Originally Posted by OldGuy:
How exactly could some one have it on their computer and not have either “created it” or “acquired it”?
Ah so the loophole in the law is person A downloads (acquires) it and stores it on person B’s computer. Then person B can leave it there. I’m sure a logical law would somehow convict both A and B. Though laws not be logical of course. I suppose conspiracy of some sort.
I have this “thing” about people being innocent until proven guilty, I guess.
Person A downloaded it and had it in their possession. They aren’t getting away with anything. Person B has a layer of defense as the police may not be able to prove how it got there without the cooperation of person A. The likely outcome is they arrest person A and offer reduced sentence if the testify against person B.
…just following this up:
Dan Olsen just mentioned on twitter that he was interviewed by the Integrated Child Exploitation unit of the RCMP based on 20 reports made by the public. Each report was cleared as unfounded, and he has not been arrested or is in any trouble.
Is it safe to READ the article by Olsen? I understand the images are blurred out, but damned if I want that shit on my computer!!!
…I didn’t link to the article for a couple of reasons. Firstly: gamergate activists targeted people who retweeted/shared/linked to the article and reported those people to the authorities, and that is simply the last thing the straightdope needs. And secondly: “safe” is a relative word. The images are sufficiently blurred that nothing (including faces in all except a couple of cases) are shown. The kids are obviously clothed in every shot. But it is also obvious what poses they are in, even if they are blurred. It isn’t essential reading.
Banquet Bear is clearly biased, and I have no interest in “gamergate”. So I had to do some research myself because I don’t trust someone who is clearly so entrenched in the culture war going on about silly games.
I refused to read the article myself after finding out what is was about
So I found a pastebin that has the article, image free. Olson’s article is actually right on his twitter page.
The entire pastebin of his article is here:
http://pastebin.com/zHrG2fP7
However, looking through it provides me with this snippit:
“Although I have taken steps to clean up the evidence that follows, bringing it within the boundaries of the law, there is, as discussed earlier, a limit to what can be done. While the edited images will not compromise you legally, I can’t in good faith claim they’ve been brought within the bounds of good taste.”
That is illegal as all hell right there.
However, looking further into this while staying as far away from this stupid gamergate thing as I can, it appears that Olson targeted 8chan specifically due to its association with Gamergate as a way to slander it. It has more than enough slander so I don’t see why he would bother. More than that, I read up on the laws in his country
Here is the law pertaining to Canada:
Here are a couple parts I find interesting:
“child pornography”
“child pornography” has the same meaning as in subsection 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
“child pornography offence”
“child pornography offence” means an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code:
(a) subsection 163.1(2) (making child pornography);
(b) subsection 163.1(3) (distribution, etc., of child pornography);
(c) subsection 163.1(4) (possession of child pornography); or
(d) subsection 163.1(4.1) (accessing child pornography).
No disclosure
No seeking out of child pornography
Immunity
Even if he isn’t a pedophile himself, he has clearly broken the law here.
He has downloaded the images and he has edited them. Instead of reporting the boards to the authorities as the law stipulates and NOT making his report public because it could taint the investigation by letting the perps know they are under investigation by the police. He also ACTIVELY sought out child pornography and did so with ill intent all to try and win a petty internet argument over video games.
If there is anyone who thinks I shouldn’t report this man to the Canadian police, I’d love to hear your arguments.
Also this thread has been quite an interesting read! Thank you so much for the replies.
…with all due respect, I’ve just posted facts. We are in General Questions: and if you consider any of what I have posted to be untrue or biased, please either point it out, or take it to another forum. Considering how volatile the gamergate debate has been, I’ve taken pains to leave as much of that outside of my answers as possible. But the tangential relationship to Gamergate is the only reason this article became prominent: which is why it became an important part of my reply to your question.
If you already knew the answer to your question, I’m not sure why you posted the question here in the first place. ‘The man’ has already been reported to Canadian authorities and he has been cleared. If you want to want to report him again, feel absolutely free to do so. But I doubt a 21st report will change anyones mind.
If you say so, but reading your posts in this thread makes you seem quite biased to me. I personally think the whole thing is stupid but whatever.
You make the mistake of thinking he’s telling the truth about his claim of the reports. I don’t believe him for a second, especially if he has no case number or the like. He can lie as much as he wants to, it is the internet after all.
It reads to me more like he’s trying to make people think he’s been exonerated.
As far as calling on him, I most likely will. My issue is that I want to make a more informed decision before wasting resources and I’m going to try and escalate this as much as possible. Thank you Banquet Bear, you led me right into something FAR FAR worse than I initially though because he isn’t a reporter at all. He posted it on a medium page in the hopes to slander his online foes and used children as a weapon. I can’t think of many things more disgraceful especially over something so petty.
So I should be okay if I clicked on it, but it isn’t something the straight dope should be linked to? Gotcha. (I thought the article would be okay to read, I didn’t expect pictures. Yes, thank god they were blurred!)
Donna, if anything seems inconsistent, it is your post about how you don’t care at all but now you are calling the guy a liar and talking of getting heavily involved. You’re the one using aggressive language and appearing to want to start a fight with the guy you clearly think is anti-Gamergate. And the belittling of games does seem like someone who protests too much.
In short, you appear to be the person involved in Gamergate situation. Banquet Bear seems to be trying to keep outside of it.