Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stalker Jailed For Planting Child Porn On a PC

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the how-do-I-love-thee-let-me-plant-the-ways dept.

Crime 368

An anonymous reader writes "An elaborate scheme to get the husband of a co-worker with whom he was obsessed jailed backfired on Ilkka Karttunen, 48, from Essex in the UK. His plan was to get the husband arrested so that he could have a go at a relationship with the woman. To do this he broke into the couple's home while they were sleeping, used their family computer to download child pornography, and then removed the hard drive and mailed it anonymously to the police, along with a note that identified the owner."

cancel ×

368 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Geez. (3, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706178)

Hasn't this dude ever heard of 4chan? Or dating sims? Or sanity?

Re:Geez. (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706218)

He probably has, but he wants that 'special someone' that those sites can't provide as he has already found his 'special someone' in real life. Problem is that 'special someone' was taken already, so sociopath has tried to "release" that 'special someone' from their otherwise fulfilled life. Enter criminal act.

At least the good guys caught the bad guy here.

Re:Geez. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706360)

There are drugs and "minimally" invasive neural procedures that can fix that up, real pronto.

Re:Geez. (5, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706484)

At least the good guys caught the bad guy here.

And do you wonder already how many times that wasn't the case? Sure, this time the perpetrator was sloppy...but it's relatively trivial to frame people like that "properly"

A witch accusation of our times, it seems.

Re:Geez. (2, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706584)

All he had to do was somehow get word to the wife that "your hubby is into child porn". But like all loser nerds, he had to go the overly-complicated route.

Re:Geez. (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706710)

Does it make us winner nerds then?

Out more than gaol time (4, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706188)

He's also out the postage to mail the hard drive.

This would have worked except for This mistake (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706208)

>>>"then removed the hard drive and mailed it anonymously to the police, along with a note that identified the owner."

You don't provide proof that you broke into a private house.

Instead you go home, wait a few weeks, and then send an anonymous tip that the homeowner has been asking for underage photos on the net, and you suspect he downloaded child porn too. Let the police take it from there. THEY will do the breaking-and-entering, remove the drive, and investigate.

Re:This would have worked... (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706280)

Exactly.

It's trivial to ruin someone's life at this point using child pornography. Cracking a WPA password isn't nearly that complicated.

Also, note how the guy he was trying to frame was still arrested, and still barred from seeing his children, after someone sent the police a hard drive they claimed belonged to the guy. Of all the obvious frame jobs, this was dead sloppy, and yet the victim was STILL victimized by the authorities. I'm surprised they aren't summarily castrating people without proof these days. After all, won't someone think of the children...

Re:This would have worked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706396)

I don't know about the UK, but this has reasonable doubt in 50' high neon letters

Re:This would have worked... (2, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706536)

It is a difficult situation for the police. On the one hand, it has "frame job" written all over it, on the other hand, what if it isn't? Arresting him was probably overkill, but limiting contact with children until the whole thing is cleared up makes some sense. The police clearly made more than a usual effort investigate at least, but still. I dunno what you'd call the "right" answer is here. (Except, obviously, don't have a sociopath break into your house and frame you for a difficult to defend against crime)

Re:This would have worked... (4, Insightful)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706572)

Not sure about in the UK, but innocent until PROVEN guilty used to mean something across the pond.

It's just the dumb-ass media castrating police departments the world over. The media is all about front-page spreads ruining someone's life, but they're never about front-page spreads about what they printed ended up turning into blatent libel.

Fucking hypocrites.

Re:This would have worked... (4, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706890)

Not directly related, but another very interesting (if disappointing) article [bbc.co.uk] from the BBC today about knee-jerk media reaction forcing the hand of the justice system, this time in terms of the drug trade.

Choice quotes from the latest expert resigning from the government's drug advisory board:

"We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour.

"Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure."

He added: "As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

Re:This would have worked... (5, Insightful)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706708)

Arresting him was probably overkill, but limiting contact with children until the whole thing is cleared up makes some sense.

So let me get this straight - if someone broke into your house and swiped your car keys, then sent them along with an empty whiskey bottle to the cops, accusing you of DUI, you'd be just fine with having your driving privileges suspended while the cops investigate? I mean, after all, this completely circumstantial evidence *might* be true, right?

Law Enforcement's "chain of custody" is a tremendously important concept. The "evidence" the police received is horribly tainted, and shouldn't have merited more than a knock on the door and a conversation with the man being joe-jobbed.

Re:This would have worked... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706782)

Mod parent up for car analogy.

Re:This would have worked... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706834)

How about running a SECURE system at home? simply having the PC with logins and auto lock-out would have stopped this idiot sociopath in his tracks. Yes you can crack the passwords with physical access to the machine but I highly doubt the idiot had enough time to crack it without getting caught.

Better solution is to have drive encryption on and home security cameras that record.. Good luck getting access to the security hive or password files to start cracking a password before the owner wakes up. and you have nice video evidence to show the cops that someone broke in.

Re:This would have worked... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706768)

I'm surprised they aren't summarily castrating people without proof these days

They are working on that. They did not get it passed in the last Jobs bill...Next time though...

Re:This would have worked except for This mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706284)

You don't provide proof that you broke into a private house.

Instead you go home, wait a few weeks, and then send an anonymous tip that the homeowner has been asking for underage photos on the net, and you suspect he downloaded child porn too. Let the police take it from there. THEY will do the breaking-and-entering, remove the drive, and investigate.

Thanks.

I like your wife BTW.

Sincerely,
Stalker

Re:This would have worked except for This mistake (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706488)

AC does a lot of things that are strange, but he has just proved he is not very observant. Commodore64 may or may not be a wife, but I don't think she has a wife.

Or, was AC trying to make a pass at Commodore64?

Hmmmm - I couldn't hear the inflection of the keys being hit while he typed . . . .

Re:This would have worked except for This mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706604)

I'm also a feman!
Send me PM to see my womale parts!

Re:This would have worked except for This mistake (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706406)

Except the police aren't going to be able to get a warrant based on "some anonymous dude told us this guy was like totes harboring child pr0n"

I suppose I am assuming that they need warrants in the UK. They must, right?

Re:This would have worked except for This mistake (3, Insightful)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706764)

Not when the children are involved. A mere phone call, anonymously made in NC, is enough to get child welfare/SS, and/or the police knee deep into your ass, oops, life, if the phone call alleges child porn/sexual abuse. Unless of course it is a catholic priest being reported. As a licensed counselor you get to make a judgment call about a client threatening violence upon another person or suicide, but any mention of sexual exploitation/abuse of a child, even if it was 50 years ago, is a mandated report. Even if it is a 90 year old man saying when he was 20 years old he had sex with a 16 year old girl, who he later married and stayed with until she died at 75.

Moral of the story. . . (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706212)

The difference between for you getting put in jail and separated from your children for a week and you getting put in jail and separated from your children for a decade is the sloppiness of the guy framing you.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706296)

I am a forensic investigator and it terrifies me that most people I meet in my field don't seem to care who goes to jail as long as somebody goes to jail.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (4, Interesting)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706840)

I am a forensic investigator and it terrifies me that most people I meet in my field don't seem to care who goes to jail as long as somebody goes to jail.

That matches my experience. A disturbingly large number of people in law enforcement seem to think that their job is to bust people, as opposed to busting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Nor is it necessarily born out of malice, though there's that, too; most of the time, it's just tunnel-vision and sloppy thinking.

Easy fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706862)

As soon as someone starts planting child porn on the hard drives of prosecutors, judges, politicians, wealthy oligopolists, and forensic investigators, things will change.

Of course I am not advocating that anyone do this. It would be very illegal and harmful to innocent people. I am just observing that extreme means like this could be effective in getting the law (and policies surrounding its enforcement) changed, which is really messed up.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (2, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706328)

Exactly.
I bet almost everyone in Slashdot could frame someone in such a way so even a police "expert" (who basically looks at modified, accessed, and created dates) couldn't tell it was fake. I've watched some of the computer crime cases on the Crime Channel and to be honest I find it scary that people can be convicted on such easily faked evidence.

e.g. Boot into Linux, mount the NTFS partition, add illicit images, and child porn sites to "index.dat." Then manually change the dates on the files (very trivial with the drive mounted like this). If you're really good you could add shortcuts into recently viewed documents and create a fake IE history.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706374)

It is not even that hard.

  1. Turn on computer.
  2. Download illegal material.
  3. Turn off computer.
  4. Wait a few days.
  5. Call police.

Unless... (2, Insightful)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706646)

Suppose you have a password on the PC. You see, without that linux "hack" it would be impossible to to the downloading. And the timing would be off also, since the owner might be able to prove show he was not at home at the time of the downloading. Then there is always the point that you will have to make a reasonable gues who was behind the keyboard at the time of the offense.

Last point "call the police" is not anonymous as well, since the telephone company keeps log who called who (and in case of a cell phone: where).

Planting fake evidence is not as easy as it seems if you want to do it perfect. Watching CSI does not help because the reality is much more complex.

Re:Unless... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706730)

Suppose you have a password on the PC.

Uh...Windows? Safe mode. Linux? Single-user mode. Passwords don't stop someone with physical access to your computer from accessing your account. Full-drive encryption, sure...but who does that?

Re:Unless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706806)

Just add some anti forensic tools on the computer to remove the plausible deniability option... Or plant a truecrypt volume with a very easy password.

Re:Unless... (2, Insightful)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706850)

Duh. There is child porn on drive. Drive is the framed person's possession. You faked the date to show it was downloaded when suspect was at home, which is trivial as you can see he was home on "x" day and make the date/time match that. America, we don't have cameras at every phone booth and street corner. And there is child porn on computer. Grand slam conviction of a child molester. What DA is going to spend any time trying to discredit anonymous tip, and what jury is going to believe Mr.Computer Expert witness for the defense, when the cops' expert witness says it was the perp's, and the DA has splashed horrible pictures of children being violated sexually? Because no one with any sense is going to frame with a naked picture of a kid. They will use the hardest and most shocking crap they can find. This is America, innocent until proven guilty, unless it is child porn, and in that case, bend over and get ready for the reaming.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706780)

Not only that, but you could do it with a virus which is very picky about which computers it makes such changes to. Indeed, you could have a virus out in the wild today that is just waiting to find its way to your hard drive where it will find your name or some other piece of information before it begins doing what it was programmed to do. Since the virus is essentially a static file (non aggressive) on all other computers, the chance it would get wiped by antivirus software is much less.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706848)

Worse yet, to get around this situation and protect your Windows data, you could use an encrypted hard-drive. Now it won't prevent someone from adding a new hard-drive nor hacking your system from the Net. But a 'properly' secured system with an encrypted file system would leave you in a really bad position. You'd now have to reveal your password. And I'm willing to bet, they'll make an excuse of finding anything, simply because if you're using a password - then you must really be hiding something.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706892)

Yup I can easily fake a hard drive that will pin you to a desired time and even put in "old" history that even the best Computer forensics person would not be able to detect was fabricated. That's the cool part about computers, the clock can be set to ANYTHING.

It blows my mind that computer evidence is admissible because it is so easily faked by anyone.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706894)

Don't worry man, the media will rescue us! Just yesterday the self-proclaimed "geek" on Fox News was showing the world the new iPad and he mentioned that it's "so fast because it's all RAM". Then he said, "Yeah, RAM, Rapid Access Memory". I was on the treadmill and nearly fucking killed myself.

Re:Moral of the story. . . (4, Funny)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706774)

Back in college we used to prank each other by sending in requests for magazines and advertisements. We sent in subscription cards to bondage and fetish magazines and had them delivered to the victim. Apparently this also gets you on a lot of lists because when the junk mail started arriving, it never abated. To this day there's probably some poor sot getting a weekly ad for "Chihuahas and the Men Who Love Them".

Nowadays these things are delivered via email so can't do that much anymore. Looking back though, it was an acute thrill to see your roommate start to dread the arrival of the mail carrier. I miss those days..

"Dude, your mail's here."
"F* you."
"I'm just saying."
"F* you."

The article wasn't clearly written... (2, Interesting)

Cowclops (630818) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706216)

The answer doesn't seem to be in the article, but why would they search Karttunen's house after arresting the guy he was trying to frame? I understand how he would have been implicated after they searched his computer, but how did they figure out that they needed to search his house in the first place?

Either way, guy is an idiot for copying the guy's hard drive to his own. And an idiot for trying the whole scheme in the first place. And an idiot for getting caught when it seems like it would be hard to trace that back to somebody.

Re:The article wasn't clearly written... (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706246)

I wondered this as well, I am assuming that there was some previous action from Karttunen. This event seems a bit escalated so he had to have done something in the past.

Can I do that to Rush Limbaugh? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706224)

Heck, I don't even need to break into his house.

I'll just fill a drive up with child porn, mail it to the police with a note explaining that it's Rush's---

Okay, I don't always have the highest regard for cops, but I bet they're smarter than this.

Re:Can I do that to Rush Limbaugh? (1, Funny)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706314)

Just leave him a giant package of oxycontin. He'll just off himself.

almost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706228)

The idea seems entirely workable. The way he did it is a liiiiittle bit crazy. Stealing and mailing the hard drive to the police? Really?

Just set up a trojan that continuously visits known blacklisted/flagged sites and downloads stuff. After a set period of time, it should self-destruct and destroy all traces of itself (except for the illegal content downloaded, of course). If the ISP or police don't pick up the illegal activity pretty quickly, send an anonymous tip.

Boom, one innocent person totally fucked.

What an amazingly scary story (4, Insightful)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706230)

I believe the only thing saving the family was the investigation of the stalkers house (and shed). Without that search warrant into a third-parties house, or without the retardedly self-incriminating evidence stored on his computer, the man accused would have been devastated.

Wait, this is UK, do they even need a warrant?

Warrant? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706510)

"I was walking my dog, and I heard some strange noise and when i looked up I saw a computer thru his window, and you cant believe what horror i saw"

That will get you your warrant.

That's shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706236)

"“The lengths this man went to in order to pursue a fantasy were incredible,""

You mean he was a geek?

It is too easy! (4, Insightful)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706238)

It's too easy to have someone's life ruined. Even being cleared of charges this person will still have a stigma attached to them. Poor family. To be ripped away like that from your family, your home because some psycho wanted a go at your wife. Investigation wise, they didn't find the hard drive with the man or trace any wrong goings online directly back to him, yet they still charged him with the crime. This seems out of whack to me. Grey area to be sure but to just take the anonymous at their word seems scary.

Re:It is too easy! (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706346)

Investigation wise, they didn't find the hard drive with the man or trace any wrong goings online directly back to him, yet they still charged him with the crime. This seems out of whack to me.

You're not THINKING OF THE CHILDREN! Why haven't you turned off your critical thinking abilities yet, we're talking about kiddy pr0n here! KIDDY PR0N!

Now, less hyperbolically, it's a bad situation. If there's really child abuse involved, most sane commentators want the situation dealt with as soon as possible. That's what drives the impulse for a snap arrest, just to freeze the situation and "save the kids". But the urgency works against "innocent until proven guilty", and spills over in a policy sense into thinking that prevention is even better than rapid response. (Think "pre-crime".) I think that's the psychological basis for the push against simulated kiddy pr0n. "No real children are harmed, but who knows what real children WILL be harmed which Sicky Sickington decides to act on his perverted fantasies."

It's a bad deal, and the only bright spot is that loltard planting kpr0n on an innocent man's PC has earned the special wrath of The System, which really really hates it when you play It for a fool. And maybe someone can start the rumor in prison that he really is a kiddy-fiddler; I hear tell those guys get "extra special" treatment.

Re:It is too easy! (0)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706820)

"But the urgency works against "innocent until proven guilty", and spills over in a policy sense into thinking that prevention is even better than rapid response. (Think "pre-crime".) I think that's the psychological basis for the push against simulated kiddy pr0n. "No real children are harmed, but who knows what real children WILL be harmed which Sicky Sickington decides to act on his perverted fantasies.""

Two points here.

One: Real kids really are harmed in the making of this stuff. Granted, the kid was harmed yesterday, last week, last year, or whatever, and most likely the person with the clip did not do the harming; but at some point some real kid was harmed to make it. That's the justification for making it illegal to possess, Snuff films and Blood Diamonds are illegal to possess or traffic in for the same reason. The possessor may not have directly hurt anyone, but they provided the market which pushed someone else to hurt someone. It's thin (often the originator would have hurt people whether the market exists or not), makes a certain amount of sense (can you be sure they would have? Does it matter?)

Two: The police (and I'm pretty sure it's same in the UK) don't have to "prove" guilt to make an arrest. They just need reasonable or preponderant evidence to get a warrant. The prosecutor has to prove guilt to get you convicted, but arrested and convicted are not the same thing. Often the arrest is needed to collect the remaining evidence required for conviction. Yes you are innocent until proven guilty, but there's a reason we arrest "suspects", not "criminals".

All in all, I'm just glad I wasn't the cops having to work this case. On the one hand they can't ignore a hard drive full of kiddy porn, on the other the whole thing screams "frame job".

Re:It is too easy! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706634)

This scenario is precisely why lawyers and due process rights are so, so, so important. And yet, most people think lawyers are the scum of the earth and that criminals don't get punished for crimes. But the truth about due process isn't necessarily the broad abstract principle that every man deserves a fair trial because that's fair, it's that every man deserves a fair trial because we're aware of how easy it is for something like this to happen.

Not the end of the story... (5, Informative)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706256)

Unfortunately in the UK they publish names of anyone accused of sex crimes in local newspapers so you can bet even with the husband in this case proved entirely innocent he might need to move house, have his car set alight, stones thrown through his windows, and have his name google-able to child porn charges. Plus the child services and new child protection scheme use just rumours to judge people so if he applied to, for example, because a football coach he might be denied (*you need a licence to talk to a child in the UK).

One question - Why was the wife or anyone else using the "family PC" not arrested? Or are only males arrested for child porn?

Re:Not the end of the story... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706308)

you are a twat

Re:Not the end of the story... (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706344)

Love you too.

Re:Not the end of the story... (2, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706400)

Unfortunately in the UK they publish names of anyone accused of sex crimes in local newspapers

Really? I've not heard of or seen such a list - unless you mean in a "local man Joe Bloggs was arrested on Friday on suspicion of $crime" type story?

you need a licence to talk to a child in the UK

Bullshit. There have been controversial rules passed recently requiring anyone who has regular, official contact with children to register, yes - so a football coach teaching minors would indeed be affected. A licence to talk to a child though? Rubbish.

Re:Not the end of the story... (5, Interesting)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706450)

Those are exactly the type of stories I'm talking about. If Bob Smith is arrested for rape, then he is a rapist, even if he is entirely innocent. If John Smith is known as a kiddie fiddler then no amount of innocents will rub that off of him in a society obsessed by paedophilia and child safety.

A little bit of hyperbole to make my point (*I guess that doesn't translate on the internet) but, yes, you only need a licence if you want regular contact with kids. But frankly the way society is going we're getting closer and closer to the point when some man talks to kids in the park and is arrested as a direct result.

Do you think it is really reasonable to have to have a licence if you want to be a football coach? The statistics don't even really suggest it will help given that most assaults are conducted by family or friends.

Re:Not the end of the story... (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706616)

Well, actually a story like this might be enough to clear him as the popular interest level is probably higher than the original case.

People will see it and think that the dude who actually planted the evidence is a sick bastard and feel bad for the victim.

Re:Not the end of the story... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706714)

There have been controversial rules passed recently requiring anyone who has regular, official contact with children to register, yes - so a football coach teaching minors would indeed be affected. A licence to talk to a child though? Rubbish.

Jesus Christ, that's your rebuttal? That you only need a license if you have REGULAR contact with children? WTF has happened to the UK? (btw, PARENTS have regular contact with children. Do you need a license for that too?)

Re:Not the end of the story... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706494)

May never get a job again either.

If it was a Daily Mail article: (4, Funny)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706274)

"Finnish Pedophile Immigrant Terrorist Threatens UK Citizen"

Loser (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706276)

Unless jail goes down really hard, he isn't quite a Darwin -- and a little too convoluted for Leno's "Stupid Criminals."

I suppose if his jail mate has a crush on him, there could be some award for bad relationship choices.

FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (2, Informative)

Kiuas (1084567) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706300)

Although this is slightly off-topic, I'd just like to point out to all /. readers who might be wondering about his name: Ilkka Karttunen is actually a Finnish name. I have no idea if the guy has moved into the UK from Finland or if his parents/relatives have come from here. Well, idiots like him are pretty evenly split between nations anyway, so his nationality doesn't really make a difference. But I know there are people out there who went "What kind kind of name is that for a guy from Essex O.o?".

Re:FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706420)

Yes, thank you for this bit of racism, because people with a foreign sounding name cannot be actual citizens.

Re:FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706620)

Yes, thank you for this bit of racism, because people with a foreign sounding name cannot be actual citizens.

Racism? What racism. Thank you for that little bit of knee-jerk. You know, when someone makes a remark that happens to involve nationality, it's not always an example of racism. The GP even pointed out that idiocy is not specific to any particular nationality. Rather even-handed remark, I'd say.

You, on the other hand, came across as very prejudicial in your comment. Hypersensitivity to perceived racism is not helpful, and is in fact very damaging. Learn the difference between actual bigotry, and normal discourse. You'll be a happier person, and we won't have to mod you down as far.

Re:FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706456)

Although this is slightly off-topic, I'd just like to point out to all /. readers who might be wondering about his name: Ilkka Karttunen is actually a Finnish name.

Yes, we already knew that.

Re:FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706546)

Nobody cares.

Re:FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (2, Funny)

Xunker (6905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706590)

Most of us are Americans(TM) anyway, and have no idea where this "Essex" or "Finnish" you speak of is located. Likely they're both next to other countries we don't know the location of, like Myanmar, Quebec and Idaho.

America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706726)

Most of us Americans aren't weirded out when someone has an unusual last name for their area. Melting pot and all that.

Give my regards to the Doctor (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706814)

Most of us are Americans(TM) anyway, and have no idea where this "Essex" or "Finnish" you speak of is located.

Essex? Oh, that's over by Manchester, Gloucester, and Ipswitch [google.com] ...

Re:FYI the guy is niot necessarily a brit (2, Interesting)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706872)

Idaho is west somewhere. Near where the people with the bones through their noses and lions and tigers live. Quebec is in French.

Wait.. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706302)

It is probably just a matter of time before the stalked gets thrown in jail for possessing child pornography as well. After all, we can never be too hard on people with child pornography, right? It's okay to murder people that have been accused of it, right? No? What's that? You're in favor of leniency for awful child rapists?

Re:Wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706798)

RTFA.... he WAS arrested and banned from seeing his family until the investigation turned up evidence of his innocence. That seems rather backward and draconian, eh?

1st April (0, Redundant)

krischik (781389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706322)

The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.

Of course framing someone with child pornography is not new. It even works without breaking and entering. Police needs ages to "investigate" a hard drive. By the time they finally found nothing and dropped charges your wive might have left you.

Re:1st April (3, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706410)

The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.

Which is part of the reason why I object to serious news outlets participating in April Fool's jokes.

Finland is the greatest! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706340)

It is nice to see that our educational system produces such marvelous individuals... NOT

Strict Liability (2, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706342)

Since the UK has "strict liability" laws (which IMO are exceptionally unfair and should be changed) he should have left the hard drive in the system and tipped of the police anonymously. In the UK, simply being in possession of child porn or a gun is enough for a conviction regardless of how it came to be in your possession.

Re:Strict Liability (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706448)

Not true. Strict liability means you can be prosecuted for the result of your actions, etc, even if you did not intend for any harm to be done. It does not mean that someone can frame you and you have no defence, and there have been cases in the UK where people have beaten a charge of being in possession of child porn by demonstrating that it was downloaded by a virus without their knowledge or consent.

Of course, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.

Re:Strict Liability (4, Informative)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706596)

IANAL either, but these guys are:

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

emphasis mine

My understanding that possession of child porn is basically the same as possession of a shotgun - For the most part you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and there are very few, if any, defenses.

too little risk for breaking into a home in the UK (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706362)

Trying that sort of thing in the US is quite likely to get one's hide peppered with lead.

Re:too little risk for breaking into a home in the (1, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706776)

Since they were sound asleep while this was happening who was going to be "peppering his hide with lead"? The gun fairy?

What crazy people do in the name of disparity (1, Insightful)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706390)

So this crazy dude goes to extreme lengths to get a husband put behind bars to have an adulterous relationship with the fellas wife? One of the big flaws was taking the hard drive out of the PC and mailing to the authorities. I think an anonymous tip would have been just fine.

Regardless, it's really amazing what mental states people can put themselves into and trick their own mind into thinking their crazy actions are somehow good in nature and worth pursuing. However, I can't help but realize the wife's involvement in this? Something she did or may have innocently done caused this guy to think there was something there... or maybe there was some under-the-table stuff happening. Too many fish in the sea to be doing that, IMHO.

Re:What crazy people do in the name of disparity (2, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706444)

Why would you assume the wife did anything at all? A lot of guys are just crazy and let wishful thinking go to extremes. Likewise, it's sometimes easy for people to misread a friendship as something else.

Given that this guy was nuts enough to try a scheme like this and the woman is married, I'd assume that the guy is entirely in the wrong.

Re:What crazy people do in the name of disparity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706720)

Why would you assume the wife did anything at all? A lot of guys are just crazy and let wishful thinking go to extremes. Likewise, it's sometimes easy for people to misread a friendship as something else

That's absolutely correct. A lot of women are just openly friendly: there's nothing with that unless you come across a man who mistakes that for actual interest. That's something most of us learn early on (not every girl that smiles at us wants to sleep with us), but I guess some guys were just not properly socialized as children, or something like that.

Re:What crazy people do in the name of disparity (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706728)

Yes, no doubt she was 'Asking For It'(TM)...
[/sarcasm]

Re:What crazy people do in the name of disparity (4, Insightful)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706744)

My way of thinking about this is that if the wife was open to an adulterous relationship in the first place, he didn't really need to frame the husband to start that. His actions only make sense if she spurned his advances and he was trying to remove a real barrier: not her husband, but her love for her husband. He didn't murder the guy or set him up as a thief; he set him up as something a wife might reasonably be shocked into rejecting completely. To me, she seems very likely to be blameless.

why is Karttunen on a list for sex offenders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706430)

It's not like he's actually a risk, at least for downloading the data and using it in the way he did. Now, if the guy had copied the material from his private collection into the victim's computer, that's another matter. On the other hand, there's all these zero tolerance laws...

Re:why is Karttunen on a list for sex offenders? (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706816)

A) Because there's no list category for "malicious moron".
B) Because he actually did knowingly and wilfully download and possess it (d/l on victim's PC, copied HDD to his own PC). Whether he actually "enjoyed" the collection is a separate matter.

He is a risk to the rest of society. Framing someone for kiddie porn is not a victimless crime. He may or may not be a pedophile, but consider that he is well-informed enough to know where to find kiddy porn. I don't know how easy it is to find that sort of thing, but my guess is that LE efforts have increased the amount of work required for John Q. Public to stumble across it. Given the idiots that do manage to find it, it probably doesn't require a PhD either, but my guess is that it's more than a simple google away.

Seen something similar happen (1)

Rastl (955935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706440)

Nasty divorce going on and the wife used the husband's work e-mail to sign up for all kinds of unsavory web sites. We ended up having to change his address and it didn't work out like the wife hoped.

People are complicated. It will be scary when they get bright AND complicated.

Possession laws are stupid for this reason. (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706464)

If someone does not like you, whether they be informant, stalker, or corrupt law enforcement, they can plant the gun, the drugs, the child porn into your possession and then arrest you for possession. This is why all laws which involve possession of an object, are fundamentally flawed because it does not make a difference is the possession is voluntary or involuntary.

Re:Possession laws are stupid for this reason. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706644)

Actually not strictly true, the federal law against gun possession by a convicted felon actually says that the possessor has to knowingly and willingly possess a firearm, meaning that he has to understand that the item in question is a functioning firearm and know that he actually has the item and to have done both willingly.

Furthermore, possession itself is legally defined as having control and dominion over an item. Fleeting contact (such as simply touching an item someone else has) is not considered possession. Also, simply being in the same premises as the forbidden item is not considered possession.

FYI though, IANAL

Trojan instead (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706474)

So you write a Trojan, get the PC infected and have it do the downloading for you then report back. Then you leave an anonymous tip.

No breaking and entering at all.

Scary thing, is for revenge against people you don't like you can just drop those anonymous tips all over the place and have innocent people harassed and their stuff taken for review and their face all over the evening paper.. And if they just happen to have something they shouldn't, like say a MP3 they downloaded, they might get ruined financially..as a bonus.

Define "elaborate" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706558)

By elaborate they must mean "retarded".

"Ilkka Karttunen"? Sound it out people! (1)

hmbcarol (937668) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706560)

This is soooo clearly an April Fools joke. It's nowhere to be found except on blogs and only on April 1st. The name is clearly meant to be bad English for "I like cartoons", becomes "I lika cartoonen" becomes "Ilkka Karttunen".

Re:"Ilkka Karttunen"? Sound it out people! (1)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706698)

The original story was actually dated March 31st..

Re:"Ilkka Karttunen"? Sound it out people! (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706760)

The name is clearly meant to be bad English for "I like cartoons"

Yes, that is very clear. I'm smacking myself for not seeing that earlier. It is abundantly obvious his name isn't just in another language.

Re:"Ilkka Karttunen"? Sound it out people! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706804)

Ilkka Karttunen is actually a perfectly normal Finnish name, so it's more likely he's a Finnish emigrant.

./ link label (3, Funny)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706664)

Anyone else think it's weird when you see a story on /. front page title "Stalker Jailed For Planting Child Porn On a PC", to have to click a link labelled "View picture"?

This story is broken (3, Interesting)

glebaron (737206) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706666)

He stole the hard drive and the family didn't notice that it was missing and report a burglary?

AcrossTheAtlantic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706752)

I'm curious to know if the wife did anything to lead this man into this criminal obsession.

View Picture (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31706758)

I noticed that all the other articles on the front page say Read More..., except this one which links to View Picture...
At first I thought it might be a link to a picture of the wife, who this guy was committing crimes for. Then I thought it might be a link to the pictures the guy was sent to jail for, which having downloaded would land anyone who clicked on them in jail.
I decided to risk it, but I don't see any pictures at all when I click. This must be some kind of psychological experiment.

FAIL! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31706818)

Well, seems that if you don’t have the brains...

I would have made the guy a friend, and in a not watched moment, put a USB stick in the computer, waited a few seconds for autostart to plant the stuff, pull it out, and be done with it!

On the other hand, I wouldn’t have tried to get a women that way anyway! How delusional can one be?
You know what they say: The cure for one-itis, is FTAG(N): Fuck / Flirt with Ten Other Girls (NOW)! ^^*
Or in other words: She is not special! EVER! Period. :)

P.S.: Now you know what was meant, when someone said “Cthulhu FTAGN”! ^^

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?