a public apology to a child pornographer

see note below for important disclaimer

It is with reluctance and remorse that I have had to report Brian Rose, self-described Community Manager of the Google+ Photo project for:

1. Knowingly creating and publishing a photograph of a child, apparently in restraints, on a service intended to distribute said image to multiple recipients across the several States.
2. Suspicion of production and distribution of similar works for possible distribution among child pornographers clandestinely through the internet, a known mechanism for trafficking in such contraband.

I do deeply regret that Mr. Rose will likely be subject to:

1. Seizure of his personal effects including his photographic gear and computing devices for use as evidence against him. This seizure may also include the taking of assets at his home and work even if they don't belong to Mr. Rose on the basis that he may have used these devices for criminal ends and that to leave them in situ would give opportunity Mr. Rose or his confederates to destroy evidence of wrong doing. 
2. Police investigation of his at his place of employ and residence, including vague interview of his colleagues, superiors, neighbors, and friends which hint at the possibility of malfeasance, and even the broad nature of the offense to society, while coyly declining to name the suspected offense.
3. Release of Mr. Rose's name and likeness to the press by the police to accompany the allegation of his actions in child pornography. This release will likely be made in order for the police to demonstrate that they are vigilant and dutiful regarding possible threats to our vulnerable children.
4. Personal notoriety resulting from the reported allegations which will become known to his friends, family, community, and business associates present and future.
5. Trial in the "court" of public opinion prior to even being indicted for the allegations.

I do also regret that I am unable to include the offending material or link to said material lest I myself run afoul of applicable law. I understand that this affects the reader's ability to make their own judgment regarding the allegation, but I am quite afraid of having a charge of trafficking in child pornography leveled against me which could severely impact my standing in my community and workplace.

It is an reasonable question as to why I have made this allegation against Mr. Rose despite the pain, expense, incarceration, and corruption of his subsequent life as a registered sex offender that may result. My primary motivation is a poster on a wall in Terry Gilliam's 1985 film Brazil:

Don't Suspect Your Friend… Report Him

which I have long taken to mean that I shouldn't presume to judge my fellows but to instead yield that responsibility to the state because they can always be trusted to do the right thing. I also do feel for Mr. Rose as being the public face of Google+ photographic policy, in particular being charged with promoting community in the face of Google's confusing and confused photographic censorship policy. It is my hope that through my actions Mr. Rose will be empowered to act in accord with his titular responsibility.

Finally, I think it the duty of concerned citizens of the world to speak out against evil where they suspect it as a means of promoting the general welfare.

Some people, noting the sardonic tone of this essay will conclude that I did not actually file formal allegation against Mr. Rose, and they're almost certainly correct^†. However, times being what they are, I could be the sort of person that I satirize herein, but you don't know.

Like the capricious and arbitrary policing by Google of their service, the lack of transparency, trial by allegation, the stance of "guilty until proven innocent, unless we decide to reverse ourselves at whim" and Google's history of tying their determination of in one realm (G+) to that of unrelated properties (e.g. Gmail and Docs) that is the problem. No, Google is not the government, does that mean they should strive to that minimal standard of "just" or should they aim higher?

^† I did not, and would not, make formal allegation against anyone for expressing their views. I did intentionally mischaracterize the unnamed photograph in Rose's stream for rhetorical purposes; it is a good photo and not harmful to anyone under any rational perspective. Of course, as a citizen and parent if I truly did believe that there was any child who was being abused in any way that I could mitigate through my actions I would be obliged to do so, but to reiterate, Mr. Rose did not do anything that hints at malfeasance or even mere impoliteness. To the best of my knowledge, and by my presumption, he is as fine a person as anyone can hope to be. The photograph that accompanies this essay is not mine but has been copied from his public profile under US terms of Fair Use for criticism and commentary in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 107, the rights-holder cannot be determined.