U.S. Education Department employee who infected his government computer with malware from searching for child porn was allowed to retire with no prosecution

Wills Robinson reports:

A Department of Education employee left government computers vulnerable to hacking after downloading a virus while searching for ‘naked toddlers’, ‘little boys’, a and references to child rape, a report has revealed.

Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by DailyMail.com show the staffer typed in at least 18 illicit searches on his taxpayer-funded computer – included references to child porn.

The phrases he looked for in September, 2014, included: ‘Very young little girls’, ‘naked toddler’ and ‘too young boy’.

Other search terms allude to bestiality involving children and child rape.

 Read more on Daily Mail.  So because this was a UK publication, I somewhat hoped they were talking about a UK Department of Education.  But no, this really was about a U.S. Education Department employee and incident.
Somewhat disturbingly, it appears that both VA and D.C. prosecutors declined to prosecute the case.  The Daily Mail summarizes the redacted report as saying that “federal prosecutors with the Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to prosecute the case because there was ‘minimal federal interest and no deterrent value’. “
Why was there minimal federal interest? Why no deterrent value? Is there no deterrent value in prosecuting someone for using a government-issued computer to search for child porn or for conducting searches that wind up infecting government-issued computers with malware?
And if federal prosecutors declined to prosecute, and this man was allowed to just retire, what message does THAT send?

About the author: Dissent

Comments are closed.