im going to have to do some reaserch for the legal side but I certainly dont think there is anything immoral. Its not like the computer shop guy offered child porn to trap the other guy.
If its there, and its found, and the other guy isnt even looking for it then there isnt any question in my mind that the police/courts should be allowed to handle it in the same way as if it was discovered in any other way.

I dont feel this way because of my emotions, I just think it is the logical and moral way these things should happen.

Explain the flaw in my analogy.

they are both of the form

-Man is doing something illegal/immoral but it is in a supposely private place.
-someone finds out by accident and reports it.
-is this an invasion of privacy and does that mean it should be ignored?

I dont think it is. If there was some sort of entrapment, or if someone broke into your house to check then there might be some sort of debate but in this case I dont see why there would be.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - wikipedia.

I dont see anything there that says people cant report child porn that they accidently discover....Unless you are saying that the possession itself may be protected by the first amendment.

[Warpe]

It probably comes down to expectation of privacy. By giving the tech his computer with the porn still on it, he can have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

On a side note, a guy who used to jerk off in front of his living room window successfully defended himself in Canada's Supreme Court against public indecency charges because he argued that he has an expectation of privacy when inside his own home. Damn those peeping Toms...

[AHiltz]

If the tech had found naked pics of the customer's wife and posted them on the net, then that would be grounds for privacy concearns. In this case though, the tech found illegal (and very digusting) items on the machine and reported it to the police. Seems like the first people to bitch about privacy are the ones that are doing something that they shouldn't be doing and don't want to get caught.

[chardrian]

It would be different if some guy broke into the guys home and stole his computer, and the cops actually recovered the computer and then discovered the porn and charged him.

In this case the guy waived any privacy right by taking his computer to a public place.

It's the same thing with patient/doctor confidentiality. If there's someone else besides the patient in the room (such as a friend) and you still volunteer information, that info is no longer confidential.

[spoonitnow]

his own stupidity (for leaving child porn on a computer that's being worked on)

right right... cuz I always make sure to burn-to-cd/delete all my child porn off my HD whenever I take my comp in to be serviced.

Don't you have some watermelons to go steal?

(NOTE TO MODS, THIS IS JOKING FUNNY FUNNY NON-RACIST GOOD OL' TIME STUFF MAKING FUN OF MY DAD, BOOST GETS IT, I GET IT, IT'S ALL GOOD)

[boost]

his own stupidity (for leaving child porn on a computer that's being worked on)

right right... cuz I always make sure to burn-to-cd/delete all my child porn off my HD whenever I take my comp in to be serviced.

Don't you have some watermelons to go steal?

(NOTE TO MODS, THIS IS JOKING FUNNY FUNNY NON-RACIST GOOD OL' TIME STUFF MAKING FUN OF MY DAD, BOOST GETS IT, I GET IT, IT'S ALL GOOD)

wtf? I dont know your dad. And Im sick of your watermelon jokes, racist scum.

[boost]

ok, I admit, Im not really sick of the watermelon jokes because hes racists, but because they are so damn mouthwatering, and watermelon is out of season!!!

[tcpj4]

ok, I admit, Im not really sick of the watermelon jokes because hes racists, but because they are so damn mouthwatering, and watermelon is out of season!!!

How could one read this and not feel sorry for this poor creature?

[spoonitnow]

What's the difference between boost and snow tires?

When you put chains on snow tires, they don't start singing.

[andy-akb]

Most likely this isnt a first amendment, well actually, im positive it isnt. The first amendment doesnt deal with right to privacy. Anyways, yes this comes down to expectation of privacy, and I think if you had a competant enough legal council you could get this thrown out. If I am bringing a computer into a store to get fixed I think it is reasonable to expect that they will not snoop around and will simply complete their job. If the pictures were on the desktop, out in the open, etc. then there really isnt much of a case for a motion to supress, but if they were in a folder hidden away on the computer or basically just not in the open then I dont see any reason why a good lawyer couldnt get the evidence supressed. Is this right or wrong? I dont know, these are the situations where it is tough to balance constitutionally correct and morally correct, or maybe the two go hand in hand.

[Pelion]

Its nothing to do with morals. If you are doing something illegal and it is discovered by accident and report in the proper way then wheres the discussion?


Also if the constitution allows for immoral behavior (im not talking about anything controversial im talking about something that is unanimously agreed to be 100% wrong. . . something like child porn) then the constitution should be changed. Constitutions arent there because "thats the right way to live". Constitutions are made because people have decided to write down the way they want to live, and to define appropriate behavior. If something got missed out then that doesnt mean it should be defended. It means the constitution should be changed to reflect the modern world. When it was written there was no internet and there probably werent any children either. Now those 2 things have come about it should be possible to protect them. If it isnt, then make it so.

If there is an argument that child porn should be allowed under "freedom of the press" then that is clearly not in the spirit of the constitution. The constitution should therefore be changed to make it clearer. Im still not sure where the "for" argument comes from but this is the only possible loophole I can see.

[Lukie]

Pelion, here's the thing. I actually AGREE with you.

One of my sidepoints was that your comparison was flawed. Despite agreeing with you, I think your comparison/metaphor/whateveryouwanttocallit is quite poor.

Surely you can see the difference in approach that may be necessary between busting somebody with sick shit on their computer and somebody getting murdered, no?

When it was written there was no internet and there probably werent any children either.

heh, that must'a been some crazy time period to live in...

[Pelion]

Surely you can see the difference in approach that may be necessary between busting somebody with sick shit on their computer and somebody getting murdered, no?

Morally yes, Legally no.

Legally they are both (quite serious) crimes with different punishments. There is no distinction as far as I know, between crimes that are allowed to be reported and crimes that arent. You can even say that the kids in question are probably in immediate danger, which takes away any right to privacy that the guy might have otherwise had.

[andy-akb]

Its nothing to do with morals. If you are doing something illegal and it is discovered by accident and report in the proper way then wheres the discussion?

This brings in a gray area of constitutional law. If a police officer is walking by a house and hears a scream from inside and then breaks down the door and finds out that it was just a movie but sees a guy sitting at his couch with some cocaine in front of him, then the evidence can still be submitted in court even if there was no warrant to enter the house. This is because of the "good faith clause" to the exclusionary rule that allows evidence collected in good faith to be used when obtained without a warrant. Its very controversial and widely opposed, but it is the status quo. I do not know how this applies to a civilian snooping through somebodies stuff, though. I would assume that if the computer technician
were searching the computer manually trying to fix what a virus or whatever did and stumbled across it, then it would have been collected in good faith. Again though, I do not know how this applies when it isnt a police officer conducting a "search."

Also if the constitution allows for immoral behavior (im not talking about anything controversial im talking about something that is unanimously agreed to be 100% wrong. . . something like child porn) then the constitution should be changed. Constitutions arent there because "thats the right way to live". Constitutions are made because people have decided to write down the way they want to live, and to define appropriate behavior. If something got missed out then that doesnt mean it should be defended. It means the constitution should be changed to reflect the modern world. When it was written there was no internet and there probably werent any children either. Now those 2 things have come about it should be possible to protect them. If it isnt, then make it so.

If there is an argument that child porn should be allowed under "freedom of the press" then that is clearly not in the spirit of the constitution. The constitution should therefore be changed to make it clearer. Im still not sure where the "for" argument comes from but this is the only possible loophole I can see.

Im not sure what you mean by "there probably werent any children," but anyways you seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the constitution. It isnt supposed to cover everything, and was made intentionally vague. The constitution does not act the same why laws do, it does not provide a black and white basis for legal and illegal, moral and immoral, it does not "define appropriate behavior," laws do. I dont think anybody has made an argument for allowing child porn under freedom of the press as that doesnt even really make sense. Again, the constitution is supposed to be broad and ambiguous, that is why we have a judicial branch that interprets it. I dont think anybody is making a first amendment complaint here, the only constitutional complaint that could be made would be that of an illegal search, but again Im not sure how a civilian discovering something in a "search" would apply here.

[Greedo017]

i don't think any protection from illegal search applies to civilians. Even if the guy had his child porn super encrypted, and the computer nerd went way out of his way to hack into the computer and find it when it was totally not necessary for the job, he's still getting charged.

[andy-akb]

i don't think any protection from illegal search applies to civilians. Even if the guy had his child porn super encrypted, and the computer nerd went way out of his way to hack into the computer and find it when it was totally not necessary for the job, he's still getting charged.

Thats what I am thinking too, I think unless there was a contract signed explicitly outlining what would be done to the computer and none of it involved a procedure that would lead to finiding these files, then there is no constitutional complaint. I am curious about this but am busy with some homework and poker right now, and anybody wants to look it up that would be cool.

[Pelion]

Im not sure what you mean by "there probably werent any children,"

That was a joke

anyways you seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the constitution. It isnt supposed to cover everything, and was made intentionally vague. The constitution does not act the same why laws do, it does not provide a black and white basis for legal and illegal, moral and immoral, it does not "define appropriate behavior," laws do.

Yes, but it defines what sort of laws are allowed to be written. Hence gun control laws not being passed because they are unconstitutional.

I dont think anybody has made an argument for allowing child porn under freedom of the press as that doesnt even really make sense.

So what exactly is the "first ammendment violated?" title all about. I really dont see anything about this case that violates the first amendment. Really, please explain it if you know because I have totally missed it.

I dont think anybody is making a first amendment complaint here

Reread the thread title.

[andy-akb]

Im not sure what you mean by "there probably werent any children,"

That was a joke

Haha, I was hoping that is what you meant by it, I felt like that came straight out of Zoolander or something.

anyways you seem to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the constitution. It isnt supposed to cover everything, and was made intentionally vague. The constitution does not act the same why laws do, it does not provide a black and white basis for legal and illegal, moral and immoral, it does not "define appropriate behavior," laws do.

Yes, but it defines what sort of laws are allowed to be written. Hence gun control laws not being passed because they are unconstitutional.

So how would we change the constitution to "fix" this "problem?" Would we amend the constitution to only apply in certain situations? Where would the oversight be? If you were to say "Constitutional protections dont apply in child porn cases, then how would you determine whether the case involved child porn without violating the rights of people who arent involved with that? Im having a tough time wording this, but what Im saying is that you can only say "this shouldnt apply" after the fact because you dont know what a search will bring up before you do the search. So amending the constitution to something like this would essentially get rid of all constitutional protections.

I dont think anybody has made an argument for allowing child porn under freedom of the press as that doesnt even really make sense.

So what exactly is the "first ammendment violated?" title all about. I really dont see anything about this case that violates the first amendment. Really, please explain it if you know because I have totally missed it.

I just looked at that again, and honestly I have no idea. I hadnt seen anybody in the thread elaborate on a 1st amendment argument, I forgot to look at the thread title. Again though, we agree this definitely doesnt involve the first amendment.

I dont think anybody is making a first amendment complaint here

Reread the thread title.

Same as above.

[Pelion]

So how would we change the constitution to "fix" this "problem?" Would we amend the constitution to only apply in certain situations? Where would the oversight be? If you were to say "Constitutional protections dont apply in child porn cases, then how would you determine whether the case involved child porn without violating the rights of people who arent involved with that? Im having a tough time wording this, but what Im saying is that you can only say "this shouldnt apply" after the fact because you dont know what a search will bring up before you do the search. So amending the constitution to something like this would essentially get rid of all constitutional protections.

Well first of all let me say that if we agree that it doesnt apply to the first ammendment then the discussion is over. However just for arguments sake lets say that pictures of child porn were somehow protected by the freedom of internet websites section of the first amendment.

In this case that section of the constitution protects people who make/use child porn but actually the constitution clearly wasnt intended to protect them. It was intended to protect democratic debates and freedom to chose (and write about) religion. If there is a loophole that allows this to proceed, then the constitution should be made more clear so that it cannot be abused to protect those who dont deserve it. I.e. saying it doesnt apply where people are in immediate danger. The same could be used to prevent nazis from spreading their freedom of speech, and to prevent incitement to religious/ racial violence that the constitution clearly did not intend.

[andy-akb]

So again, how exactly would we change the constitution to only help the good guys and not the bad guys?

[Greedo017]

Thats what I am thinking too, I think unless there was a contract signed explicitly outlining what would be done to the computer and none of it involved a procedure that would lead to finiding these files, then there is no constitutional complaint.

i even still disagree. even if there was a contract, breaking the contract has its own consequences, which are separate from the consequences of the porn.

An even more extremish example. if i was a burglar and robbed someone's house and you had a dead body in your house, if i stole your dead body and turned it in to the police, you're still going to jail.

[andy-akb]

Thats what I am thinking too, I think unless there was a contract signed explicitly outlining what would be done to the computer and none of it involved a procedure that would lead to finiding these files, then there is no constitutional complaint.

i even still disagree. even if there was a contract, breaking the contract has its own consequences, which are separate from the consequences of the porn.

An even more extremish example. if i was a burglar and robbed someone's house and you had a dead body in your house, if i stole your dead body and turned it in to the police, you're still going to jail.

Yea, I agree with you on that when I think about it.

[Pelion]

So again, how exactly would we change the constitution to only help the good guys and not the bad guys?

Well you dont actually need to for this case. If the constitution protected the printing of child pornography magazines then you would make a specific amendment which said that you are not protecting the right of people to harm others, or to incite them to harm others. You wouldnt actually need to ammend the constitution to do this. You just need a judge to say that this isnt actually how it was ment to work and send the guy to jail. Then that case can be used as a precedent and everything works fine and dandy after that.

I think the violation of the first ammendment argument is about child pornography which is not made with real children.

Im going to make a new post on this because its going to be big. Ill do it sometime over the weekend. For now I think this argument is about "child porn" which is made with young looking adults, or with computer generated images. Neither of which is legal but since no actual children are harmed, it is controversial to ban it.

[andy-akb]

So again, how exactly would we change the constitution to only help the good guys and not the bad guys?

Well you dont actually need to for this case. If the constitution protected the printing of child pornography magazines then you would make a specific amendment which said that you are not protecting the right of people to harm others, or to incite them to harm others. You wouldnt actually need to ammend the constitution to do this. You just need a judge to say that this isnt actually how it was ment to work and send the guy to jail. Then that case can be used as a precedent and everything works fine and dandy after that.

The constitution was meant to protect all people from abuses of power, whether they are guilty or not. If a judge rules that any search of somebody who has been proven [through the search] to harm others is constitutional, then that completely throws out any and all constitutional protections. For it to get far enough for a judge to have to rule on it, the search would have had to already take place. So essentially nobody would have any protection from any searches because if you were innocent then there wouldnt be a case so even if the search were unconstitutional it wouldnt matter because there would be no charges to contest. By doing something like this and only protecting the innocent [which it wouldnt even do as nobody would be protected] you would be going against the entire spirit of the constitution. Does it suck that some people get let go because of a constitutional violation? Yes, but this is inherent to protecting all people and protecting against absues of power.

[Pelion]

So again, how exactly would we change the constitution to only help the good guys and not the bad guys?

Well you dont actually need to for this case. If the constitution protected the printing of child pornography magazines then you would make a specific amendment which said that you are not protecting the right of people to harm others, or to incite them to harm others. You wouldnt actually need to ammend the constitution to do this. You just need a judge to say that this isnt actually how it was ment to work and send the guy to jail. Then that case can be used as a precedent and everything works fine and dandy after that.

The constitution was meant to protect all people from abuses of power, whether they are guilty or not. If a judge rules that any search of somebody who has been proven [through the search] to harm others is constitutional, then that completely throws out any and all constitutional protections. For it to get far enough for a judge to have to rule on it, the search would have had to already take place. So essentially nobody would have any protection from any searches because if you were innocent then there wouldnt be a case so even if the search were unconstitutional it wouldnt matter because there would be no charges to contest. By doing something like this and only protecting the innocent [which it wouldnt even do as nobody would be protected] you would be going against the entire spirit of the constitution. Does it suck that some people get let go because of a constitutional violation? Yes, but this is inherent to protecting all people and protecting against absues of power.

You are missing the entire point of the argument. It isnt about powers to search it is about whether or not it is legal to own these things in the first place. In this case there was no search. The crime was uncovered accidently by a member of the public. The question of whether or not the first ammendment has been violated does not relate to any search so im not really sure what point you are making. The question is, is the guy allowed to be prosecuted after this stuff was found BY ACCIDENT.

[andy-akb]

You are missing the entire point of the argument. It isnt about powers to search it is about whether or not it is legal to own these things in the first place. In this case there was no search. The crime was uncovered accidently by a member of the public. The question of whether or not the first ammendment has been violated does not relate to any search so im not really sure what point you are making. The question is, is the guy allowed to be prosecuted after this stuff was found BY ACCIDENT.

I already said yes to that question. You were proposing somehow modifying the constitution or establishing precedence so I figured we werent talking about possessing something, but instead the search that would bring the possession to court. Otherwise what you are asking isnt something that applies to the constitution so Im not sure how your previous posts about fixing it or whatever apply here if now you are talking about something completely different. I never in any of my posts said it was legal to own this, and all of my posts made clear I was talking about the constitutionality of searches in cases regarding child porn and you responded to those posts about changing the constitution to allow that.

[Pelion]

You are missing the entire point of the argument. It isnt about powers to search it is about whether or not it is legal to own these things in the first place. In this case there was no search. The crime was uncovered accidently by a member of the public. The question of whether or not the first ammendment has been violated does not relate to any search so im not really sure what point you are making. The question is, is the guy allowed to be prosecuted after this stuff was found BY ACCIDENT.

I already said yes to that question. You were proposing somehow modifying the constitution or establishing precedence so I figured we werent talking about possessing something, but instead the search that would bring the possession to court. Otherwise what you are asking isnt something that applies to the constitution so Im not sure how your previous posts about fixing it or whatever apply here if now you are talking about something completely different. I never in any of my posts said it was legal to own this, and all of my posts made clear I was talking about the constitutionality of searches in cases regarding child porn and you responded to those posts about changing the constitution to allow that.

No im talking about the situation where in some cases, it might be unconstitutional to ban certain types of child porn. In these cases you can change the constitution to strictly forbid it without having the chance of hurting any of the 'good guys'.

I completely take your point about searches though. Thats the same argument that has (and should IMO) be used against the new 'anti terrorism' laws that have been passed in both the US and UK allowing people to be searched or inprisioned at random and indefinatly without charge or any type of trial. These laws clearly are open to abuse and should not be allowed to exist.

[andy-akb]

No im talking about the situation where in some cases, it might be unconstitutional to ban certain types of child porn. In these cases you can change the constitution to strictly forbid it without having the chance of hurting any of the 'good guys'.

I completely take your point about searches though. Thats the same argument that has (and should IMO) be used against the new 'anti terrorism' laws that have been passed in both the US and UK allowing people to be searched or inprisioned at random and indefinatly without charge or any type of trial. These laws clearly are open to abuse and should not be allowed to exist.

Alright, then it looks like we are in agreement, I guess we were arguing two different things here. If your argument is that certain types of child porn are legal because the people arent actually underaged but are portrayed as so and that the courts should rule that illegal, then I agree with you there. The laws are what should be changed to affect that, and the courts should interpret the constitution as such.