Your new virus threat of the day: framing you for child porn possession

Viruses are known for doing some pretty nasty things – stealing personal information such as passwords and bank accounts, tracking everything you do (via spyware), and generally screwing up your system and giving you one major effing headache. However, one new type of virus promises to be the worst of all: the one that silently dumps child porn onto a victim’s computer. You can imagine the horror of the applications this can be used for, and the consequences they can bring.

Pedophiles can exploit virus-infected PCs to remotely store and view their stash without fear they'll get caught. Pranksters or someone trying to frame you can tap viruses to make it appear that you surf illegal Web sites.

Whatever the motivation, you get child porn on your computer – and might not realize it until police knock at your door.

An Associated Press investigation found cases in which innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus. It can cost victims hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence.

Their situations are complicated by the fact that actual pedophiles often blame viruses – a defense rightfully viewed with skepticism by law enforcement.

"It's an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse," says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework."

Here are some personal accounts of such victims and the hardness they were put through due to what amounts to no more (or less) than one hell of a sadistic prank:

One case involved Michael Fiola, a former investigator with the Massachusetts agency that oversees workers' compensation.

In 2007, Fiola's bosses became suspicious after the Internet bill for his state-issued laptop showed that he used 4 1/2 times more data than his colleagues. A technician found child porn in the PC folder that stores images viewed online.

Fiola was fired and charged with possession of child pornography, which carries up to five years in prison. He endured death threats, his car tires were slashed and he was shunned by friends.

Fiola and his wife fought the case, spending $250,000 on legal fees. They liquidated their savings, took a second mortgage and sold their car.

An inspection for his defense revealed the laptop was severely infected. It was programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute – an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half.

Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped – 11 months after it was filed.

The Fiolas say they have health problems from the stress of the case. They say they've talked to dozens of lawyers but can't get one to sue the state, because of a cap on the amount they can recover.

"It ruined my life, my wife's life and my family's life," he says.

[…]

In the first publicly known cases of individuals being victimized, two men in the United Kingdom were cleared in 2003 after viruses were shown to have been responsible for the child porn on their PCs.

In one case, an infected e-mail or pop-up ad poisoned a defense contractor's PC and downloaded the offensive pictures.

In the other, a virus changed the home page on a man's Web browser to display child porn, a discovery made by his 7-year-old daughter. The man spent more than a week in jail and three months in a halfway house, and lost custody of his daughter.

This is yet another reason for which mere possession of child pornography should not be a crime in itself. Production of child porn should very well be, of course, and anyone who does use children for such sick purposes ought to be hanged (or, better yet, thrown behind bars and forgotten there). But, criminalizing the mere possession of such material, even when it is unsavory as is child porn, leads to a whole shitload of legal and ethical problems in itself – the possibility of being falsely accused being just one of them. Frankly, let people get off on what they want, if it’s limited to images on a computer. Reasonable and pragmatic limits should be drawn.

(via The Agitator)