This is completely dystopian. Did he have the worst legal defense possible, or are Canadian laws such that an IP address is sufficient for any claimed charges to just stick?

The premise of Brazil (1985)

Perhaps there should be input fields that are paste-only, no typing allowed (or only with extra modal warnings).

Haha they convicted him. I get arresting etc because that’s a preliminary low-evidence action. but they actually convicted him as a sex offender because they got the username wrong. Truly amazing.

“If you have nothing to hide, why are you so afraid of the government?”

At least nobody has figured out my password yet.

> The case went to trial, where Klayme was found guilty.

There’s a lot missing in this sentence. What evidence ended up convicting him?

> Nothing linked Klayme to the girl. No intimate images were found. Klayme did have a Kik account, but cops couldn’t even show that he had accessed the service during the period in question.

> Still, Klayme was arrested and hit with three charges:

> Luring a person under 14 years of age by means of telecommunication

> Providing sexually explicit material to a child

> Possession of child pornography

> The case went to trial, where Klayme was found guilty. He then went to prison for 18 months.

What in the world happened in this case?

How can someone be convicted of these charges without any evidence?

Unless the article left something out, the only possible evidence they had was the wrong username. They couldn't even find evidence that this person used Kik at the time of the crime.

What defense did his lawyer even try? I'm so confused.

What the article doesn’t mention, since this was an incorrect conviction that led to a served 18 month sentence, loss of income from the loss of whatever job he had, and likely life long reputational damage (as this kind of conviction now needs to be explained and some people will adopt a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” attitude…) was there any compensation for this man? It sounds like all he got was voiding the conviction after he served the time. Not nothing, but seems pretty inadequate.

Stupid question: wouldn't a simple comparison with the body(parts) from the inappropriate pictures sent to the girl have helped the innocent guy? I mean those thingies all look different, no, like some sort of "fingerprint"?

How on Earth was he convicted? They couldn’t find any evidence (because it didn’t exist) and yet he was still found guilty? Is there a similar presumption of innocence in Canadian legal doctrine?

Connecting 'this account belongs to you' to 'this account did these activities' seems to rely on a chain of high-integrity (in the sense of both ethics and precision) investigative work that clearly doesn't happen because of the system's lazy recourse to subpoenaing internet companies (here with a typing error)

Holy fuck! How can someone without no evidence and completely innocent be convicted of an offense like this in Canada? What in the fuck is going on?? What happened to “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Everyone needs to be investigated for this, this is absolutely unbelievable and sickening!

The article didn't mention any follow up. He actually served his full sentence.

Did he sue after? Was there any accountability?.

We're really getting into Computers Don't Argue[0] territory here, eh?

0: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue

(available in Best of Creative Computing Vol. 2 at https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items/bestofcreativeco00ah... , p.133)

Source article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/how-a-single-unde...

How does one vacate a sentence that was already served?

Remember when Saudi Arabia indicted Canada on its human rights and everyone laughed?

Got to separate the message from the messenger

[delayed]