I've started a new thread due to the age of the original (29th June - Radio Interview - thoughts from you pros out there) and because the audio interview is now available again.
I apologise for the lateness of my reply, but I was keen that the trojan defence discussion ran its course as I for one found it very interesting. So thanks to all that conributed - i've read some useful articles as a result of the comments.
If you will allow me however, I wish to bring the discussion back to the original subject and make comment, hopefully encouraging others to either confirm or challenge the thoughts of someone right at the beginning of a potential CF career…
Firstly and quickly, thanks to Crutey and Jonathan, whose earlier comments I couldn't agree with more and brought a wider context to the claims of the interviewed CF expert.
Secondly, as the radio interview was removed from the company's site so quickly, a copy has been obtained and posted
The real issue I had with the interview was the manner with which the expert took the law into their own hands in relation to the child porn discovered.
This was a "PC health check" job - it strikes me that child porn either manually downloaded or placed on the PC by a trojan could be expected to be well concealed, which suggests that the expert may have undertaken something beyond a mere health check whilst a client's PC was in their possession.
Next, having discovered the illegal material, should the matter not be referred to the police immediately, without any further interaction between the PC and the expert? Surely, it is the role of the law to establish how the material came to be on the PC and to take appropriate action. Should the concerns of a wider community outweigh the individual client requirements?
It strikes me that the expert may have decided that the 'case' she had in her possession was the first such proof in the UK that a trojan was solely responsible for child porn (I take my lead for this comment from an ealier posting) and sought to play investigator, judge and jury. Furthermore therefore, perhaps there is a risk here that a dangerous individual remains on the streets. Perhaps this may lead to more children being harmed - either directly or indirectly. This is serious stuff, is it not?
Perhaps, the expert has very little CF experience (as is suggested by other evidence). Such media coverage may encourage defence solicitors to use her services for a trojan defence to muddy the evidential waters, thus using up considerable police time, as Crutey commented. Perhaps even the prosecution may use her services, believing her to have a wealth of experience, which if not reflected in her work may lead to a harmer of children walking free….???
As I said, my comments are from someone who is not experienced in any way (starting a CF degree in a month) and are offered to encourage you pros to confirm my thoughts or to put me right. Also, it strikes me that CF will become a much more popular career choice in the coming years with many a newbie enering the industry and making claims as to their expertise. What can be done to legislate, regulate or control the industry, especially given recent outings of bogus expert witnesses in the UK system.
Thanks for taking the time. Apologies for the long posting….
