ROFLMAO - busted for using daddy's secure NSA laptop to download kiddie porn

[vaskidmark]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Child-porn-on-NSA-computer-nets-five-years-in-4895141.php

A former Smithson Valley High honor student who could have gone to elite colleges is instead headed to prison for five years for possessing violent child pornography he downloaded on his father's National Security Agency laptop and a home computer.

Calling the downloaded material “stomach-turning,” Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery imposed the sentence Friday on Christopher Thomas Cardella, despite calls for a lower term, even probation, by his lawyer, Van Hilley.

Cardella, 22, faced up to 10 years in prison, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Thompson told the judge prosecutors wanted prison time for Cardella because he had been looking at child porn for two years before he was caught.

On Aug. 11 2009, a month after Cardella's 18th birthday, the FBI showed up at his parents' home to investigate findings that someone had been downloading child pornography.

Before that, Cardella's father had turned in his work laptop, and a review of its contents found a program used to remove activity or material, according to FBI special agent Jeff Allovio.

“This was a violation of (government) policy,” Allovio testified.

It also raised a red flag, resulting in a probe to see if someone was “selling secrets to the spies,” he said.

Hilley said later that the father was cleared of wrongdoing.

The investigation found Cardella's father had let Cardella use the laptop, and he tried to remove child porn he had downloaded, though Allovio said some was still found during a forensic examination. Plenty more was found on a computer Cardella built or customized himself at home.

Ummmm - what's with letting your kid "borrow" your secure NSA laptop in the first place?  And daddy did not notice "a program used to remove activity or material" before turning in the laptop?

stay safe.

[K Frame]

"Hilley said later that the father was cleared of wrongdoing."

Letting the kid use the damned laptop could very well be a crime in and of itself.

[Fitz]

"Hilley said later that the father was cleared of wrongdoing."

Letting the kid use the damned laptop could very well be a crime in and of itself.

It is.

The only situation i can see where he wouldn't have been guilty of a crime would be if he had no knowledge of it.

[TechMan]

It is.

The only situation i can see where he wouldn't have been guilty of a crime would be if he had no knowledge of it.

What is the protocol of having a secure laptop at your home?

[Tallpine]

What is the protocol of having a secure laptop at your home?

I don't think that word means what you think it means 

[Ben]

What is the protocol of having a secure laptop at your home?

That would depend on what the definition of "secure" is in this case, which may only be a media definition. Generally, and especially in agencies like the NSA (I assume), even an "unsecure" laptop would require a physical token, like a CAC, for access, so he would have had to give his son the token, plus the token passphrase, as well as the laptop for access. Everything the son did would then have been recorded under the dad's account.

[Tallpine]

That would depend on what the definition of "secure" is in this case, which may only be a media definition. Generally, and especially in agencies like the NSA (I assume), even an "unsecure" laptop would require a physical token, like a CAC, for access, so he would have had to give his son the token, plus the token passphrase, as well as the laptop for access. Everything the son did would then have been recorded under the dad's account.

Yeah, my company laptop requires encryption and windows user password, plus there is no internet connection until you get onto the VPN (with RSA).

[Ned Hamford]

Color me skeptical of any federal child pornography charges.  Much like assault weapon charges, their 'definitions' are pretty far from the laypersons.  I've got it tucked away somewhere; a gov position paper on charging assault weapon possession for a shoelace.  For child porn, gov. definition includes cartoons/drawings, the written word, and adults mimicking/acting underage.  And also the libertarian stance, 10 years for no actual harm.  Even if sought out, the base harm was wholly unrelated to him.  Unless he paid for access or otherwise abetted it in someway, the punishment for the crime is way out proportion.  Aggravation for the icky is both a slippery slope and a bane for punishment consistency.  Favorite current example in NY, it is a felony to obstruct an airway; so while the sleeper hold is a lawful restraint and compliance method for the police, its more lawful for you or I to beat someone unconscious.  Intention of that law was against a particular form of spousal abuse, but that certainly isn't how its been enforced.

[Balog]

And also the libertarian stance, 10 years for no actual harm.  

1. AFAIK it is not in fact the libertarian stance that child porn is a victimless crime.
2. If it was, that just means the libertarians are wrong.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Color me skeptical of any federal child pornography charges.  Much like assault weapon charges, their 'definitions' are pretty far from the laypersons.  I've got it tucked away somewhere; a gov position paper on charging assault weapon possession for a shoelace.  For child porn, gov. definition includes cartoons/drawings, the written word, and adults mimicking/acting underage.  And also the libertarian stance, 10 years for no actual harm.  Even if sought out, the base harm was wholly unrelated to him.  Unless he paid for access or otherwise abetted it in someway, the punishment for the crime is way out proportion.  Aggravation for the icky is both a slippery slope and a bane for punishment consistency.  Favorite current example in NY, it is a felony to obstruct an airway; so while the sleeper hold is a lawful restraint and compliance method for the police, its more lawful for you or I to beat someone unconscious.  Intention of that law was against a particular form of spousal abuse, but that certainly isn't how its been enforced.

Could you share, in a general way, your experience with child porn cases at the federal level? And particularly violent child porn cases.

Knew one of those guys once. Was "interesting"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[HankB]

. . . Favorite current example in NY, it is a felony to obstruct an airway; so while the sleeper hold is a lawful restraint and compliance method for the police, its more lawful for you or I to beat someone unconscious.  Intention of that law was against a particular form of spousal abuse, but that certainly isn't how its been enforced.

The most commonly used versions of "sleeper" holds restrict blood flow througth the neck, not airflow through the airways.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Could you share Ned , again based on experience, where a sleeper hold or choke hold is still allowable by the cops? They banned em here


http://www.plg-pllc.com/illegal-chokehold-practice-area-page/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Fitz]

That would depend on what the definition of "secure" is in this case, which may only be a media definition. Generally, and especially in agencies like the NSA (I assume), even an "unsecure" laptop would require a physical token, like a CAC, for access, so he would have had to give his son the token, plus the token passphrase, as well as the laptop for access. Everything the son did would then have been recorded under the dad's account.

This

If it's a classified laptop, it shouldn't leave a secret or above facility. If it does, there are controls that must be in place, courier orders, etc.

If it's an "unclassified" machine, it's just a work computer. However there are still controls in place. For us it's token authentication, full disk encryption with a strong passcode, etc

[lee n. field]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Child-porn-on-NSA-computer-nets-five-years-in-4895141.php

Ummmm - what's with letting your kid "borrow" your secure NSA laptop in the first place?  And daddy did not notice "a program used to remove activity or material" before turning in the laptop?

stay safe.

The sentence is ambiguous, as to whether it was NSA-guy or his kid that ran the scourer.

And I'm surprised NSA didn't have it locked down every which way.  Encrypted hard disk,  fingerprint scan required for login, whatever the heck else is out there.

[Ben]

The sentence is ambiguous, as to whether it was NSA-guy or his kid that ran the scourer.

And I'm surprised NSA didn't have it locked down every which way.  Encrypted hard disk,  fingerprint scan required for login, whatever the heck else is out there.

As Fitz pointed out, it should have had full disk encryption - I don't know of any gov laptops that are not required to have that anymore. This is really sounding like it was just a standard assigned unclassified work laptop. Neverthless, there are still multiple login requirements, and the kid had to be pretty stupid to see all the login steps required and then think, "Hmm, I think I'll download me some porn!" The fact that he was able to install software is a big fail on the part of the NSA. Standard user accounts (the dad's) should not have the ability to install software not on the agency's "advertised programs" list.

The dad's stupidity goes without saying, though I can guarantee he's not the first gov employee to break protocol like this. I mean, come on - we're the ones who have had people use their govt purchase cards for stuff like boob jobs for their girlfriends (true and documented) and somehow think they wouldn't get caught.

[Ned Hamford]

In NY obstruction of breathing and/or blood flow is a crime.  I challenge anyone to grapple without incidentally doing either.  I've not sat down in a police training session (I haven't been invited for some reason), but from dealing with clients and watching arrest videos, this is something that is happening.  Out in the world of enforcement, there has been wild over-reach.  I've had 4 such cases myself in the last two years, the public defender has had several dozen.  All of mine were dismissed and I know almost all of the public defenders were likewise, or were reduced.  You know a law is bad when despite being a by the elements slam dunk, the judge and prosecutor continually throw them out. 

As for the libertarian notion; 'child porn' as generally defined by law includes cartoons.  Folks have been in federal lockup for child porn where the offending material has been fictional writing, naked cartoons of the Simpsons in sexual situations, and other no actual children involved offenses.  Creepy, but not actually hurting anyone. 

Unless the charges actually state or make mention of flesh and blood human beings, my presumption is creepy Japanese imports and nutter butter prosecutors. Nutter Butter Prosecutors being a term of art 

As for the distinction between viewing and creation/dissemination/encouragement; I do find it offensive to lock someone away for 10 years because they saw something.  Show me active participation or support/dissemination.  The idea you can be locked away for less time for actually raping someone than you can for having clicked on video link from a skeezy website seems absurd and offensive to me.  If anyone feels otherwise, please do explain as I don't understand the worldview from any generally accepted system of ethics.

And no, I am not doing your research for you.  There are plenty of books out there on federal over-criminalization and abusive prosecution.  CATO and other gov watchdogs even has presentations on the topic.  I think it was at a federalist society event where I heard about the Simpsons Case and other 'child porn' disasters from directly involved attorneys.  Tales of Gov. abuse and intimidation.  I was interning with the Dept. of Justice at the time and had trouble imagining any office with so much free time or with such a perverse sense of priorities.  But hey, it makes for great news items; especially when the general public has no idea what 'child porn' means in the legal sense. 

I will continue offering up my rants and general opinions.  If I had the free time to make scholarly articles, I'd have a blog.
 
Go read your article again cass; it actually talks about the choke hold still being in use; just discouraged and banned outright as an instruction. 

And no, I do not support child pornography.  But I will defend people's rights to make and view haikus, short stories, and offensive cartoons ect; even if the gov. decides to slap some extreme labels on them. 

[Balog]

Ned: that's a whole lot of unrelated nonsense spewed out to obfuscate a very simple point. Setting aside "home videos" not intended for wider consumption, child porn is made because folks will buy it. So the people who supply the demand are culpable for the production, as they are the reason it exists.

I'm totally with you about prosecutorial over reach etc, I post about that all the time. But "child porn is victimless, well ok not really but the people who are the sole reason it is being created aren't responsible for it in any way!" is ridiculous.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Balog, I think at least some of Ned's point is that what is legally define as "child porn" does not seem to actually involve children.

Creepy as hell, maybe, but if it's a cartoon drawing or just a fictional discription?
Do they prosecute those who write fictional rape fantasy porn that involves adult woman? I don't think they do (honestly, do they, Ned?) By that standard, how can we do the same to those who write fictional accounts of child abuse and rape?
As disgusting as it all is, can we really make it illigal without infringing on someones rights?

Too be honest, this whole thing kind of conserns me. I have books that include characters that are child prostitutes with fairly graphic discriptions of what they go through. The books are intended to strike up awareness of a horrible situation and depict other characters efforts to rescue the children from their situation. I would be deeply saddened to have such books considered illigal.

There is a very fine line between what is creepy and what is written in order to make people aware of some of the bad that is out there and hopefully inspireing those people to do something positive to stop it.

I'm not sure if I want the government writting laws that cannot distingush between the two, and I will tolerate creepy but completly fictional in order to retain the stuff that might force someone to open their eyes and make an effort to better our society.

[Ned Hamford]

Ned: that's a whole lot of unrelated nonsense spewed out to obfuscate a very simple point. Setting aside "home videos" not intended for wider consumption, child porn is made because folks will buy it. So the people who supply the demand are culpable for the production, as they are the reason it exists.

I'm totally with you about prosecutorial over reach etc, I post about that all the time. But "child porn is victimless, well ok not really but the people who are the sole reason it is being created aren't responsible for it in any way!" is ridiculous.

What blue said about definitions and gov over reach.

As for passive consumers... that being someone that paid no money, didn't pass it along ect.; what would you set the penalty at? If you say higher than if you kidnap someone and rape them; you may be eligible for a fed job. Felony level? Would you remove someone's voting rights for getting drunk and following some foreign hosted girls girls girls site? There are folks that go on underage girl/boy rape vacations.
I'm for fiction being legal.... if for no other reason than it makes the usual suspects more obvious. For the legal and moral wrong; I want the progression of penalties to make sense. Campaign fraud conviction akin to a traffic infraction? GPS on audio resting on a car seat worse than a DWI?  Ramble ramble phone typing is cramping my finger.   

[Balog]

You're conflating the issue. Some stuff that isn't child porn can get you prosecuted; so what? Doesn't affect actual child porn. Some crimes that are as serious if not more than child porn have lighter sentences; so what? Reacting to a "This is bad" statement by pointing out all the stuff that isn't being discussed that's broken in the legal system is just throwing out red herrings.

[Jamisjockey]

1. AFAIK it is not in fact the libertarian stance that child porn is a victimless crime.
2. If it was, that just means the libertarians are wrong.

It's the difference between actual kiddie porn and simulated or drawn. 
If it didn't actually happen....how could that be a crime?

Some believe that the possession of the actual material should be separate from the making of the material....a view I don't completely share.....

[Balog]

Saying "I assume anyone arrested for child porn is probably just an innocent buttercup with lollycon hentai" is naive bordering on the ludicrous. If you get off on little kids it's highly unlikely you'll be satisfied with the ersatz versions for long.

There's always the possibility of over reach of course, but I put laws barring fictional child porn on the same plain as laws barring beastiality. Yeah, it may not perfectly conform to some forms of libertarian thought, but I'm more or less ok with it. Is it a potential slippery slope? Sure. All laws are. Guess I'll need to turn in the old wookie suit now.

[Ned Hamford]

Saying "I assume anyone arrested for child porn is probably just an innocent buttercup with lollycon hentai" is naive bordering on the ludicrous.

Naw. Hear about it happening more than a dozen times the absence of details becomes conspicuous.

[Jamisjockey]

Saying "I assume anyone arrested for child porn is probably just an innocent buttercup with lollycon hentai" is naive bordering on the ludicrous. If you get off on little kids it's highly unlikely you'll be satisfied with the ersatz versions for long.

There's always the possibility of over reach of course, but I put laws barring fictional child porn on the same plain as laws barring beastiality. Yeah, it may not perfectly conform to some forms of libertarian thought, but I'm more or less ok with it. Is it a potential slippery slope? Sure. All laws are. Guess I'll need to turn in the old wookie suit now.

I made no assumptions of what he was charged with.  Others have inferred that the federal kiddie porn charges tend to be less than realistic.
When the possession of a drawing of any act becomes illegal....we should really examine what we define freedom to be.

[lupinus]

Saying "I assume anyone arrested for child porn is probably just an innocent buttercup with lollycon hentai" is naive bordering on the ludicrous. If you get off on little kids it's highly unlikely you'll be satisfied with the ersatz versions for long.

So.

Because some dude like watching cartoons of little girls, which harms no one. We should lock him up...because he might, in the future, purely in your opinion, decide he wants the real thing?