What’s the first thing that pops into your head when you hear/read/see a news item about someone being caught with child pornography on their computer?
In all probability your immediate reaction is one of distaste and condemnation.
But is that fair? Perhaps you shouldn’t be quite so hasty.
The more you know about how vulnerable the average computer is, the more likely you are to wonder first of all who really put the offending material there. Especially if the “perpetrator” steadfastly maintains a claim of innocence to the bitter end.
Mostly when we hear about computers being compromised, the attack is designed to cause damage, steal information or harness the machine as a spambot.
But computer malware has other, much darker uses…
The same malicious software used to perform acts of theft and vandalism can be used — perhaps much more devastatingly — to frame someone for all manner of antisocial and even criminal activity.
I mean, if you really want to destroy someone’s life and reputation, what better way than to “arrange” for them to be accused of something really heinous like the possession of child pornography?
The simple fact is that, due to a myriad of factors, the average person cannot be held responsible for every file found stored on their computer. This is a reality that law enforcement agencies are going to have to consider safeguards for, if innocent people aren’t to be pilloried – something which has already happened too often.
For quite some time now it has concerned me the way suspects are almost immediately identified and exposed to public condemnation and humiliation for material found on their computer, which may be related to pornography, hate/racism, terrorism, child abuse, plans for a criminal enterprise, and so on. As far as the various media are concerned, the more socially unacceptable the better!
But surely we now know enough about computer vulnerabilities to warrant being very cautious when it comes to public naming and shaming before a thorough forensic examination has been conducted. And such examinations must be performed by qualified people capable of doing it properly.
The average law enforcement officers and prosecutors do not have the necessary skills, yet their on-the-spot decisions based on circumstantial evidence can ruin lives forever.
While I have no problem with the severest punishments for the likes of paedophilia, I do have a real problem with unqualified law enforcement agencies destroying someone’s reputation forever (there’s no recovering from some accusations) based purely on circumstantial evidence. And until thoroughly investigated the mere existence of files on a computer is nothing more than circumstantial.
I’ve long had it in the back of my mind to research this topic and perhaps produce an article or two, but I just discovered that the job has already been done quite admirably by technology journalist Jordan Robertson for Associated Press.
As if you don’t already have enough reasons to be concerned about your computer and online security, click the link below for even more worries. It’s a revealing story illustrating just how easily good people can be crucified and ruined because of inadequate investigation.
Framed for child porn _ by a PC virus
Opens in a new window
I hope that story has opened your eyes to yet another reason for paying proper attention to your computer and online security?
Please help spread this warning by sharing it
on your favorite social media network
(see buttons below)
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Are there any telltale signs that unwanted material has been downloaded onto one’s computer?
If one’s antivirus program has always been kept up to date, can one safely assume that the computer if clean?
Where would one look for such material?
Not really Fabian. Other than the nature of the content, unwanted material doesn’t look any different to your legitimate stuff. Files/folders will almost certainly be given an innocuous name and may even be hidden, because the perpetrator will be well aware that a competent forensic investigation will reveal it anyway.
If the offending material is in the form of a video file (ostensibly the most damning of evidence) there won’t even be any keywords to search on.
The key is to have effective, broad and deep security in place to prevent access in the first place. Considering just how wide open the average Windows PC is, I think this is a vindictive tactic we can expect to see more of in the future.
Up-to-date anti-virus software is important, but isn’t sufficient defense by itself. Unwanted material can be lodged on your computer by means other than utilizing a virus. Firewalls, both hardware and software, are mandatory for really effective protection.
which antivirus and firewall programs do you currently recommend.
While you might reasonably think that it would be a simple matter of naming some products, it’s not that simple at all. However I can’t turn this response into an article in itself, so I will do just that and omit the conditions and explanations.
For the average person on the average PC you can’t go far wrong with AVG Anti-Virus. With the release of AVG v.8 I no longer view the free version as offering suitable protection. There is a comparison table on the Grisoft website that clearly illustrates there is now too much missing from the free version to make it a viable option. Rootkit detection alone makes the retail version worth every bit of the small cost. There is a Trial version you can run for 30 days before paying for it. I also recommend you invest only in the plain AVG Anti-Virus product, not the extended AVG Internet Security or AVG Anti-Virus with Firewall. Grisoft made their name with a quality anti-virus product. Other developers do a better job of firewall, anti-spyware, etc.
I have an equally high regard for Eset’s NOD32 Anti-Virus. To be honest, if I was starting from scratch and I had to choose between NOD32 and AVG, it would come down to the toss of a coin. I stick with AVG because I’ve had a long relationship with it and see no reason to change. If for some reason or other you don’t wish to use AVG, try NOD32.
On software firewalls, both COMODO and Online Armor are quality products. I used COMODO in the past but have switched to Online Armor. Technically and effectively it’s every bit as good as Comodo, but is a simpler install and seems to be less intrusive once it’s up and running.
The much neglected “hardware firewall” in the form of a suitable NAT router is probably one of the most effective safeguards you can employ for a home or very small business computing environment. In my opinion it should be the very first protective mechanism installed BEFORE you ever venture onto the Internet. It’s too big a subject to get into here, but has been addressed in depth in a Module in the new member’s website.
Finally, please, no “what about…” or “you forgot to mention…” responses. That could go on forever.
Scary stuff, there. I hope I don’t have any tech savvy enemies I don’t know about!
The article is a good read… your link to it needs updating though. I get “The article requested is no longer available” when I click it.
Thanks for advising me about the broken link, April.
If Google are going to change their references to news articles I’ll have to avoid using them.
I have amended the link in the article above to point directly to the AAP article as it was published in an Australian newspaper, but you can find it in other publications all around the world.