Best Buy's Geek Squad - Getting More (Or Less) Than You Bargained For

[toobfreak]

This judge sounds slimey.

Want to know what is slimy here? That a federal agency supposed to be the highest level of law enforcement constantly tries to skate around the law it was sworn to uphold just to get people arrested just to artificially drive up their stats to make themselves look better just because they believe some sector of society deserves it. Equal protection under the law. That means, whether you protest to save a church or protest to impeach the president. Even a person who looks at creepy pictures of kids, if that is within the law, he has the same rights as anyone else. He is legal and within his rights. The FBI was not. And Best Buy was not.

This story arose not because some unknown doctor somewhere got busted for porn, it arose because Best Buy and the FBI crossed the legal line.

 

[Ravi]

It's just that simple.

If things were just as simple as you claim, then an innocent man's life would not have been ruined (what porn he did have on his computer had been delete and was deemed legal in any regard), several people would not have lost their jobs, the case would not have been thrown out and the FBI wouldn't currently be under lawsuit for breaking the law.

He wasn't found innocent. The child porn in his possession was ruled inadmissible because a proper warrant wasn't obtained.

TRY READING AGAIN STUPID: In 2017, a judge ruled that the images found in Rettenmaier's computer could not be considered child porn and the invasive search was illegal. All charges were dropped. That means you are innocent.

No it doesn't. It means he got away with it.

 

[martybegan]

Best Buy's Geek Squad searched customer computers for the FBI, report claims

Photos found in Newport doctor’s home can’t be used during child porn trial, judge says

Oh and get this:

"However, the Jenny image, although distasteful and disturbing, was not child pornography," Carney said, according to transcripts of last week's hearing. "It was child erotica, the possession and viewing of which is not unlawful."

The issue centers on the description of what officials call "the Jenny image" that allegedly was found in unallocated space on Rettenmaier's computer after he took it to Best Buy for repairs. The image is of a nude pre-pubescent girl on her hands and knees on a bed wearing a choker collar around her neck. In an affidavit, FBI agent Cynthia Kayle described it as child pornography.

In May, a federal judge threw out almost all the evidence (which prosecutors said included hundreds of images of child pornography) because of "false and misleading statements" an FBI agent made in an affidavit to get a search warrant for Rettenmaier's house. The government ended up dropping the charges against him.

So you really want to defend this guy as innocent?

The first article is the same one I already presented! Nothing new there.

The second one shows the guy had porn, LEGAL porn, and it was acquired by the FBI for prosecution illegally. I'm not defending the guy, Geeze, I've said that like TWENTY-FIVE TIMES NOW, Moron! I couldn't give a shit about the stupid doctor, All I'm saying is that the legal guidelines are even looser than I imagined (by your second article) and what the guy had wasn't illegal. Maybe distasteful, but so is B&D, bestiality, and a dozen other things. What I'm pointing out is the illegality of the methods used to build a case against the guy. NONE of the stuff he had was of his own doing I presume? ALL of it was taken off the web from sites freely transmitting it that could be easily stopped, making such matters moot. LOOKING at the stuff on line or saved on your computer does NOTHING to promote or feed the industry or harm further children. It is the MAKING of the stuff. Why do you hide from that fact?

I don't know why some guys get off on looking at kids anymore than I pretend to know why some guys like other guys, or hamburgers, or anchovies on pizza. One thing certain in this life is that we do not choose nor do we control what tastes good to us, looks good to us or gets us aroused. That is for a psychologist to decide. It is when that line crosses into harming little kids that a line must be drawn. If the internet did not freely, widely and massively transmit such stuff everywhere, we wouldn't have the problem we do.

If YOU can block it all by simply selecting a filter, then you KNOW people like Google can definitely do it and shut down the porn industry, but neither the DOJ or Congress wants to do that, do they?

Busting that doctor (or trying to) accomplished NOTHING towards solving the kiddy porn issue.

The article says nothing of the sort. They found other underage pornography, but it was tossed because of the 4th amendment violation on the warrant application for the HOUSE search.

You are now the one who keeps changing the subject for some reason.

 

[martybegan]

It's just that simple.

If things were just as simple as you claim, then an innocent man's life would not have been ruined (what porn he did have on his computer had been delete and was deemed legal in any regard), several people would not have lost their jobs, the case would not have been thrown out and the FBI wouldn't currently be under lawsuit for breaking the law.

He wasn't found innocent. The child porn in his possession was ruled inadmissible because a proper warrant wasn't obtained.

TRY READING AGAIN STUPID: In 2017, a judge ruled that the images found in Rettenmaier's computer could not be considered child porn and the invasive search was illegal. All charges were dropped. That means you are innocent.

The judge didn't consider the ONE picture found on the Best Buy computer to be "porn", although I can't see how the hell he wouldn't consider a pre-pubescent girl naked with a collar on not to be porn. And erotica and porn are the same damn thing, but maybe not according to the law.

 

[toobfreak]

It's just that simple.

If things were just as simple as you claim, then an innocent man's life would not have been ruined (what porn he did have on his computer had been delete and was deemed legal in any regard), several people would not have lost their jobs, the case would not have been thrown out and the FBI wouldn't currently be under lawsuit for breaking the law.

He wasn't found innocent. The child porn in his possession was ruled inadmissible because a proper warrant wasn't obtained.

TRY READING AGAIN STUPID: In 2017, a judge ruled that the images found in Rettenmaier's computer could not be considered child porn and the invasive search was illegal. All charges were dropped. That means you are innocent.

No it doesn't. It means he got away with it.

Still means no evidence of a crime found, charges dropped, innocent of all accusations. Case closed. Get over it.

 

[toobfreak]

They found other underage pornography, but it was tossed because of the 4th amendment violation on the warrant application for the HOUSE search.

You are now the one who keeps changing the subject for some reason.

I changed nothing. YOU are the one who claimed you give up your 4th amendment protections because you used Best Buy, now you admit the 4th was violated! "Underage photography" apparently isn't illegal nor is it kiddy porn. Both you and the FBI ought to check the law first before trying to ruin people's lives, and Best Buy should stay out of the business of criminology and stick to selling washing machines.

 

[toobfreak]

The judge didn't consider the ONE picture found on the Best Buy computer to be "porn", although I can't see how the hell he wouldn't consider a pre-pubescent girl naked with a collar on not to be porn. And erotica and porn are the same damn thing, but maybe not according to the law.

No, but apparently the errant and over-zealous and out of control FBI did who charged him, and apparently you are right, I would have considered any picture of a girl under 18 to be "child porn," but then, what do I know. But the point here is that they were paying big money to Best Buy employees to jump on anything they found, to go LOOKING for it, some pimple-faced kid found something, the FBI ran with it, they were all wrong all the way, the doctor is a bit of a creep, but he was wronged, and if I were him, I'd sue Best Buy for 10 million dollars.

 

[Inmar]

They found other underage pornography, but it was tossed because of the 4th amendment violation on the warrant application for the HOUSE search.

You are now the one who keeps changing the subject for some reason.

I changed nothing. YOU are the one who claimed you give up your 4th amendment protections because you used Best Buy, now you admit the 4th was violated! "Underage photography" apparently isn't illegal nor is it kiddy porn. Both you and the FBI ought to check the law first before trying to ruin people's lives, and Best Buy should stay out of the business of criminology and stick to selling washing machines.

On this forum there is another cowardly puppy, such same as you... He, too, offers he meets, but then pissing... But you're an even more cowardly and filthy creature. The Ukrainian immigrant, who lives in Russia and shits on Russia Even dare to complain about moderation, you little shit..

 

[martybegan]

They found other underage pornography, but it was tossed because of the 4th amendment violation on the warrant application for the HOUSE search.

You are now the one who keeps changing the subject for some reason.

I changed nothing. YOU are the one who claimed you give up your 4th amendment protections because you used Best Buy, now you admit the 4th was violated! "Underage photography" apparently isn't illegal nor is it kiddy porn. Both you and the FBI ought to check the law first before trying to ruin people's lives, and Best Buy should stay out of the business of criminology and stick to selling washing machines.

The 4th amendment was violated on the 2nd search, because the information on how the 1st picture was gotten was not included.

Again, they handed the item over to a 3rd party, that negates 4th amendment protections in most cases.

A underage girl with a dog collar on? really?

 

[martybegan]

The judge didn't consider the ONE picture found on the Best Buy computer to be "porn", although I can't see how the hell he wouldn't consider a pre-pubescent girl naked with a collar on not to be porn. And erotica and porn are the same damn thing, but maybe not according to the law.

No, but apparently the errant and over-zealous and out of control FBI did who charged him, and apparently you are right, I would have considered any picture of a girl under 18 to be "child porn," but then, what do I know. But the point here is that they were paying big money to Best Buy employees to jump on anything they found, to go LOOKING for it, some pimple-faced kid found something, the FBI ran with it, they were all wrong all the way, the doctor is a bit of a creep, but he was wronged, and if I were him, I'd sue Best Buy for 10 million dollars.

Big money?

Maybe in that case the employee becomes a government actor, but it still doesn't mean you keep 4th amendment protections when you willingly hand something over to a 3rd party that has criminal items on it.

 

[toobfreak]

The 4th amendment was violated on the 2nd search, because the information on how the 1st picture was gotten was not included. Again, they handed the item over to a 3rd party, that negates 4th amendment protections in most cases.

So there had to be something very wrong with how the FBI and Best Buy went about digging that first picture out of his computer for it to be the cause of aborting the warrant for the 2nd search. So apparently you DON'T give up your 4th amendment rights just because you hire someone to fix your computer!

 

[martybegan]

The 4th amendment was violated on the 2nd search, because the information on how the 1st picture was gotten was not included. Again, they handed the item over to a 3rd party, that negates 4th amendment protections in most cases.

So there had to be something very wrong with how the FBI and Best Buy went about digging that first picture out of his computer for it to be the cause of aborting the warrant for the 2nd search. So apparently you DON'T give up your 4th amendment rights just because you hire someone to fix your computer!

Usually you do, unless they can show the FBI was directing the workers. However omitting information from a warrant can render the warrant moot even if the information was taken in good faith.

And on one of your other posts, you said he should sue Best Buy and others.

I highly doubt that, because in a civil action those criminally suppressed photographs found on his other devices could be used against him. He would make part of his case that he did nothing wrong, allowing the defendants to bring those into evidence.

He couldn't be criminally prosecuted due to double jeopardy (depending on where the case was when the evidence was suppressed) but unless he is a complete nutjob he's going to let this drop.

 

[toobfreak]

Maybe in that case the employee becomes a government actor, but it still doesn't mean you keep 4th amendment protections when you willingly hand something over to a 3rd party that has criminal items on it.

But the EFF thinks is DOES, especially when you do not consent to the illegal search and no criminal items were found. Best Buy is not a branch of law enforcement, they had no authority to do a search and recovery for deleted files in the seeking to fix a computer's problems, and they had no justifiable cause in doing that other than on pay and orders by the FBI, because it wasn't until AFTER they recovered those destroyed files that they had any basis to think the guy was holding smut. Why do you keep trying to claim that picture to be "criminal" when it wasn't? And how many other thousands of computers did Best Buy criminally search trying to recover dirty smut that they didn't even know was there or not for the FBI? I think this deserves a larger investigation!

 

[Ravi]

Maybe in that case the employee becomes a government actor, but it still doesn't mean you keep 4th amendment protections when you willingly hand something over to a 3rd party that has criminal items on it.

But the EFF thinks is DOES, especially when you do not consent to the illegal search and no criminal items were found. Best Buy is not a branch of law enforcement, they had no authority to do a search and recovery for deleted files in the seeking to fix a computer's problems, and they had no justifiable cause in doing that other than on pay and orders by the FBI, because it wasn't until AFTER they recovered those destroyed files that they had any basis to think the guy was holding smut. Why do you keep trying to claim that picture to be "criminal" when it wasn't? And how many other thousands of computers did Best Buy criminally search trying to recover dirty smut that they didn't even know was there or not for the FBI? I think this deserves a larger investigation!

Criminal items were found but ruled inadmissible because a judge decided a naked kid posing in a dog collar wasn't porn. You are an idiot or a defender of child porn or both.

 

[toobfreak]

Criminal items were found but ruled inadmissible because a judge decided a naked kid posing in a dog collar wasn't porn. You are an idiot or a defender of child porn or both.

Why do you ass-wipes need to lie to try to prove you're always right even when you aren't? NO criminal items were found. If there were, show me what they were? And again, that is NOT what the judge found, Moron, he ruled that the porn found wasn't ILLEGAL porn. If you can't even bother to read, if you're too dumb to comprehend, then don't bother to participate.

 

[martybegan]

Maybe in that case the employee becomes a government actor, but it still doesn't mean you keep 4th amendment protections when you willingly hand something over to a 3rd party that has criminal items on it.

But the EFF thinks is DOES, especially when you do not consent to the illegal search and no criminal items were found. Best Buy is not a branch of law enforcement, they had no authority to do a search and recovery for deleted files in the seeking to fix a computer's problems, and they had no justifiable cause in doing that other than on pay and orders by the FBI, because it wasn't until AFTER they recovered those destroyed files that they had any basis to think the guy was holding smut. Why do you keep trying to claim that picture to be "criminal" when it wasn't? And how many other thousands of computers did Best Buy criminally search trying to recover dirty smut that they didn't even know was there or not for the FBI? I think this deserves a larger investigation!

it wasn't criminal according to one judge. Sorry, but some pre-teen in a dog collar naked waves some serious flags.

If Best Buy is NOT a branch of the government, then the argument that they can do what the fuck they want when you VOLUNTARILY hand them your property becomes 100% in their favor. When you hand over property to someone else you take what you get.

Only when they acted as a government proxy did the issue come up at all, and the only thing the judge in the case did was throw out the actually taken evidence, you know, the actual kiddie porn.

 

[martybegan]

Criminal items were found but ruled inadmissible because a judge decided a naked kid posing in a dog collar wasn't porn. You are an idiot or a defender of child porn or both.

Why do you ass-wipes need to lie to try to prove you're always right even when you aren't? NO criminal items were found. If there were, show me what they were? And again, that is NOT what the judge found, Moron, he ruled that the porn found wasn't ILLEGAL porn. If you can't even bother to read, if you're too dumb to comprehend, then don't bother to participate.

So OJ isn't a murderer?

 

[toobfreak]

it wasn't criminal according to one judge.

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

 

[martybegan]

it wasn't criminal according to one judge.

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

 

[toobfreak]

it wasn't criminal according to one judge.

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.