Post: #1

State police have charged a western Pennsylvania woman with putting child pornography on a computer in an unsuccessful effort to frame her estranged husband.

Online court records don't list an attorney for 42-year-old Meri Jane Woods, of Cherry Hill Township, who also doesn't have a listed phone.

Troopers from Indiana, Pa. say she started the investigation when she came to their barracks on Aug. 14 to report her husband sexually abused children and put images of same on their home computer. Police investigated and determined the images were put on the computer Aug. 11 but that Woods' husband left the residence July 23.

Woods is charged with a felony count of sexual abuse of children for possessing a computer with the images on it, and 40 counts of lying about alleged abuse incidents involving her husband.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/23/pen...map=%5B%5D

Post: #2

This sort of thing is really terrifying. Obviously kiddie porn is one of the most fucked up things in the world, but to me the fact that you could theoretically (if possessed with more technical aptitude than this dumbass woman) frame someone with it and ruin their life is just as bad. It's like planting drugs on someone then calling the cops, except much easier and more legally and socially devastating. There is literally no way to ever remove that stain from your reputation, it's the most vile thing imaginable. And yet with how easily computers and phones are compromised these days, it would be very difficult to defend against if someone was competent and determined to frame you. From there, all it takes is an anonymous tip and the cops are breaking down your door, and you've got to explain some kiddie porn sitting on a folder buried on your hard drive that you didn't even know existed. Good luck getting anyone to believe it isn't yours. I wonder how many scheming ex-wives had a nerdy hacker white knight help them fuck over their ex-husbands this way without getting caught.

Post: #3

(12-23-2013 08:03 PM)scorpion Wrote:  I wonder how many scheming ex-wives had a nerdy hacker white knight help them fuck over their ex-husbands this way without getting caught.

Answer: more than a few.

And yes, it is terrifying and yet another way in which a guy just minding his own business can be fucked over for life with no redress.

Post: #4

Dumb bitch, sweet irony

Post: #5

Post: #6

Wasn't there a virus back in the day that did this too?

Post: #7

(12-23-2013 08:03 PM)scorpion Wrote:  This sort of thing is really terrifying. Obviously kiddie porn is one of the most fucked up things in the world, but to me the fact that you could theoretically (if possessed with more technical aptitude than this dumbass woman) frame someone with it and ruin their life is just as bad. It's like planting drugs on someone then calling the cops, except much easier and more legally and socially devastating. There is literally no way to ever remove that stain from your reputation, it's the most vile thing imaginable. And yet with how easily computers and phones are compromised these days, it would be very difficult to defend against if someone was competent and determined to frame you. From there, all it takes is an anonymous tip and the cops are breaking down your door, and you've got to explain some kiddie porn sitting on a folder buried on your hard drive that you didn't even know existed. Good luck getting anyone to believe it isn't yours. I wonder how many scheming ex-wives had a nerdy hacker white knight help them fuck over their ex-husbands this way without getting caught.

It doesn't even take any technical aptitude really, if it's hosted on a public site - the hardest part is locating the actual child porn. Once you have it, it's a cinch to plant it. Get the hubby's phone when he's not looking, and plant it on there. Guaranteed he'll be guilty until proven innocent.

Post: #8

(12-23-2013 09:53 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(12-23-2013 08:03 PM)scorpion Wrote:  This sort of thing is really terrifying. Obviously kiddie porn is one of the most fucked up things in the world, but to me the fact that you could theoretically (if possessed with more technical aptitude than this dumbass woman) frame someone with it and ruin their life is just as bad. It's like planting drugs on someone then calling the cops, except much easier and more legally and socially devastating. There is literally no way to ever remove that stain from your reputation, it's the most vile thing imaginable. And yet with how easily computers and phones are compromised these days, it would be very difficult to defend against if someone was competent and determined to frame you. From there, all it takes is an anonymous tip and the cops are breaking down your door, and you've got to explain some kiddie porn sitting on a folder buried on your hard drive that you didn't even know existed. Good luck getting anyone to believe it isn't yours. I wonder how many scheming ex-wives had a nerdy hacker white knight help them fuck over their ex-husbands this way without getting caught.

It doesn't even take any technical aptitude really, if it's hosted on a public site - the hardest part is locating the actual child porn. Once you have it, it's a cinch to plant it. Get the hubby's phone when he's not looking, and plant it on there. Guaranteed he'll be guilty until proven innocent.

It's actually worse than you think. If you simply have the images in your cache, or have them on your screen for a few minutes and then delete them, you have violated federal laws against possession of child pornography and can do hard time.

Here's what one court said:

Quote:Romm concedes there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find he acted with the requisite mental state of "knowingly," but rather contends that the act he committed was merely the viewing of child pornography, not the possession or receipt of it. We disagree. In the electronic context, a person can receive and possess child pornography without downloading it, if he or she seeks it out and exercises dominion and control over it. See United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1204 (10th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1223, 123 S.Ct. 1335, 154 L.Ed.2d 1082 (2003) ("Tucker II"). Here, we hold Romm exercised dominion and control over the images in his cache by enlarging them on his screen, and saving them there for five minutes before deleting them. While the images were displayed on Romm's screen and simultaneously stored to his laptop's hard drive, he had the ability to copy, print, or email the images to others. Thus, this evidence of control was sufficient for the jury to find that Romm possessed and received the images in his cache.

US v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2006).

Post: #9

If she had gone to his new apartment and did this on his laptop without him knowing, complete with her testimony that he's done it multiple times in the last, would he be found guilty?

Scary shit.

Post: #10

This is why I always have been and always will be REALLY nice to the IT guys at the office.

Post: #11

To be fair though, most girls don't know where to find that shit. I don't either - but I imagine even trying to find it might set off some cyberpolice alarm.

Post: #12

Christ on a cross, how would you even defend yourself? "NO your honor, I really really like looking at naked ADULT WOMEN! ADULTS! NOT BABIES! It was my wife, I swear!"

Post: #13

The reaction to CP is pretty over the top, not to mention counter-intuitive. I would so much rather a pedophile blows his load jerking to an image than raping my hypothetical son.
We should be going after the people who actually do the crime, not the people who simply watches it on their computer.

Pedophiles are who they are and you can't change them any more than you could make a homosexual straight. The difference is what the person does, and I would venture a guess that most pedophiles aren't rapists/molester because...well...they care about the prospect of hurting children, and/or they get their rocks off to CP.
Hell, we even have people trying to ban animated child porn. If there are no victims, then it's none of anyone's business...just saying...

Post: #14

(12-24-2013 12:22 AM)Muk Wrote:  The reaction to CP is pretty over the top, not to mention counter-intuitive. I would so much rather a pedophile blows his load jerking to an image than raping my hypothetical son.
We should be going after the people who actually do the crime, not the people who simply watches it on their computer.

Pedophiles are who they are and you can't change them any more than you could make a homosexual straight. The difference is what the person does, and I would venture a guess that most pedophiles aren't rapists/molester because...well...they care about the prospect of hurting children, and/or they get their rocks off to CP.
Hell, we even have people trying to ban animated child porn. If there are no victims, then it's none of anyone's business...just saying...

No, child porn is often very sick and very real. Police officers assigned to track down child pornographers have something like a 20% suicide rate PER YEAR. I tried to dig up the article but couldn't find them.

We're talking torture porn with kids. Like baby girls being skewered on dildos meant for adult women. Even just reading news articles that delve into it is harrowing.

Post: #15

The problem is child pornography is a term that's inclusive of both graphic rape of infants and young children, and looking at your buddy's Facebook page and seeing pics of his 16 year old sister and her friends posing sexily at a pool party.

The fact of the matter is that the term is so nebulous that when I see stories about busting child porn rings I always wonder to myself if these people are legitimate scum, or if they've just been targeted for a fall.

Imagine how easy it would be to target anyone who pisses you off or expresses an opinion you don't like. Just send them a link to a site with child porn on it. The images wouldn't even need to be visible to the person browsing the page, make them invisible and the web browser will automatically load and save them to cache. Call the cops on your intended target and you've got their lives and careers ruined for possession of child pornography.