Judge get's owned by Hacker bahahaha:)-

Hacker puts judge in prison

You're nicked m'lud. Fiends are getting better


By Nick Farrell: Friday 23 February 2007, 08:05

A HACKER'S investigation of Superior Court Judge Ronald C. Kline's computer has finally resulted him being sentenced to 27 months in federal prison for possession of child pornography.
Klince offered "a lifetime of apologies" and then fainted as he was sent down.

During the six years of court battles, Kline lost his job as a judge and was ordered to wear a tracking anklet and placed on home< confinement while his case was decided in court.

Kline will be registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life and will not be allowed to possess any computer equipment and that he not access the Internet during his three years of probation.

The case was all started when a Canadian hacker Brad Willman broke into the judge's Irvine home computer and discovered sexually explicit images of young boys and a diary that revealed Kline's fantasies involving young boys. A subsequent police search of the Judge's court computer revealed more images and more dodgy Web sites.

More at the Orange County Register. µ

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1585206.php

Can you say pwned! lol...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder if he was really guilty or if the hacker planted the files. if he can get enough control to find that stuff, I wonder if he had enough control to download that stuff.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looking at pictures is illegal. Your face will be displayed nationally. Where is the crime? Sure it's wrong to look at children that way and had he committed ANY offense he deserves prison and more, but so far he hasn't appeared to have committed any crime, other than having pictures. Next: Thoughts will be policed, those violating the Lawful Thought Act of 2041 will be imprisoned for life without trial.
I'm anxious to see all the SF "Libertarians" defend this gestapo reaction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Child pornography is illegal for a simple reason. It is not about thought crime, bur rather about child abuse.

You are thinking only of the person looking at the pictures, but there is, on the other end, a child. And someone photographing that child. Possessing pictures of said child in a pornographic manner encourages such behavior.

It's like banning ivory. To discourage poaching.

 

I see your point. The ivory parallel is a good one. But even virtual porn is illegal, drawings too. It is a despicable thing, to think of young children sexually, but if the person views this stuff and never commits a crime related to it is it a crime? Out of all the thousands that look at child porn how many actually go out and rape one? The same amount of horror movie fans that go out and re-enact the grisly scenes in the movie?

 

Is it so hard to believe that so-called officials of the law make exceptions of themselves and their reponsibilities?

 

You'd like to think so.

Of course that theory goes out the window when you realize that most states (and the fed, I think) have laws against even digitally generated images that purport to show minors in sexually explicit conduct. No actual humans required.

Thought police anyone?

 

Exactly.

 

Yeah lets write out S&M sexual fantasies about 5 year old girls and boys and read them as bedtime stories to our children. Sex is not wrong, thats religious BS, obviously the idea that incest is wrong was invented by priests to prevent closeness within families. Clearly animals have no problem having sex with siblings so why can't we? Nudity is nothing to be ashamed of either. Capitalism means free enterprise. If someone wants to take photos of your children, nieces and nephews and put them online for sexual enjoyment by people will different ideas about sex, its wrong of you to object or try to hamper them. Why, you might even take the pictures yourself. After all, theres nothing wrong with looking at pictures so how can there possibly be anything wrong with taking them? Someone has to fill in the vacuum in the market.

Lets get liberated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lawful Thoughts Act of 2041: Any citizen that thinks impure, illegal, terrorist thoughts or views unapproved material will be seized & imprisoned for life. To save costs no trials or defense will be provided these filthy fiends. Money will be used to expand our new Report Suspicious Activities campaign.

 

Yeah, lets cut out the BS. Got any hot nudies of your nieces or sister?

 

Yeah baby yeah! I always knew we were connected in some way sam. You are my kind of gal. Wanna cyber? I'll be the little girl and you can be my "daddy". 'k?

 

Sorry men in pigtails do nothing for me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not for you, you nasty little minx. But I do have some pictures of their feet. Yeah!

 

You disappoint me sam. Have a good weekend nonetheless.

 

Of course we all know where the "seized" materials would end up.

 

Child pornography is not a joke. Those children at the business end of a camera have a right not to be exploited.

Try going out and meeting a few of them.

 

Sam. No one is arguing this I think. However, genji's point seems to be that thinking about it and drawing pictures or writing stories should be as protected as any other form of private expression.

I tuned into TV last week and before I could even change the channel, there was the half-naked dead body of a young girl on some popular crime drama. They politely informed me that she had been raped because they found semen in her vagina and on her panties. Of course, the body was a hollywood mockup, and they were trying to catch the nasty criminal. Still, I nearly gagged.

What do you make of that in comparison to the outrage we generate over simple drawings and stories?

 

Frankly all this talk of private expression worries me.

If you found your neighbor had installed a telescopic camera and was taking pictures of your granddaughter when she romped around naked would this constitute private expression? If you found him jacking off to fantasy stories involving young children, would you invite him to their birthday parties?

Some things are just not right, private expression be damned.

 

Uh oh.

This is already illegal. It's called criminal invasion of privacy.

Nope. But this begs the question, how in hell would I ever find him in such a private moment? The things we do in private are private for a reason, right? So as not to be seen by others. What do you do in private sam? Care to share? No? I wonder why?

Well, sam, I'm sure that if we exposed your most intimate behaviors, we could drum up a few thousand righteous citizens that would be willing to help with the lynching.