Now, that's as it may be in a strict dictionary application of the term, but papers and the media are rarely interested in such applications.
|Big Brother is always watching us, he's just not as|
effective as he was in 1984.
Thye man was found when police in Texas were investigating links of a paedophile and disovered contact with a user called 'Wendy' in the UK. They reported this to the UK Police who used web logs to pinpoint the IP address. When they confiscated his computers they found three images - category one, the lowest category of porn - that had failed to be erased, in other words they found bits of images that the man had tried to delete or that had been opened in 'temp' folders as part of a web visit. He claimed the man in Texas had sent them to him and he had trid to destroy them. The pictures were said to constitute 'extreme pornography'. Now, I'm not sure what counts as extreme pornography, but I am a touch concerned about the invasion of privacy that went on here and the assumption of guilt. Where else in life would images you saw and tried to destroy be enough to convict you? Furthermore, there is an assumption that looking at such imagery is tantamount to carrying it out, which is bizarre. It would be similar to seeing that someone read books by Patricia Cornwell and passing on their details to the Police as a risk for serial murders.
|Teachers in the classroom are female and pretty, on strike|
they are male and old, and crap ones are male and
sweaty or young and female. Make of that what you will.
It worries me that the man was reported so strongly as a teacher. Was that part of what he did? Would it have been less bad had he been some faceless suit in a legal firm? Are people really expecting that a teacher in an actual job would be able to abuse their students? I've been in school settings and there just isn't the opportunity for most staff to abuse the students without a. anyone noticing and b. being reported forthwith and discovered before actually enacting anything creepy. Now, I'll accept that there may have been more to the story than I read, and maybe the images were reason for concern if they were of actual children or taken by the man himself, but there's also the issue of the 'posing as a female online' being used as a means of being dangerous. If that is the case then virtually every geeky gamer I know is a potential danger to others!
I guess I just worry that this sort of thing feeds the societal rejection of something that I do.