Topic: Guys, is this a good idea or a stupid idea?
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk started this discussion 15 years ago#15,586
So most of you know my unfortunate background of being convicted for CP a few years ago.
Anyway, since then I've had a lot of trouble getting a job because... well... the eww factor I guess.
I'm considering posting a message on a popular message board in my area offering a $5,000 reward to anyone that helped me to get a full time permanent job. I'd have to make it a condition that the money would be paid after I'd been in the job for 3 months. I also think I'd have to describe my conviction in that initial post, which would be quite daunting in a non-anonymous setting.
I think it's a pretty unique concept, and it could gather a bit of interest, maybe even some media interest. Might raise some awareness for the plight of people with criminal convictions.
LatestGirl !!nEftABMoF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#271,988
I think it's a good idea, if a bit easy to game... all it would take is one unscrupulous employer and his friend.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#271,990
Do you think media interest would be a good thing? What if it makes things worse? I can't see this working out well.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#271,991
Your money would be better spent on getting a new identity. Just my two cents...
Handel !khEOdtKF56 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^][v]#271,992
> raise some awareness for the plight of people with criminal convictions.
OH LOL.
Do you really think that? With a CP conviction?
LatestGirl !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^][v]#271,995
@previous (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
Not everyone is blindly unsympathetic and reactionary to relatively minor things like that.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#271,998
Are you sure that you want to broadcast that sort of thing? The public isn't too sypsthetic to that sort of thing.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#272,000
@271,992 (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
I do. I see no reason why somebody like myself shouldn't have a job, especially if the alternative is to rely on government benefits. "First you punish them, then you have to pay them money every week" is kinda weird.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#272,007
@271,990 (C)
Yeah, I think most legitimate businesses would not want the publicity of something like this. They may hire someone in that position, but can you imagine if there was media awareness about it, letters from customers, etc.?
Are there any services there that work with convicted people to help them find jobs where you're at? I know there are some things like that here. Also, a lot of temp services (here at least) are very lax about doing background checks prior to sending people out on assignments, and it's generally easier to get a job once you have some recent references (obviously you should disclose though).
(Edited 1 minute later.)
misterbones !LcHrgT2NWY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#272,010
I'm not sure about where you live, but I live in a very working class area, and such anyone even suspected of peadophilia is tormented and bullied beyond belief. You could live in a place opposite from this, but from what I understand this would be the general reaction to a peadophile. Sure, here at Minichan some of us are sympathetic, caring etc, and I'm sure there are people in the world like that, but over all this sounds like a bad idea man. I'd worry for your safety if you publicly broadcast that you were convicted with CP...
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#272,011
@272,007 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
That's true... I hadn't thought about how bad it might look for a company that accepted the offer. But it might also make them look... compassionate, no?
I have found that recruitment agencies are actually more anal about doing all the checks etc, because it puts the reputation of their business on the line. I guess I'd have better luck approaching employers themselves.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#272,033
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Compassionate maybe if it were something like a minor drug offense.
I think it's a situation where you really need to rely on personal networks more than applying randomly. Probably pretty pointless to apply if you don't have or can't make a connection with the hiring manager. Does everyone you know, family, old colleagues know that you're looking and will accept any kind of work?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#272,036
@272,011 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
It won't make them look compassionate because people do not sympathise with child pornography. A disabled person being hired looks compassionate, not a convicted criminal.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#272,037
How did you get caught?
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#272,038
@272,033 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Not really, no :(
@272,036 (J)
Yeah, I have more compassion for criminals than most, it seems. :(
@previous (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
Getting my computer fixed.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#272,039
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Shouldn't you have been more careful if you would have had something clearly illegal on your PC?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#272,042
@272,038 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Why couldn't you fix it yourself? Did you have it saved on your desktop or something?
I bet you use truecrypt now!
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#272,043
Did you have to do time?
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,046
@272,039 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
I was too depressed to care by that stage. My thinking was "I don't care if I do get caught - life can't get much worse". Wasn't very clever thinking...
@272,042 (L)
It was a problem with the PSU. They actually had no reason to turn on the computer beyond seeing if it worked but they went through my files, and found CP in a zip file.
> It was a problem with the PSU. They actually had no reason to turn on the computer beyond seeing if it worked but they went through my files, and found CP in a zip file.
unethical. i would say sue them but the courts probably wouldnt care due to the child porn lol
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,049
@272,046 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
You should have invested in a better lawyer. That could have been thrown out because they did not obtain that piece of evidence legally. And if you had an even better lawyer, you could have even sued them and gotten money out of it.
I would have taken my drive out before handing off my computer even though I don't have anything illegal and I encrypt my entire drive using truecrypt.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,051
@272,047 (G)
I considered lodging a complaint with the privacy commissioner but I hadn't been sentenced yet and that wouldn't have looked good. It was a time for me to be humble and admit I fucked up.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,054
@272,049 (L)
Oh, man... I wonder if that's true. I did ask my lawyer at the time but he said it was irrelevant.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,058
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
In the US, at least, people have literally gotten away with murder (after having found bodies in one's apartment) because the evidence wasn't collected legally. Not sure about whichever country you're in. Water under the bridge now, though.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 59 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,086
@previous (L)
It is irrelevant -- what you're talking about only applies to law enforcement officials. As long as proper evidentiary procedure was followed by the cops when they collected the evidence, the fact that they were tipped off by someone not 100% following proper protocol doesn't matter. (Permission was probably given by OP anyway, when he turned over the computer to them, provided passwords and signed a service agreement, etc.).
I think you'd have a problem if the repair people were either regularly working with the cops or actively committing a crime, but the scenario described is not problematic in the US as far as my understanding of rules of evidence goes.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,087
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
The exclusionary rule is well defined in these cases. By turning over the evidence to the police, the repair company was acting as an agent of the law. It does not matter if the company had a past history of working with law enforcement or not.
> (Permission was probably given by OP anyway, when he turned over the computer to them, provided passwords and signed a service agreement, etc.).
Quite possible and would change the situation entirely.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,090
@previous (L)
You're right, it is well-defined. It's specifically excluded from the scope of the rule. From the wikipedia article you cited:
> Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following: > Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.[17]
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,094
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Now look up what the fourth amendment says. Thanks.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,096
@previous (L)
The Constitution matters a whole lot less than the legal precedent, lolol.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#272,097
@previous (M)
There's legal precedent for both sides, actually. That's why having a good lawyer matters so much ;)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#272,440
nvm
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#272,441
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#272,442
@272,440 (N)
herp derp, that's why I said > Not sure about whichever country you're in.
Most common law countries have similar laws and precedents regarding the validity of evidence.