a public defender

A little while ago, I reported that CT is considering legislation that would make computer technicians mandatory reporters of child abuse (and p—graphy). I wondered what computer techs would think of this. Today, thanks to TalkLeft, I see there is one that has spoken out.

Potentially incriminating material can end up on a computer in any number of ways that have nothing to do with a deliberate request for questionable content. Even worse, the range of expertise among computer technicians varies enough that you could conclusively say that not all such technicians have the skills to distinguish between deliberately accessed content and that which may have found its way onto a system through other means (spam, malware, another user, etc.). It’s a recipe for disaster when you consider how being accused of child porn/abuse usually turns into a guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario of the sort that can destroy lives and families….

But the well-being of children is not within the professional charter of computer technicians. And if states are going to obligate computer technicians to join the fight, are they then also prepared to foot the bill to train them and come up with a standard protocol that employers must bear the expense of implementing? For the most part, medical personnel aren’t dealing with co-workers either. In other words, with medical professionals, personal agendas are less likely to play a role in the positive identification of a potential child abuser or consumer of child-pornography than within a business where computer techs are primarily dealing with co-workers. I’m not saying the medical “setup” is fault-free. But I am saying the computer technician “setup” is far more ripe for abuse.

I still stand by my original position that this is a very. bad. idea. The potential for errors and abuse is too great. Just ask Julie Amero.