Re: Below the age of criminal responsibility
"You seem to be acting as some sort of excuse mechanism for these scum."
Exploring the other side of the argument doesn't make me an excuse mechanism; it makes me rational.
Or whenever someone is put in the frame for an offence is it ok to point a finger elsewhere and for everyone to say "well, that's ok then. I totally believe your side of the story and we've no need to check it out".
"If the father claims the laptop is his daughters, they can check the browsing history and see what sorts of sites have been accessed. If they're all childrens, looks like case proven unless they claim he's mentally subnormal and enjoys using kiddie websites."
Except you just berated me for not knowing that they take it away and make a COPY which is then checked, else the evidence won't stand in court. Make your damned mind up! So they couldn't just sit there and check it straight away, could they? By your own admission they'd have to take it and examine it. Which would take a while, with said laptop stuck in a plastic bag in the meantime and no immediate resolution. So in the meantime - logically - either:
1) The parent didn't want to wait and drag his family through all the fuss, so just settled to get the laptop back.
2) The father knew he was actually at fault and had been responsible so settled.
"Your TV example is simply pathetic."
Wow I'm sorry for having an example sufficiently valid that you have to debunk it by name-calling. Unfortunately doing so doesn't make the fact less true. And why don't you think a 10 year old could plug in a TV? I was taking them apart at that age!
"a pathetic attempt to justify these stormtroopers actions."
You appear to have confused the entire concept of working through the potential reasoning of the other 'side' in any situation than your own in order to understand it as repugnant in some way. Clearly I should just believe everything the media spoons to me and accept it at first read, then verbally attack anyone who considers the other viewpoint, instead.
"They are only entitled to take the laptop if they have reasonable cause and that is not proven here."
We don't really know, because we are basing what we know on a short media report, which misses out about 80% of the facts. I suspect that there is more to it than we know and that either some new policing guidelines are very quickly being drafted, or the parent is a lot more guilty than he's claiming to be (qv Sgt. Nightingale), or there are some other factors in play. As much as trusting the authorities and courts might seem alien to you, Finland ain't a bad country to live in, and is a long way up the human rights ladder.
"Your 'example' suggests the police should be able to enter anyones house and check for anything they want without you being able to do anything. Effectively, go on a fishing expedition."
No it doesn't.
"That's one of the first signs of a totalitarian state."
Which Finland isn't. Which means there's more to it than that, or -as stated earlier- some arses are currently being kicked and enquiries and guidelines being written. The parent didn't need to make some expensive stand against injustice at his daughter's expense in order to help ensure future safeguards... OR is guilty as sin and took his best 'out'.