Child Porn Probe Uses Live Internet Wiretap

rrkap writes "The Sacramento Bee is reporting that Jason Heath Morgan, a suspect in a child porn case was subject to the first 'live internet wiretap.' According to the story, 'Technology used in the surveillance is very similar to a phone tap. Agents attached a monitoring device to Morgan's phone line, then tracked his Internet activity from remote computers.' This packet sniffing was authorized by the PROTECT Act - officially Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, which authorizes such tapping of internet connections."

Comments

For the love of Jehovah

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today

Will these forced acronyms never end?

Re:For the love of Jehovah

[einhverfr]

Note to moderators-- I see this discussion as on-topic because it relates to revisionism of names/acronyms etc. which was a thread of this discussion.

First, I would hardly call the large number of possible titles available to be used "neutral." Such titles as Adonai Tzabaoth (iirc Lord of Hosts), Elohim (tough one. I translate as "Pantheon" but could be translated as "Great Plural Male/Female God").

Secondly, since you link to Watchtower.org, I Know you are probably not allowed to read this, but---

Aryeh Kaplan discusses the Tetragramaton in detail in his commentary of the Sepher Yetzirah. Apparently, one if the issues that the four letters of the tetragramaton were chanted (by at least some Kabbalists) cycling through the masoretic dots. There is some indication that these were used for meditative and/or occult purposes (all the Hebrew letters were used for creating Golems both in a meditative and occult sense).

My point is that these mistakes have a history of generating a legacy which then takes a revisionist look at those mistakes themselves. Whether this is forced acronyms in laws or religious mistranslations, they have an effect.

Look at how the Christian revisionism regarding the Hebrew concept of the Messiah has developed. If you actually research this, you will see something interesting: The Jewish idea of the Messiah, since the time of end of captivity in Babylon, has been that of a godly king (who need not be Jewish) whose primary contribution will be the liberation of all Jews and the ability of Jews to return home. By this measure, the title applies much more to Winston Churchill than it does to Jesus.

The way these revisions occur is very powerful. Take a look at the way that Christianity unifies the Indo-European pagan concepts of human sacrifice as world-renewing with the Jewish Passover and we get Easter (originally a Pagan Holiday) and the title Lamb of God. The question is, however, whether the use of these things in law is such a good idea. Does challenging the PATRIOT act make one unpatriotic? Mr Ashcroft would certainly agree. If the PROTECT act undermined civil liberties, would the name of the law make me more likely to be seen as not interested in protecting children from the very real evils of human trafficing, forced prostitution, and child pornography? In other words, are these laws named in order to silence rational discussion of them?

By the way, I am not a monotheist, so arguing religion with me is not likely to go anywhere.

References:

Aryeh Kaplan: "Sepher Yetzirah: The Book of Creation in Theory and Practice"

Gershom Scholem: "On the Mystical Shape of Godhead"

Isaiah

Edward Hoffman, et. al. "Openning the Inner Gates: New Paths in Kabbalah and Psychology"

Not .. Exactly

[CrankyFool]

It sounds like when they investigated him the act was not in force yet and they had to actually get a judge to agree to the tap; that makes this not a particularly interesting or scary story -- judges have had the ability to approve taps to compromise our privacy for a long, long time now.

It looks like PROTECT might make this at the discretion of the prosecutor which is, obviously a Very Bad Thing[tm], but it's not all that relevant in this case, it seems.

Re:Not .. Exactly

[txviking]

Until some of those cops hacks into someone's wireless hub and produce the evidence themselves

Well, this doesn't bother me on privacy-wise

[DreadCthulhu]

This issue doesn't seem to be a big deal, for the privacy issue - the authorities did have to go to a judge and get a warrant first, just like they would for a phone tap or for an in house search.

Re:Well, this doesn't bother me on privacy-wise

[Curtman]

It's not a revolutionary change to the way things are done, it's just a technology being used in a very slightly different way

I beg to differ. If they present evidence at your trial where they have your voice on tape describing a crime, that's one thing.. But presenting a log of bits with your IP on them as evidence to a non-technical, ill-informed, pedophilia hysterical jury, they might just believe that it necessarily proves that you committed the crime. In this day and age of botnets, and sasser worms, that scares me a bit.

Re:Well, this doesn't bother me on privacy-wise

[woodlander]

I'm glad you aren't not worried. At this point in history, government lying is a well developed art form.

I find it most interesting that no one speaks up for the rights of the individuals as long as the cops can say 'it's for the children'.

Umm...

[Kjella]

...first off it's approved by a court order, so no problems there. Second, what's the big deal about "live" as opposed to "near-real" time? I mean computer logs are kinda like a tape of a regular wiretap. Yes, you might have an officer to listen in "live", but unless that's about something going down in the next few minutes, does that matter?

What's more surprising is that they haven't been able to do this before. drop a LOG line in iptables and you can have a complete log of every packet, live. Somehow I fail to see the big difficulty in this...

Kjella

Re:Umm...

[Vellmont]

What's more surprising is that they haven't been able to do this before. drop a LOG line in iptables and you can have a complete log of every packet, live.

Except where's the machine with the huge hard-drive that's intercepting all the packets and logging them? You can't run iptables on the cable modem.

The interesting part is just that they've got some kind of device to sniff cable or DSL modems and send them somewhere to be analysed. Then you'd have to put everything back together again into meaningfull data (including intercepting binary transmissions). It's _far_ more complicated than a simple tap of a voice line.

Re:Implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not everyday an average "Joe Techpack" has an opportunity to put a piece of scum behind bars.

It's actually quite rewarding.

Re:Implementation

[MoonFog]

By taking down these people they are effectively removing parts of it. If you're talkign about servers, remember it's the legislation in the country where the server is located that applies, and it's that governemnts responsibility to track them down. If they don't want to, there's nothing American or European governements can do but put pressure on them. At least with this, they are fighting the P2P spreading of it.
A lot of these people produce the pr0n themselves and distribute it, it would be hard to destroy every file out there, it's easier to take the men behind them.

Seriously...

[222]

you still need a judge to ok something like this, and who *really* wants to bother supporting child porno slime.
These guys followed the letter of the law, and im glad they caught the guy. Case closed.

Re:Seriously...

[wud]

and who *really* wants to bother supporting child porno slime.

Noone, and thats why they chose kiddie porn first. Who would dare stand up in defense of someone horribble like that?. The point is, whos next?

First they came for the socialists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


--Pastor Martin Niemoller, Nazi Germany, circa 1945.

Re:Seriously...

[222]

Listen, I understand your concern. I thought about my own post before hitting submit. There is an enormous difference between someone that holds a different political view from yours and someone that peddles child pornography.
Notice in my post that i mentioned the word judge? Thats because one is still required to do this.
Im a liberal, and believe you me, when something fishy starts happening with surveillance of my internet connection, ill be screaming with the rest of you. However, thats not what happened.
They used a properly issued warrent to sniff the connection of some fuckass who thought little girls (or boys) were sexy. Im glad hes off the streets.

Re:Seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, its too easy to point the finger at pedophiles or terrorists and say "let us make an exception for them", since the exception invariably gets more lax till its used on a whim.

The good thing though is that this wiretap was approved by a judge, which offers some protection.

Re:Seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is an enormous difference between someone that holds a different political view from yours and someone that peddles child pornography. "

What is meant by child pornography in this sentence? Only pictures? Someone who is a day less then 18? Pictures of children taking a bath?

Could it mean stories too? What about a sick story about two early teens fucking around and in love. This work should be banned I bet, and soon since no one sees any merits in such works even if it is called Romeo and Juliet.

Re:Seriously...

[operagost]

No karma whoring, please. This is like a phone wiretap. It is acceptable when sufficient evidence has been gathered to convince a judge to issue a warrant. Abuse happens, but that's because there are evil people on both sides of the law. It's not the law that's at fault, just human nature. If the law becomes corrupt, say, allowing random monitoring, then it's tyranny.

Re:Seriously...

[Yartrebo]

I agree. Usually I don't buy the slipperly slope argument, but banning all moral indecency seems to be the goal of the Christian right wing. Furthermore, here is a defense in favor of allowing underage porn (personally, I don't like child porn and regular porn doesn't register much higher. I'm not sure of my stance on the issue, but I can argue both sides.).

The line between abusing children and underage porn is deliberately blurred. It would be much harder to convince people that underage porn viewers are sub-human (which a bunch of posts seem to assert) if distinctions were made between making and viewing the stuff.

If the same reasoning were applied to the 11th of September, we shouldn't watch the video of the planes hitting the building because it gives us a craving to go out and do it for real and because it supports the terrorists.

Watching underage porn doesn't hurt children, and any indirect links are tenous at best. Certain types (generally anything not involving traditional or anal intercourse with an adult) could probably even be made without much harm to children (well, outside of social problems induced by our society's extremely harsh views, but then one could easily blame society, not the child or parent). And then you have the computer generated or animated stuff.

And then there is the extremely stiff punishment for being caught and the large amount of effort directed at fighting it. Morals will keep most people from making child porn. Remove copyright privilages from child porn (say, by making it technically illegal, but with a private warning being the only punishment) and the profit-hungry pornographers will go away. As far as the remaining people go, the benefit has to be weighed against the costs. Is locking up a thousand or so people in jail and making it impossible for them to get jobs because of the social stigma worth it in order to save a few hundred kids being filmed for porn? And then you have the use value of that porn. Maybe I don't like it, but the people who want it probably do like it.

Finally you have the First Amendment issues. Underage porn is speech, and it is not [in general] hate speech, fighting words, or speech that will cause public disorder (like yelling fire in a theatre), so it should be protected under the First Amendment. I made this point last because a law should never be used as a reason to approve or disapprove of something, but many people seem to believe in the constitution as having moral authority in and of itself, so I'll mention it.

Re:Seriously...

[Jardine]

What is meant by child pornography in this sentence? Only pictures? Someone who is a day less then 18? Pictures of children taking a bath?

I've always wondered why I'm legally allowed to have sex with someone as young as 14 (the age of consent in Canada) but can't take pictures. Are people with photographic memories who have sex with those 14-17 producing child porn?

Re:Seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is getting sad. A post defending child pornography that, at the moment, gets a +2 moderation?

Well... where to begin...

First off, you are simply wrong about the assertion that child pornography should be protected under the first amendment. Child pornography is obscene, and obscenity is not protected under the first amendment. You may not like that, but that is the way it is in American law. I defy you to find a community is the United States where it would be an acceptable community standard.

Second, there is no line between abusing children and child pornography. Making child pornography is abusing children, and a crime. Child molesters use it to desensitize children they are targeting to help coax their victims into going along with their depraved, criminal desires. Possessing child pornography is a crime as it should be.

"Underage porn viewers" as you benignly label them, are not labeled as "subhuman," they are people with a serious psychological problem. Because of that problem they are likely to inflict serious psychological harm on countless innocent children.

Now, when you get to the part where you are doing some sort of cost-benefit analysis of punishing child molesters who sell film of their crimes, you are going off the deep end. Not lock up a thousand child molesters for abusing hundreds of children? In essence you are saying, "Won't somebody think of the child molesters? Lock them up and they will be ruined. They will be stigmatized!" That is exactly the right outcome. If you still can't see that, try substituting "Won't somebody think of the adults who rape children?" and see how that sounds to your ears.

If this really is an issue that you can argue both sides of without any real preference, you should really consider revisiting your ethical decision making process, and your values. They may need some work.

Surely you don't have to be on the "Christian right" to see that raping children is a bad thing? And, if the "Christian right" was the only group decrying the rape of children, I hope nobody here thinks that would make it a good thing.

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not far fetched to assume an overly zealous agent might consider planting evidence on a computer either. They already do this in a variety of other cases. Sometimes they are caught at it, a lot of times they aren't, and you can't tell. And there's a lot of prior cases to prove the point, the miami cops busted planting guns on suspects, trying to clear themselves of murder. the texas prosecutiors and cops who "flaked" (that's the cop slang term for it, it's so common, taken originally from gold mining and planting gold flakes I think to make a mine look better)) hundreds of people in this small town with drugs that weren't drugs, getting convictions, sending people to jail.

There's just something spooky about it. Child porn is a real problem, but we can't deny government lying isn't a problem as well. It's a serious major problem, ongoing, chronic. Just now on drudge headlines they are investigating a secret service guy for falsifying evidence/perjury in the martha stewart case. And remember the FBI "crime lab" tests scandals of a couple of years ago.

The bad guys commit crimes, but we have a much harder time exposing the "good guys" who really aren't. Look at all the controversy about iraq now, the weird circumstances around 9-11, prisoner abuse, etc.

Re:Exactly

[julesh]

Gnutella, Freenet, and other file sharing networks are rampant with child pornography. I have yet to see any outrage in particular over this.

Then you haven't been looking very hard. Most file sharing discussion boards have frequent "what can we do to stop all the child porn... nothing, it's technically impossible to stop this kind of thing" threads. (E.g., this one).

Re:Exactly

[julesh]

Forgot to comment on this in my previous reply.

How do we prevent child pornography, how do we report it? I would suggest that plugins be provided to automatically scan for these items and forward significant results to the FBI or the ISP that the user is coming from. At the very least we have a moral responsibility to create software that prevents child pornographers from proliferating on the Internet.

And how do you propose we do this? All right, a few years ago it might have been vaguely feasible to stick a keyword-scanner plugin that automatically reported anything that looked dodgy, but these days about 50% of the legitimate content (that is, people trying to promote perfectly legal porn sites, just about the only completely legal purpose file sharing networks are regularly put to) has strings of keywords added to the end that don't have anything to do with the content. There are tens of thousands of files out there with either "lolita", "underage sex", "1[23456]yo", "schoolgirl", or some other keyword that might once have meant something, but a very high proportion of these aren't what the keywords suggest, and the filename tends to make this clear. I remember coming across a whole bunch of files that were labeled "not underage porn".

Until we have working AI that can analyse the content of the files and come to at least a 99% accurate conclusion, there is nothing that can be done on a technical level, as far as I can see.

Sorry.

Going about it the right way

[Chatmag]

I'm glad to see that the Feds are pursuing predators online by using methods that will stand up in court, rather than the questionable tactics used by the vigilantes of Perverted Justice

Non Smart Pedophiles? Question about Encryption.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't this guy use encryption, good encryption techniques would defeat the cops, them being the man in the middle.

Pedophiles are not smart enough to use encryption?

do they ever bust the guys making the porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the feds ever actually bust the guys making the porn in the first place i.e. doing the real explotation. Or do they always just bust some sorry shlub who tried to download some old .jpeg and never touched a kid in his life?

Re:do they ever bust the guys making the porn?

[Cerv]

I've no idea what happens in the US, but in the UK they do go after the people making it. They also go after the downloaders because, among other reasons, this provides them with the evidence (the child porn) to locate the people who made it. Also, until they've arrested and investigated the guy, how are they supposed to know whether or not he's making his own?

Re:do they ever bust the guys making the porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something to think about. Biologically, once a person is mature enough to procreate they should start attracting members of the oppoite sex. This was accepted for a very long time. This is how it is accepted in every species except humans.

It is society who has decided that sex is not an acceptable thing for people under 18. Anyone who believes there is a fundemantal difference between 17 years 11 months and 18 years 0 months it just kidding themselves.

Re:do they ever bust the guys making the porn?

[Xemu]

Something to think about. Biologically, once a person is mature enough to procreate they should start attracting members of the oppoite sex. This was accepted for a very long time. This is how it is accepted in every species except humans.

One of the things that makes us human is that we do not accept that it is "right" just because we can.

Example: Biologically, I am stronger than you and can kill you. It would be accepted in every species except humans.

That's right. Except humans. Except.

Good Thread

[Anonymous Coward]

I encrypt everything. I think some cops like to make shit up to prove their case (anyone remember Richard Jewel?). Encryption is the solution to this.

Also cops, like people, can be assholes. How many assholes did you know who might be cops now. If its >1 then you could be screwed.

Re:Before You People Start Ranting

[Tim C]

Yes - due process is due process, no matter what a person is accused of.

People involved in creating kiddie porn are scum, but that's no reason to treat them differently, especially before their guilt has been proved. In fact, if anything given the general attitude towards crimes of this type, even more care should be taken.

A few years ago here in the UK, there was general outcry after a little girl was abused and murdered; it sparked off a number of demonstrations by people demanding that the public be made aware of the locations of known sex offenders. During this time, a paediatrician was hounded out of her home and forced to move because people incorrectly associated her job title with paedophilia.

It's a highly emotive issue, and so you have to be very careful. Saying the wrong thing to the wrong person "because it's kiddie porn" may well get innocent people killed.

Re:Implementation

[bconway]

What about when it's for copyright infringement? That's still illegal, you know.

Who's at the computer?

[sam1am]

One of the advantages (assuming they use it this way) is a real-time wiretap lets them confirm who is actually *at* the computer when something's happening. A log, unless combined with large amounts of surveillance, can not necessarily be correlated back to an individual. But now, they can see illegal activity and go look at who's doing it while it's happening.

(Hopefully they are, and aren't just assuming the owner of a computer is the one breaking the law..)

Thing is...

[demonhold]

In the Macarthy (sp) era you only had to point someone and scream "red", "pinko", "commie" and that individual's life was done for. Down the drain for good...

What tell us that in the near future someone won't cry "pedophile" "child abuser" "terrorist" and your life goes down the drain. And nowadays evidence is soooooo easy to fake, and juries tend to be so damned illitare...

This is not the whole thing, though, with worms and virus and spywares doing the gods know what to your computer, using your storage for the gods know what purposes, who can assure us that we won't wake up some day to the sound of the police storming our door and the press cameras getting us labeled as "worse than scum" for the rest of our life...

Re:Thing is...

[praedor]

Uh...it is already that way now and it has nothing to do with evils such as the "Patriot Act", TIA, the PROTECT Act, etc. All that needs to happen to you is ANYONE point at you and yell, "Pedophile!" or "Rapist!". That's it. Even if you are absolutely innocent in all possible ways, you are "labelled" now, at least in your community, and you will have trouble. Any child disappearance, any rape, and you will fall under suspicion.

This is particularly true of people who are teachers or professors. All it takes is some student to point and accuse, even if baseless, and you have a grey cloud floating around you from then on, at least in that community.

I have no problem at all with the PROTECT Act, per se. Tapping an internet connection should in no way be considered any different than tapping a phoneline or bugging a room/house, so long as there is a valid court order. So long as it doesn't get all Patriot Act wierd with secret courts and such, it should not get people any more bent than any other valid crime-fighting tool. The sole key is due process.

It's the Principle, Not the Case...

[One Childish N00b]

What happens when this is used as a test case for including the right to record the internet habits of anyone they like in the next draconian revision to the Patriot Act? They might have needed a judge this time but all the authorities would have to do is claim it will help them monitor terrorists and the current state of paranoia will have a good chance of pushing any proposed bill through, no matter how invasive.

Obviously I have no objection to getting another vile kiddie-porn peddler off the streets, that's not what I'm trying to get at, it's the way this case could be used by the powers that be to get permission for more cases, possibly monitoring any of the poor bastards they deem to have a high Terrorist Quotient?

Invasions of privacy are justified in cases like these, but all it takes is one loud squeal of 'terrorism' and they'll be monitoring totally innocent people just in case they turn into Islamic extremists overnight. I don't think it's the case me or anyone else are objecting to, it's the principle.

--

Re:can someone explain this to me?

[KrisHolland]

Child pornography probably doesn't encourage people to go out and molest people, just like watching an action movie probably doesn't make a majority of people go out and start killing people.

The problem though is that child pornography may increase child abuse since it can encourage *the creators* to make more of it if they are paid for it. On the other hand it might also discourage child abuse as pedophiles relieve their sexual energy on the smut instead of on real children.

To further muddy the water there is also drawings, which no real person is being harmed, that tried to be outlawed in America but the Supreme Court struck it down. Examples are Shota and Lolicon.

Always wondered, what qualifies?

[ylikone]

There is plenty of porn out there that depicts 18 - 19 year olds as being much younger (or so I here), are these kind of images also illegal and considered child porn?

That is the purpose of Judicial oversight

[anti-NAT]

On face value, there appears to be nothing wrong with increased police powers, for example, the ability to detain somebody for significant periods of time if they are suspected of something, without allowing the detainee to contact their lawyer or make a phone call to the outside world. Law enforcement officials would only detain bad guys, right ?

The problem with this is that it is based on the assumption that the everybody within the law enforcement organisations involved are totally and 100% honest. Of course, this isn't the case.

Judicial oversight of things such as wire taps is there to try to ensure that these mechanisms aren't abused by corrupt, dishonest or overzealous law enforcement officials.

Sadly, it seems that, since 911, George W. Bush's adgenda is to minimise or remove Judicial oversight in the name of "security". I can only suggest that he believes that law enforment officials are 100% honest.

Re:That is the purpose of Judicial oversight

[rvega]

On face value, there appears to be nothing wrong with ... the ability to detain somebody for significant periods of time if they are suspected of something

Detention = incarceration = punishment when you have been convicted of no crime. I'd say that, on the face of it, there is something very wrong with giving the police this power. Since when does suspicion give someone the right to deprive you of your freedom? Don't forget that, in the United States at least, you have the right to a trial by jury of your peers before you are convicted and punished. And the jury is instructed to find the acused not guilty if there is any reasonable doubt as to guilt. What a far cry from de facto conviction by paid police agents for whom the burden of proof is replaced by mere suspicion!

Re:can someone explain this to me?

[kard]

yes, of course i can see that it's wrong when a 40year old man is having sex with a 6year old girl.
but i also think that it's wrong if a guy kills an other guy...

if i have a picture of that 40year old guy having sex with the girl, then it's crime. and if i have a picture of a guy killing an other guy, then it is not a crime. that's the paradox imho

You're asking the impossible...

[Kjella]

How do we prevent child pornography, how do we report it? I would suggest that plugins be provided to automatically scan for these items and forward significant results to the FBI or the ISP that the user is coming from. At the very least we have a moral responsibility to create software that prevents child pornographers from proliferating on the Internet.

...first off, how do you identify it? "Umm yeah I was just doing one-handed investigative work for the police, looking at those pics" Or are they going to deliver us a list of files we're not supposed to find?

Never mind that the best P2P programs I know (DC++, eMule) are both open source. There's no way to force them to include any backdoors, plug-ins, logs or other such things. It'd be trivial to compile without.

Besides, you'll quickly run into the "becoming an agent of law enforcement" problem. The police can't create a civilian "police force" using their lists or plug-ins to get around their own restrictions.

And on a principal level, I disagree with you. Everything from ink printers to digicams to web browsers have been used for kiddie porn. It's not Epson or Canon or Microsoft's responsibility to do the impossible. The police have to handle those that misuse software just as the guy using a kitchen knife as a murder weapon.

Kjella

Very distrubing double think.

[twitter]

The PROTECT Act - officially Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today - gave authorities the right to tap into a suspect's computer to catch child abusers, including Internet pornographers. ... When Sacramento agents made their request in August 2003, the wiretap provision had not yet been used, and authorities had to convince a federal judge to grant the authority.

That article is very disturbing. It admits that the old system worked while glorifying the newfound ability of police to wiretap anyone they feel like. It's hard for me to understand how the reporters, Stanton and Walsh, were able to twist their brains into missing the big picture.

How on Earth can this case be seen a triumph of ghastly new police powers? This creep was caught despite the inconvenience of judicial oversite and due process. The issue is a simply put in the US Bill of Rights, amendment 4 to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is, your house will not be violated unless reasonable evidence presented and sworn too in a public court of law.

"Terrorism" and kiddie porn are declared serious enough to remove this protection but the removal for some crimes eliminates the protection for everyone. Without that public record and oversight, anyone can be tapped as a "suspect". The potential for abuse is enormous. PROTECT is a perverse name indeed.

Re:Non Smart Pedophiles? Question about Encryption

[ArbitraryConstant]

If I ran an illegal site, or rather a site that was illegal in a country where lots of my customers were, I'd listen to my customers. I'd run everything with strong encryption.

Strong encryption in and of itself doesn't look suspicious. I run my own blog and I use SSL so people can sign in and look at entries I don't want to be publically visible. I use SSH for a ton of stuff. I use it to log in to my server when I'm at home on my LAN because it's conveniant. The first thing I do when I get to work is log in to my server with SSH so I can do e-mail and blog without anyone worrying about it.

Apart from the SSL blog stuff, this is pretty normal behavior for a lot of tech people. SSH is just too damn convenient.

And if I had anything illegal, I'd probably keep it on an encrypted partition that automatically unmounts if I don't log in for a while. And I'd probably make sure the unmount system call makes sure to overwrite the memory where the key is stored.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Implementation

[Draknor]

A more sensible approach seems to be needed to solve the harm, if any harm exists, with regards to sexual relationships between children and adults or children and children.

Sensible? Who said anything about being sensible?? Actually TALKING about sex - in this country (US)? Are you crazy? The bible-thumpers won't stand for that! Much better to punish the "evil people" rather than try & fix the system that forces them to be evil! After all, we are the righteous, the just!

Now, where did my copy of 1984 go again?

why does the junkie matter?

[Adolph_Hitler]

Stopping the junkie does nothing to stop the creation of childporn. Why does it matter if we stop the spread of child porn vs the creation?

Stopping the creation of childporn is very obvious, we know why we must do this, children are being hurt by this. Childporn thats already created and being spread around Kazaa by millions or thousands of people, what do you gain by arresting each person?

Same goes with nuclear weapons, we have no right to tell other people they cannot create them if we have them. This also goes for the internet, when we start with censorship and start invading privacy in the end we lose our ability to tell China they are backwards if we are trying to outlaw P2P to stop kiddie porn.

Kiddie porn is bad, but its not like the whole internet is flooded with kiddie porn, I don't see the point in creating new laws and suddenly cracking down on a problem which has always existed. What is the goal? If its to stop children from being hurt then we need to go after the producers and this has little to nothing to do with Kazaa. If the goal is to stop the spread of childporn, we can use the filter systems built into these P2P programs and perhaps make them more advanced.

I don't see however the point in chasing every single person who has a copy of file X in their shared folder. It's a slippery slope.

I'm all for stopping the production of kiddie porn, I'm against censorship. If censorship is the only way to stop the distrubition then its not worth it. The distribution is not whats doing the harm, those are the pawns of the producers.

This would be like arresting everyone who is infected by the worm instead of the creator.

Re:They always start with the most unpopular scum.

[Quila]

I agree with you in general, but in this case they had to prove to a grand jury that the tap was necessary and get a court order for it. I think that easily passes constitutional muster, as opposed to some PATRIOT provisions.

Re:Implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

How quickly we forget that in the days when women were chattel their whole lives, it was TYPICAL for 13 year old girls (or even younger) to be married to 45 year old men.

In fact, there is a woman in my grandmother's nursing home (she is 100 yrs old) who was in just such a marriage. She says she and her husband loved each other, I can only assume it is true.

Of course, pedophiles are not marrying their victims, that is a different thing.

A law that doesn't help, no less

[Anonymous Coward]

and the worst part? These people don't PAY for kiddie pr0n, no more than anyone else pays for the sex movies coming down Freenet, Kazaa, or Gnutella. So, they may look, but they're not hurting anyone, nor helping those that do the porn making.

On the other hand, what psychological effects do porn vids have on people? Is it possible that once the 32 year old perv watching the vids realize that he might get caught, he'll stop with the downloads and start with his 11 year old niece? The hard truth is that, whether they get the content or not, they're paedophiles either way. You can't just lock them up for wanting to bang children, unless maybe they have an honest intent to. It's just like any other sexual deviation: you're made that way, and you don't turn it off, you just control it.