shanrick: The following May, the case was passed off to the Loveland Police. Detective Paul Arreola said he was unsure how to proceed because, at the time, his department did not deal in internet crimes.There may be something darker surrounding this story.
JohnAnnArbor: shanrick: The following May, the case was passed off to the Loveland Police. Detective Paul Arreola said he was unsure how to proceed because, at the time, his department did not deal in internet crimes.There may be something darker surrounding this story.I'm glad the detective nipped this in the bud.
omeganuepsilon: Loveland Police. Detective Paul ArreolaThat's just too much considering the topic.
Mikey1969: Who wrote this farking story?They talk about busting the guy.Then it goes on to say "Last month, the Loveland Police Department busted a man..." like they're talking about someone different than the person they opened up the story about. It's the same guy, right?And how did they originally trace the porn 'back to an IP', yet "once again find porn on his computer"? Had they looked at his computer before? Or is this actually just back to the files he was trading on the internet?It's like they just wrote down everything they could, printed each sentence on its own piece of paper, threw them in the air, and then decided that was how it would get written up.
badhatharry: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Psychohazard: While I believe child porn to be particularly heinous and worthy of prosecution, why is the department of homeland security involved?
JohnAnnArbor: I'm glad the detective nipped this in the bud.
Hokkaido_Crying: His name wasn't "Kurtzweil", was it?
m00: "In March 2013, Franklin once again allegedly found pornography on Romanek's computer."How did he find it without a warrant? Or, how did they get the warrant if the case was "too stale"?
Mikey1969: As I pointed out above, the story was pretty much written by an animated dog turd. I'm sure there are a lot of details they didn't bother to include that would explain all of this. Instead, it's like a DailyMail article, but with less pictures.
m00: Yeah, I just mean regardless of the crime... you can't just warrantlessly monitor someone's computer "because."
tlchwi02: if you read the article, you would have noticed he was sharing things on peer to peer networks. once you do that, you're fair game
Molavian: Having thought about destroying several people's lives by planting child porn on their computers, I can't say that I completely trust the system.
m00: But now we're operating under the "Homeland Security can secretly look at anyone's computer without a warrant -- or with a SECRET warrant issued by secret courts for whatever reason they want." And they if they find anything, even stuff not related to homeland security, they can come take your stuff.That's scary.Because it means if someone at homeland security decides to tap your computer for "vague super secret national security reasons" (which apparently is pretty easy both procedurally and technically) and they find ANYTHING criminal, you're going to jail. That completely subverts the entire point of warrants and several articles in the bill of rights.
m00: tlchwi02: if you read the article, you would have noticed he was sharing things on peer to peer networks. once you do that, you're fair gameOkay, I thought they said he stopped that in 2008 or something. It said the p2p stuff was from 2008, but in 2013 the cop "found files on his computer" and its like...how?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 24 2017 15:34:15
Runtime: 0.308 sec (308 ms)