The Story of the Pedophile-catching Hacker

missing30 writes "A Turkish hacker seeding usenet groups with trojan horses has made it a habit to hunt down pedophiles trolling the groups. The cases go back to 2000, with the mysterious good samaritan responsible for several arrests. The man now has tacit approval from the FBI for his actions." From the article: "At the urging of Montgomery Police Capt. Kevin Murphy, '1069' eventually turned over more and more information that led back to a computer owned by Bradley Joseph Steiger, who had worked as an emergency room physician in Alabama. The hacker's finds included information from Steiger's AT&T WorldNet account, records from his checking account, and a list of directories on his computer's hard drive where sexually explicit photographs were stored."

Comments

I say the ends don't justify the means.

[rodgster]

I say the ends don't justify the means.

I don't think the police should be allowed to use illicitly gained information or that they should be allowed to encourage private citizens to commit felonies.

>
>"we have not seen anything to indicate that this person is other than...a citizen of Turkey."
> That turned out not to be entirely true: The FBI actually had made contact with "1069"
>through a U.S. phone number
>

Where does it end?

If it is OK to do to catch pedophiles then it is OK to do the catch terrorists and I know I've read several accounts of where patriot and other anti terror acts have been used for entirely unrelated crimes.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Rolo Tomasi]

I'd rather have private hackers do it than the government.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

If the government is making under-the-table dealings with "private" crackers, what's the difference?

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[kfg]

I'd rather have private hackers do it than the government.

What color is your shirt?

KFG

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[garcia]

The man now has tacit approval from the FBI for his actions.

I don't see how it's any different. Just because someone else is doing it for them doesn't make it any better.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rather worried that hacker can put information onto someone else's computer (photos, jpegs, etcetera) and then turn around and finger that person to the police. With an open net connection 24/7 and the ability to hide/decrypt things or just plain old hiding folders in bizarre/out-of-the-way directories, there is no telling what is on someone's computer at all times. In addition, harddrives are so big now, small movies let alone hundreds of photos can escape detection (hey, why is my drive capacity getting continually smaller?)

BTW, I am not saying that is the instance in this case nor do I believe it, but vigilante justice opens up the whole system to abuse.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Dun Malg]

I don't think the police should be allowed to use illicitly gained information or that they should be allowed to encourage private citizens to commit felonies.

Thing is, 4th Amendment protections only prohibit the government from illegally searching your property. If a burglar breaks into your house and steal a sack of the counterfeit money you're printing then later gets caught and fingers you, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. They still need a warrant to search your place, but the sack of C-notes with damp ink are easily enough to get one. Now, if the government hires a burglar, that's a 4th Amendment no-no; otherwise, you can press charges for criminal trespass if you like-- from your prison cell. The moral of this story is that if you're a criminal, be careful about protecting your stuff from other criminals, particularly if they "have it in for you". Nothing new there.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Stellian]

I'd rather have private hackers do it than the government.

You don't mind if the government finds that your computer has been compromised by a hacker, who plants child porn on it, and you are convicted and have your life destroyed based on this "evidence" ?
How can any conviction be made against the victims of the "hacker" when the chain of evidence is clearly broken? Are we just supposed to trust he is an "honest" hacker? How can you get beyond any reasonable doubt under this premises: Your Honor, my computer was hacked; I have no idea who planted that crap into my computer. Case closed.
If any convictions are made with the help of this "hacker", it`s only because his victims had bad, bad lawyers.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

The difference is that the government was prosecuting the burglar already... they were pursuing him for a crime, which means they didn't approve his actions.
If they are not going after this guy, then they are approving his actions, and he's effectively working for them, and the evidence is subject to 4th ammendment protections.

At least that's how it looks in my head

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[BrainInAJar]

The checka & gestapo made heavy use of private citizen "informers", rather than doing their own investigations... I'll leave the conclusion up to you

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Deltaspectre]

What? This?

The phone rings at KGB headquarters.

"Hello?"

"Hello, is this KGB?"

"Yes. What do you want?"

"I'm calling to report my neighbor Yankel Rabinovitz as an enemy of the
State. He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his firewood."

"This will be noted."

Next day, the KGB goons come over to Rabinovitz's house. They search
the shed where the firewood is kept, break every piece of wood, find no
diamonds, swear at Yankel Rabinovitz and leave.

The phone rings at Rabinovitz's house.

"Hello, Yankel! Did the KGB come?"

"Yes."

"Did they chop your firewood?"

"Yes, they did."

"Okay, now it's your turn to call. I need my vegetable patch plowed."

http://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=kgb.txt (and found at http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194175&cid= 15918611)

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[sdriver]

I don't wear a shirt you insensitive clod!

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[gutnor]

Especially that planting evidence against you can have tremendous impact. If the hacker can access the private machine of an individual for a while, it is not technicaly very difficult to create evidence that stand up against first examination ( i.e. mixing true family photo with closely looking child, ... ), especially if the hacker is motivated by the ex-wife, an employer or concurrent.
When you have been investiguated for child pornography you can say bye bye to a normal life.
Think about what it can do to your marriage, or about the common belief that if somebody has been investiguated, he is not completely clean ( especially in case like this).
And if we are talking about terrorism you can even wake up in guantanamo stripped from all your legal rights.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[cfulmer]

The difference is whether it's a violation of the 4th amendment or not.

Here's an analogy: Let's say that your neighbor trespasses through your backyard and, in doing so, happens to look through your window and sees you molesting a child. If he goes to the police and says what he saw, should they be able to act on it?

Is it different if he silently broke into your house to steal some silver and happened to look into a room where you were doing the molesting? What if he happened to have a camera and took pictures?

My point is that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your house, and the GOVERNMENT generally can't invade on that privacy without a warrant. If they do, then evidence they get can't be used against you. This is the "exclusionary rule," and it's intended to prevent the government from conducting searched and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment. The rule itself, though, is not actually constitutionally required -- there would just need to be an alternate way of handling with 4th amendment violations that provided enough of a disincentive.

In this case, the government's not doing anything wrong -- somebody just dropped this in their laps. Telling them "sorry, you can't use that" doesn't deter ANY behavior -- it doesn't keep the government from invading your computer AGAIN, because they didn't do it in the first place. This Turkish guy would probably continue to do it, possibly choosing instead to publish the guy's information on-line. Heck, if he had that much control of the pedophile's computer, he could just send an email from the pedophile to the FBI saying "I just wanted to show you what I have stored on my computer" and attaching a picture. Should the FBI ignore leads like that as well?

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[budgenator]

Last time I was in the Jury pool, the presecuter went to very long lengths to explain the difference between "preponderance of evidence", "reasonbable doubt" and "any Doubt" blurring the differences tends to get you excused from jury duty. The truth is once the FBI gets interested in this guy and supeneas ISP logs, they can start looking at what he's actually downloading, when the pics are downloaded, when the 'puter was accessed through the subseven backdoor and what the timestamps on the illegal material is; the guy going to be toast anyways. I'm sure his logins quickly got transfered to the "special server" that does a more meticulous job of logging than the "normal servers" do. Imagine the task faced durring discovery when the prosecution sends over 5 or 6 DVD's of server logs of everything that came out or went into your clients computer. The Gov can throw a lot of resources into a prosecution and even an ER doctor is going to get bled dry by expert witnesses at $300.00/hr to counter the governments experts.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[UbuntuDupe]

"Okay, now it's your turn to call. I need my vegetable patch plowed."

Dude, that's just not cool. What did their being gay have to do with the story?

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[budgenator]

The FACT still stands that you are not a citizen of the United States and are not bound by our laws. Our federal attorneys have expressed NO desire to charge you with any CRIMINAL offense.
Usually slash-think would be that this is the way it should be, the US should force it's standards on the rest of the world. I'm not sure they are approving his actions maybe it's more along the lines of procecuting fraud and hacking for profit has an overwhemling priority for the department that does such things.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Columcille]

If you would RTFA you'd notice that the response was that since this guy is in Turkey he isn't covered by US laws and cannot be prosecuted. The article mentioned something about calling the guy on a US number, then linked to the court case PDF. The PDF mentions US attempts to determine the identity of the informant. They were able to get a US phone number that connected them to some voicemail service. In this day of getting international phone numbers through Skype, and using Skype for voicemail, having a US number doesn't demonstrate much.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Anonymous Coward]

His shirt color is Brown.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[DerekLyons]

I don't think the police should be allowed to use illicitly gained information or that they should be allowed to encourage private citizens to commit felonies.

Thing is, 4th Amendment protections only prohibit the government from illegally searching your property. If a burglar breaks into your house and steal a sack of the counterfeit money you're printing then later gets caught and fingers you, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. They still need a warrant to search your place, but the sack of C-notes with damp ink are easily enough to get one. Now, if the government hires a burglar, that's a 4th Amendment no-no; otherwise, you can press charges for criminal trespass if you like-- from your prison cell.

Mostly correct. If they police hires someone to perform a police function, then that person is considered to have been properly deputized - and is thus considered, under the law, as if he himself were a police officer. Thus; if the police hires the burglar to obtain evidence that they could not otherwise have obtained (I.E. in place of a search warrant); then the evidence is tainted and is not admissible in court.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[TCM]

Is it different if he silently broke into your house to steal some silver and happened to look into a room where you were doing the molesting? What if he happened to have a camera and took pictures?

You're mixing up things. A photo with _him_ on it (on paper or digital) is much stronger evidence than a photo which isn't related to him in any way other than it was allegedly found in his possession. If the trespasser came to the Police and said "Here, I found these photos of children in this guy's room", there would be the same level of doubt that he may just have put them there himself.

If the hacker had found some pictures with the guy on them, then I would have much less doubt about the hacker's intention. But alas, it's just a criminal with a dubious agenda and his "evidence" is worth jack shit.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[TrickyToSay]

If we allow this kind of illegal tipoff as evidence to police, then it gives criminals who have the skill to plant fake evidence a very big lever against everyone.

"Hey buddy... look at all the pics I put in My Documents for you. How about you wire me $1000 to my account in so I keep quiet about it"

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[DDLKermit007]

So how about I go sit out front of your work and wait with a radar gun and report you when your late for work speeding? I don't even begin to condone what these people do that are getting caught, but it's a slippery slope. Law enforcement is really NOT something you want average "people" getting involved with. People have far too much free time on thier hands and they can get vindictive. If you look at someone long enough they WILL do something illegal. It's just stupid human nature. The only reason society functions is because people can't be monitored at all times (though I sure wish true asshole criminals like most CEOs & Politicians could be).

I do however have no sympathy for these pedos though since they are getting hit with simple trojans. Your a Darwin canidate going on ANY Newsgroup without a virus scanner.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[hazem]

Here's an analogy: Let's say that your neighbor trespasses through your backyard and, in doing so, happens to look through your window and sees you molesting a child. If he goes to the police and says what he saw, should they be able to act on it?

There's a key distinction. In one case a guy is doing one illegal thing incidentally (trespassing) and witnessing another illegal act and reporting it. They guy could still be prosecuted for trespassing. In another, the police are giving the guy a pass on tresspassing in people's yards in the hope that he'll dig up stuff to find. Now he's working as an agent of the police. And at the moment, they should not be able to benefit from his criminal acts.

Heck, if he had that much control of the pedophile's computer, he could just send an email from the pedophile to the FBI saying "I just wanted to show you what I have stored on my computer" and attaching a picture. Should the FBI ignore leads like that as well?

Or, if he had that much control over the computer, what's to say he's not working from Turkey cause problems for people, yet be immune to prosecution in the US? With that control, what's to keep him from planting photos, or causing his computer to obtain child porn and create logs at the ISP? How reliable is this evidence now? Has there been any "standards of evidence" maintained to ensure that the data found on the computer was NOT planted?

This could be a very convenient business. Working as a tech hitman, you could be paid to take out political opponents, assist in custody cases, and character assassinations by hacking computers and planting evidence... then reporting it to the police. It wouldn't even have to stick... just be enough damage to lose the election or the custody case.

Should the FBI ignore leads like that as well?
They should ignore any evidence or leads that are not forensically sound. And they should not encourage others to break the law to help them get the evidence they want.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[tgibbs]

Or, if he had that much control over the computer, what's to say he's not working from Turkey cause problems for people, yet be immune to prosecution in the US? With that control, what's to keep him from planting photos, or causing his computer to obtain child porn and create logs at the ISP? How reliable is this evidence now? Has there been any "standards of evidence" maintained to ensure that the data found on the computer was NOT planted?

Since the hacker clearly had access to the computer, the only chance the police will have of getting a conviction is developing evidence that is not derived from that computer.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> If you would RTFA

I did... and guess what? I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the parent post of my posting.
We were discussing a general concept in the article... that is, how can you draw the line between what our government is allowed to use and what it isn't.

The reason evidence is thrown out of court if it wasn't collected with a warrant is to servce as an incentive for the government to do its job right, thus protecting our rights in general.

So, if the gov't wants information on something an individual is doing, do they need a warrant? apparently not... they just need to covertly contact someone who is not a citizen, and not in our country... and even then, it might not have to be covert depending on how you read the laws.

While we cannot specifically prosecute this person directly, we might be able to use diplomatic ties and treaties to get the other gov't to prosecute. There is no reason our federal government, whose job includes protecting us from foreign invasion, should tacitly allow that invasion, even if it ends up being for a good cause.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I totally agree. The core of my point (which I didn't directly address) is that as distasteful in this circumstance as it is, the gov't should not be able to use evidence gained during the comission of a crime to do anything other than obtain a warrant.

And, since that gov't is charged with protecting its citizens from foreign invasion, that they should be taking some sort of action in that direction... even if it is just contacting the foreign gov't and reporting activity that may be a crime in their country.

(Which isn't to say this guy shouldn't have been protecting himself, and definitely should not have been partaking in the activities he was)

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[smchris]

I have to agree. It is one of those unpleasant test cases I'd put up there with letting Nazis march through black neighborhoods and _NUDIST_ or art pictures including young girls.** You just have to say it is wrong for the court to allow this freelance hacking if we are a nation of principles protecting freedoms. It is wrong when we hire contractors to do our torturing for us and it is wrong for the FBI to give tacit acceptance to this guy breaking into computers. And it is wrong for the court to uphold it. If there is a loophole, Congress should close it. (Or the guy should take it to a higher court -- even if Rush Limbaugh and Reader's Digest would have a field day with it if the ACLU supported the guy.)

It is like we have lost our compass as a nation ruled by principle and have become a nation run as a social psychology experiment. I put the blame on the war on drugs. Narcs went from posing as buyers to posing as dealers. The concept caught on across the nation expanding to decoy prostitutes, decoy fences, and decoy kiddie porn sites. When you talk about government spending, I don't know when it became the government's job to act as Satan tempting us into various sins. I think it is these decoy programs that have set the foundation for saying, "Hey, who cares about principles? These programs just work!" They set a precedent for acceptance of further judgements in a case like this. But it makes you wonder where a government based on pragmatism instead of principle will take us in the end.

** In our area, we've had a mother taking a photography class get in big trouble dropping off pictures of her nude daughter at the photomat. One shot of the kid hugging her dog particularly got somebody's testicles in a knot. Lord protect their heart from cardiac arrest if they ever lay eyes upon the somewhat notorious oil Young Girl Playing with her Dog c. 1775 by Jean-Honore Fragonard occasionally shown in art history classes ;)

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[anagama]

FYI, dude is already convicted. He's trying to get a new trial and it sounds like he has to get that from the US Supreme Court.

Steiger was convicted of sexual exploitation of children, possession of a computer containing child pornography, and receipt of child pornography. He was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison. In January 2003, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, saying that Congress had left a loophole open in federal privacy law that lets hackers like "1069" get away with turning information over to the government and having it used in court. (The 11th Circuit called it a "legislative hiatus in the current laws purporting to protect privacy in electronic communications.")

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Maxmin]

The other thing the Constitution says is that you have the right to confront your accusers. Ah, who is the accuser in this case? An anonymous person! Could the FBI and the police have made this person up? You don't know. Dilemma.

If the doc has any mettle, this case would likely go to the supremes, as clearly there are unanswered questions.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they "encourage" the guy to continue he has their imprimature and is their agent. Everything applies. Moreover, as everyone has noted, the mere fact that he accessed the computer in questions creates doubt on the owner being responsible for anything found thereon.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[TempeTerra]

Telling them "sorry, you can't use that" doesn't deter ANY behavior -- it doesn't keep the government from invading your computer AGAIN, because they didn't do it in the first place.

Well, it would mean that people wouldn't want to hack your computer looking for evidence since any evidence would be useless. It would also deter the government from inciting hackers to hack your computer, which would be a very real danger if the evidence was admissable. Like how governments supposedly trade each other for surveillance information they can't legally obtain from their own citizens.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[budgenator]

Well if this guy feels picked on now because some hacker got his jollies setting a trap and hunting him down like somekind of sub-human prey, imagine what he'll feel after he's been raped a couple times, they do tend to kind all the sex offenders in the same prison. If he survives that then him name and address goes on state's pervert site for every whacko that was molested as a child to see and obsese over fire-bombing his house for revenge.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Arker]

The exclusionary rule is a rather recent invention. Not quite what the founders had in mind, I dare say. But it was necessitated by the demonstrable inability of the system to prosecute police who violate that law.

It would be much better to allow all evidence - but also to give police that commit crimes to obtain evidence the full punishment of the law. After all, if someone does commit a crime, they should be punished, and the fact that their rights were violated by the police afterwards shouldn't really affect that. But what happens is that, in general, the police won't investigate each other, the prosecutors won't prosecute the police, and so they're effectively above the law. And the courts can neither investigate nor prosecute - that's beyond their power. So they did the one thing they could do about the situation - they started throwing evidence out and letting criminals walk free, in the hopes this would at least give the police some incentive to begin to obey the law they're sworn to uphold.

Sad, huh?

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[freedom_india]

How come when we (citizens) try to enact Vigilante justice against Govt. corruption like Karl Rove, we are branded terrorists or worse?

How come the vigilante justice doesn't catch the appreciation of justice dep.t when we point out issues in CAPPS II or other useless Govt. programs which waste our money for enriching private contractors?

How come vigilante justice doesn't apply when we try to expose Iraq war lies, etc.,

How come at all these times, the FULL weight of Govt. descends on us to make us seem the movie "Enemy of State" is a reality.?

How?

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[pgnas]

"Who will Guard the Guards?" Well, this is an interesting notion. How about, who will guard the children? Who will guard the citizens?

Everyone seems to pipe up about these issues, until there is some report about the fact that there was "information available, that was over-looked for reason xyz", now it's time to tar and feather those who were actually following protocol, "protecting our rights".

I find it interesting that the same people who rally around rights and are concerned about "big brother", are also the same persons who rally around socialization of services and generally larger forms of Government. How does that make sense?

We cannot tie the arms behind the backs of our various law enforcement agencies and then hold them accountable to the degree that they are held. If you are going to fight crime, then fight crime. I got an idea, how about we do what works? If the methods described are working, great, if not, let's try something else.

If it looks like a granny, talks like a granny and walks like a granny, it must be a terrorist.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[PPH]

We can't use vigilantism against the state s they can against its citizens because that's how a fascist state operate. Individuals, or corporations may work in the interest of the state but not against it.

In the case of its one thing for a responsible citizen to volunteer information leading to their apprehension, so long as this information was obtained legally. If somene is stupid enough to do something like this 'in public view', they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

When a hacker violates someone's rights and/or the law in order to collect evidence and the government uses it (where they would have to adhere to more restrictive guidelines would they pursue a case on their own), they are using a dangerous loophole. Law enforcement policies are no longer being made by elected officials, but by individuals who may have interests othe than the public good as motivation.

It also brings up an issue of public liability. If the investigation was bungled and the suspect turns around and sues for wrongful prosecution, who pays?

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that is all I have to say. You see I an many many other readers here, could pull this off with a little effort. Actually I imagine it would be an excellent way to get rid of a person you find yourself not liking.

Make me look like im outside of the US = 0$
install sub7 on a typical windows users compt with a lil social engeneering = 0$
place illegal documents on victim's computer = 0$
change time stamp = easy any way you slice it. = 0$
call cops, use phoney accent = 0$

get rid of asshole you dislike = priceless

I could write articles articulating how to do all said procedures, will very little effort, I sure hope the guy who got nailed was guilty...

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[evilviper]

I don't think the police should be allowed to use illicitly gained information or that they should be allowed to encourage private citizens to commit felonies.

Good, because they aren't. This is completely illegal.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[evilviper]

If a burglar breaks into your house and steal a sack of the counterfeit money you're printing then later gets caught and fingers you, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

The problem is, unless the police seize it from your poperty, it is worthless as evidence. It might be just enough to get a search warrant, but that's about it.

Now, if the government hires a burglar, that's a 4th Amendment no-no;

It doesn't have to be so explicit. Even implicit approval of someone else doing it, makes him a government agent.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[ultranova]

The truth is once the FBI gets interested in this guy and supeneas ISP logs, they can start looking at what he's actually downloading,

Irrelevant, since once you gain control of a computer you can make it download anything you want.

when the pics are downloaded,

Irrelevant, since there's no way to know when the hacker first gained access to the computer.

when the 'puter was accessed through the subseven backdoor and what the timestamps on the illegal material is;

Irrelevant, because

1. The computer is able to run timed jobs; that is, the hacker can tell it to download child porn two hours after the hacker disconnects and
2. There's no way to know how the hacker gained access to the computer; even if there's evidence to one method, the hacker could have used another and simply planted evidence pointing to the first. Specifically, this guy could have gotten a virus or trojan which contacted the hacker (indirectly, of course) for instructions, removing any trace of inbound connections.

The Gov can throw a lot of resources into a prosecution and even an ER doctor is going to get bled dry by expert witnesses at $300.00/hr to counter the governments experts.

So basically guilt and innocence are based on how much money the accused has. I'm starting to think that US courts deserve to be held in contempt.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[ultranova]

When you talk about government spending, I don't know when it became the government's job to act as Satan tempting us into various sins.

Well, outsourcing's popular nowadays, isn't it ? And I doubt anyone can claim that US government was not competent in matters of corruption.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[lysergic.acid]

yes, we should just return to the days of mob justice.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[spudgun]

I know I've read several accounts of where patriot and other anti terror acts have been used for entirely unrelated crimes.

They wanted those laws BEFORE 11th Sept .. , they were just looking for an excuse!

so no supprise that they are using them for anything they want too.

PATRIOT was never read before it was made law , they could have put anything in there !

Scared?

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[cfulmer]

The government already can't ask hackers to get into your system -- that makes the hacker a government agent, and the fourth amendment applies.

You're right that such a rule would probably deter people from hacking into your computer if their sole purpose was to turn kiddie porn over to the cops. But, hackers have other purposes. Plus, if they wanted to get you, there are alternate ways of doing so.

If you read through the cases mentioned in the article (especially the second), you'll find that the actual facts are a bit different than the article and the slashdot story would have you believe. For example, the letter saying that he would not be prosecuted was sent to convince him to come to the US to testify, not to suggest that he should continue his hacking. Once the police hinted that he should continue, anything further was inadmissible.

Re:I say the ends don't justify the means.

[kalirion]

Quick question. How do we know this hacker wasn't planting the pictures on the computers?

So it's OK?

[bky1701]

To hack anyone as long as you say you are hacking to catch "pedophiles"? Sounds more like the FBI trying to side-step normal limitations of spying on people.

Re:So it's OK?

[Dun Malg]

To hack anyone as long as you say you are hacking to catch "pedophiles"? Sounds more like the FBI trying to side-step normal limitations of spying on people.

The FBI isn't doing anything but opening their mail, though. What should they be doing? Throwing out genuinely incriminating information purely on principle or something? Vigilantism is an awkward area. Doubly so when the vigilante is in a country outside your jurisdiction. Triply so when the guy seems to only be targeting pedophiles. Technically what he's doing is illegal, but only a feet-planted-firmly-in-the-air pure theoretical academic idealist would say assault charges are warranted against a man who tackles some loser he sees knock down an old lady and run off with her purse. How different is this? Different enough matter?

Re:So it's OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, it happened in the middle of a large forest, at night, the guy who stole the purse has his brains splattered all over the ground, the old lady is nowhere to be seen, and the purse still has the price tag attached to it.

Re:So it's OK?

[bky1701]

Anything a hacker can see he can add. How do we know these people really had anything illegal, BEFORE they were hacked? Is a hacked person's computer really considerable evidence? From what I have seen elsewhere, it seems the consensus is no.

And would you approve the FBI using the exact same methods themselves? What's stopping them from sending people to the Congo to do this outside American laws? How do we know this ISN'T the case???

Re:So it's OK?

[ResidntGeek]

Throwing out genuinely incriminating information purely on principle or something?

Yes, they should. It's the same reason evidence from illegal police searches is thrown out. If the judge is going to say "bad, bad FBI! you shouldn't have done that to get this evidence which we will now use to find in your favor!", why wouldn't they keep doing it?

Re:So it's OK?

[RobertLTux]

"easy way" to fix this kind of thing
a visitor (lets just he happens to be a real Highlander) sees a guy shoot a couple of cops and run away, he then pulls his sword out and swings for the bleachers.

1 the perp gets his charges dropped (its best to drop charges when the suspect can no longer stand trial [cough **riaa take note**)
2 the cops get to the ER/Mourge
3 Our Highlander gets to hear "the charges while fully justified will be dropped due to the context" (hand wave any concealed carry/weapons regs)

Re:So it's OK?

[MyLongNickName]

Errrrm no. Police act as agents of the state. It is not as clear that some Turkish guy is. It is an ambiguous moral situation. But, not sure what the legal position is. I am sure 99.8% of slashdot doesn't either, but that never stops them from posting.

Re:So it's OK?

[ResidntGeek]

Look, dipshit, your post included a rhetorical question whose answer was obviously based on a lack of understanding. I didn't say I knew the legal position, I was saying what I thought the legal position should be, and stating my reason, since you didn't seem to understand the other side of the argument.

Re:So it's OK?

[MyLongNickName]

Look, dipshit, your post included a rhetorical question whose answer was obviously based on a lack of understanding.

Where was the rhetorical question?

Re:So it's OK?

[CAIMLAS]

No, evidence ceased illegally by police is thrown out because police gained it through abuse of their authority as a public servant.

If a burglar stumbles upon something incriminating of a greater act - say, murder - while commissioning burglary, and the burglar comes clean, they're likely to get a pardon or even have their burglary ignored, especially if they ended up not taking anything other than the incriminating evidence. Same kinda thing.

Re:So it's OK?

[MyLongNickName]

Don't argue with him. He might call you a dipshit.

Re:So it's OK?

[CAIMLAS]

Now, if Mr. Highlander had an evil black assault sword with banned accessories (like a kevlar covered hilt, maybe) instead of just your general, run-of-the-mill sword, he'd probably have been booked 7-ways to Sunday and had the key thrown out...

Re:So it's OK?

[ResidntGeek]

I really have to quote you in order for you to remember what you said?

What should they be doing? Throwing out genuinely incriminating information purely on principle or something?

Re:So it's OK?

[ResidntGeek]

You... you really take insults from people on the internet to heart? Christ, you are a dipshit. Grow some thicker skin.

Re:So it's OK?

[MyLongNickName]

Errrm. I don't recall having said that. Can you point me to the post where I said that?

Re:So it's OK?

[ResidntGeek]

Whoops, my bad. I thought you were the OP.

Re:So it's OK?

[bky1701]

If that's not the legal position NOW, it needs to be. Something being something now doesn't mean it should be that way. So in the end, it doesn't matter if "99.8% of slashdot doesn't either", because it doesn't matter if it's OK by law or not, it's not logically or morally right.

Re:So it's OK?

[MyLongNickName]

Morally ambiguous at best.

If I break into your house. Discover you are raping someone (other than your realdoll), and call the cops, does this mean you should not be busted, tried and convicted?

Re:So it's OK?

[Bitsy Boffin]

If I break into your house. Plant some kiddie porn videos, and call the cops, does this mean you should not be busted, tried and convicted.

Re:So it's OK?

[bky1701]

If I break into your house. Discover you are raping someone (other than your realdoll), and call the cops, does this mean you should not be busted, tried and convicted?

It's more like you breaking in, raping me, then saying I raped you, and me going to jail.

Re:So it's OK?

[mjeffers]

Exactly. The reason why this is so troubling is that the only evidence we have that the hacker even exists comes from law enforcement. Now there's also no evidence that they're making it all up but we need protections against this sort of thing (such as requiring the hacker to appear in court and testify in order for the evidence to be considered valid) or "my anonymous Turkish hacker friend told me" will be come the law enforcement equivalent of "sure I got laid, but she lives in Canada... and she's dead now...".

I'm not a lawyer so these sorts of protections may already exist but I find it odd that the judge even allowed this to proceed.

Re:So it's OK?

[MyLongNickName]

Way to swerve the debate. We were talking about a hacker discovering porn, and the ethical implications of treating it as admissable evidence. Then you switch it to hacker plants evidence which is a different story. You either have weaking arguing skills, or realize how tenuous your argument is.

You're obviously a pedophile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a pedophile would have anything to hide from hackers. I bet you hate America. Please turn yourself in to your nearest police station or orphanage. Thank you.

Re:You're obviously a pedophile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody has something to hide from hackers. Credit card numbers, bank account information, passwords etc... What you mean to say is that only a pedophile would have anything to hide from FBI or Police investigating child pornography.

yeah

[misey]

that's awesome, and it may give those fbi agents a different view on things like the 2600 magazine, Off the Wall/Hook, and Emmanuel Goldstein.

Re:yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the sneaking suspicion that 2600 wouldn't exactly endorse these actions, especially given the history that they DO have.

Yeah

[Walzmyn]

Mild mannered pedophile catcher by day...
Evil identity theif by night.

Does it hold up in court?

[jdhutchins]

The real question is, will this evidence hold up in court? IANAL, but it would seem that an easy defense would be to go after this information.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[kfg]

The real question is, will this evidence hold up in court?

The legitimate law enforcement agencies use illegally gained information on a regular basis.

How do they get away with it? They don't present that particular information in court. They leverage that information into admissible evidence by converting it into probable cause for a legitimate search. This is the very problem with widespread, illegal monitoring of the public and why the public might be inclined to support the practice, at least until they become the target.

KFG

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but the obvious question I would have to bring up (if I were a lawyer) would be "If this person (a hacker) had access to your computer, what evidence do you have that they didn't put this data onto your computer?"

This reminds me of a virus my brother got on his computer a while back. My brother downloaded some "Game" and it was (in fact) a Trojan; the program went to all the default P2P download folders (and created them if they did not exist) and filled them full of files like "Tiny_Teen Sloppy_Sex.exe" and "Half_Life_3_Beta.exe" (obviously copies of the virus). Being that he didn't use the default folders he didn't spread the virus any further.

The point I am making with this is that Hackers can get files onto your computer without your knowldege or consent; why would a court of law accept this information as evidence?

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[Dun Malg]

The real question is, will this evidence hold up in court? IANAL, but it would seem that an easy defense would be to go after this information.

They're not prosecuting based solely on an email attachment full of hints. You can be fairly sure they're only using it to observe the guy and get a warrant. The evidence they convict with is probably more like the actual hard drive full of kiddy porn from the guy's system and chat logs of undercover agents getting child porn from the guy. Hard to argue it was planted if you're sharing it freely.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[andersa]

In Denmark, lets say the police accidentally searches your house without a warrant, and they find something nasty, the law says that just because the police didn't actually have the right to be there, then that doesn't make you less guilty.

I think that is fair enough. Of course I am Danish.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[popsicle67]

Third party evidence is used all the time. The fact that the person supplying the evidence was committing a crime to get the evidence does not usually matter as long as they were not an acting agent of a law-enforcement agency. These are outside the pervue of our courts anyway as that crime is not being committed within our borders. The only crime they can look at is the downloading of child porn, and the defence can hammer all it wants on how the evidence is collected, but I think it will be admissable.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

So then, what's your recourse if they don't find anything nasty? You've been put through alot of hassle
for them to wind up with bubkiss, and the fact that they didn't even have a warrent to begin with?
I'd say that's akin to a home invasion, harassment, and abuse of powers granted.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[munpfazy]

The evidence they convict with is probably more like the actual hard drive full of kiddy porn from the guy's system and chat logs of undercover agents getting child porn from the guy. Hard to argue it was planted if you're sharing it freely.

Unless of course you had some reason to believe that a hacker had installed a rootkit on the guy's pc.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[MichaelSmith]

The real question is, will this evidence hold up in court?

The hacker who found the files could just as easily have planted them.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[Savantissimo]

"The fact that the person supplying the evidence was committing a crime to get the evidence does not usually matter as long as they were not an acting agent of a law-enforcement agency."

It should matter to you. It makes it much too tempting for cops to have such an easy way around the rules - anonymous tips should never be probable cause unless you want to just hotwire the power of government around the the bill of rights. It also makes it far too easy to get planted information accepted in court. The cops might plant evidence occasionally, but that's not the real danger. You won't just get vigilantes screwing up innocent people's computers - you'll get extortionists and framers, stalkers and vengeful crazy people going after anybody they hate, or in the case of the profit-minded ones, just anybody who looks sufficiently weak and solvent. There are times when courts have to let the wanker with the pervy pics go, so as not to set a bad precedent that will cause more harm in the long run than letting him off lightly. (Merely destroying his life with the trial and keeping him incarcerated for closer to 2 rather than 20 years for downloading porn seems not excessively light, anyway.)

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[Bing Tsher E]

It gets to the point here sometimes where good old Occam would pull out his razor and yell 'Jesus H. Christ!'

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[munpfazy]

Fortunately, the US criminal justice system doesn't (well, isn't supposed to) convict people when "the most likely explanation" is that they are guilty.

But, does it really seem overwhelmingly more likely that an anonymous guy who used malicious software to gain access to someone's machine without permission and then contacted the cops found child porn there rather than that he both planted and found it?

Sure, the simplest explanation may be that the anonymous hacker is telling the truth. There are a lot of vigilantes out there who would happily commit illegal acts in order to put away people who possess child porn. But there are also a lot of angry people out there who would happily set someone up on a false charge in order to settle a personal grievance.

Since we have only the hacker's word that the suspect is the one who downloaded the material, all the evidence found on the computer or involving communication with the computer is equivalent to the testimony of an anonymous, admitted criminal that the suspect is guilty. That, in itself, had better not be enough to convict someone.

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[ball-lightning]

Well, the general idea is that if that sort of thing were allowed, the police would probably "accidentally" search a lot of people's houses often. I knew a girl who's house was accidentally searched here in the US (it actually was, her neighbors were drug dealers) and she got a six figure settlement...

Re:Does it hold up in court?

[ralphdaugherty]

The real question is, will this evidence hold up in court? IANAL, but it would seem that an easy defense would be to go after this information.


      The whole point of TFA was that it did hold up in court.

  rd

Justified

[Ma8thew]

This guy seeded alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen, and clearly did it with the intention of catching paedophiles. I'd say it's justified.

Re:Justified

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going there, but please dont tell me this link contains what I think it does. :(

Re:Justified

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the subject matter distort the ethics of the matter. The only people who should be doing this are law enforcement if they have a warrant.

Re:Justified

[RPoet]

I, too, was surprised to discover there is porn on the usenets. Of course, this was in 1997, but regardless.

Re:Justified

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be entrapment if the FBI did it directly?

Re:Justified

[Not The Real Me]

"This guy seeded alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen, and clearly did it with the intention of catching paedophiles. I'd say it's justified."

Not only that, it also explains why sites don't get Slashdotted like they used to. :p

Re:Justified

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy seeded alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen, and clearly did it with the intention of catching paedophiles. I'd say it's justified.

I hate to be this guy, but I just have to remind everyone that being a paedophile, in and of itself, is not against the law. To do so, we would be making certain thoughts illegal. This seems to be often overlooked. Possessing underage erotica is certainly illegal, but just being a paedophile is not.

Re:Justified

[coyote-san]

IANAL, yada yada

Entrapment is offering an inducement that is enough to convince law-abiding citizen to do something illegal. That's usually money, but it could be other things as well. It's a risky defense since it requires admitting the wrongdoing.

This wouldn't be entrapment since 1) non-pedophiles may have legitimate reasons to monitor that newsgroup. e.g., see the recent Salon.com article on kiddie porn researchers being frustrated since the feds don't have any exceptions for properly accredited researchers. I can easily see somebody snarfing that thread to see how much of it is spam, how much is clearly adult erotica, how much is teenage non-erotica, and how much is questionable content. I suspect the latter is only a tiny fraction of the traffic.

If mere subscription is enough to be criminal, the ISPs could simply require people to log in to access all newsgroups and then monitor who subscribes to that group.

And 2) there is no inducement for people to look at the group. Nobody is standing on the street corner offering people $100 to peek into the group.

Re:Justified

[budgenator]

Probably does,15 GB of spam a week. Trolling USENET for illegal content is pretty pathetic, the signal to noise ratio is totaly in the basement, the good stuff is hosted in servers in third world african country assesable only through dialup via 900 number at 3.00 a minute. Who can be against prosecuteing pedophiles and kiddy-porn vendors, honestly they are the scum of the earth. Eventualy we'll win the war on drugs, and even the war on terrorism will get small time, but the war on child-porn will keep law enforcement employed.

Re:Justified

[Anonymous Coward]

Please end all sarcastic comments with the [/sarcasim] tag, as I almost flamed you for being a completed and utter f'in loon. Win the war on drugs, hahahahaha funny that one is. I'm getting tired of paying ever increasing taxes for such worthless persuits.

Re:Justified

[Brian Ribbon]

And here are a few more realities

Man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those pedophiles ruin everything.

Yeah, what's the next step?

[someone1234]

Next time a hacker will plant the images himself and then get brownie points with the FBI.

It's called a "search warrant".

[khasim]

I'd rather have private hackers do it than the government.

If it is going to be done, then it should be by the government and they should be required to get a search warrant.

Otherwise, anyone in ... say Russia for example, can crack your computer and search for child pornography ... and credit card numbers.

Oops. Sorry. Those credit card numbers were accidentally leaked, along with your Social Security Number and such.

But at least those Russian "hackers" know you weren't collecting kiddie porn.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[zecg]

Otherwise, anyone in ... say Russia for example, can crack your computer and search for child pornography ... and credit card numbers.

Also, they also can plant the pornography themselves, once they root the user's box.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[lawpoop]

I am absolutely against vigilante justice. We need government to do it properly, ot allow for oversight and prevent abuse.

Hut part of me says, how is this different than an anonymous tip? What if someone called the police and said "I was using my roommate's computer and found these images..." and the police asked him to go in an investigate further?

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[TheGavster]

The police shouldn't be asking the roomate to investigate further. They should tell a judge "we think this guy is doing X", get a warrant, and investigate themselves. If you don't have enough evidence to support convincing a judge to issue a warrant, I would suspect it's just a fishing expedition. I mean, seriously, how hard is it to find probable cause when the searchee isn't even present to defend themselves?

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[LurkerXXX]

Hmm, hack a box, steal credit card info, identity info, then plant kiddie porn and tip off cops.
The patsy is busy with a trial followed by a long trip to jail, leaving no time for him to find mysterious credit card/mortgages/loans charged to his identity. Sounds like the way to get a long lead when your job is identity theft. Scary.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[hords]

Heck, they could even surf child porn sites from your machine and use your credit card and identity to purchase access to such sites. Who is to say that the hacker isn't the pedophile?

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[Anonymous Coward]

Hut part of me says, how is this different than an anonymous tip? What if someone called the police and said "I was using my roommate's computer and found these images..." and the police asked him to go in an investigate further?

This bullshit is not to be encouraged. Once the police are involved, any action taken by the tipper should be deemed to have been taken by the police, with all warrant requirementrs fulfilled or the evidence is tossed

It's much the same as when the CIA, at the time not allowed to compile a file of American citizen mugshots, contracted with at least three states to purchase all driver's license photos. By purchasing information from other agencies or commercial data-mining interests, they were trying to evade operational restrictions placed upon them. At least one of the three states, on finding out the intended use of the d/l photos, sued to get them back or verifiably destroyed in place.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the hacker compromised the computer of an FBI agent or a member of Congress in this manner, then shared what they'd "found" with both law enforcement and the press? It might lead to the FBI and Congress learning more about modern technology, to try to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[EtherMonkey]

Heck, they could even surf child porn sites from your machine and use your credit card and identity to purchase access to such sites. Who is to say that the hacker isn't the pedophile?

But, since the FBI is asking him to do it, it would all be ok, right? He's not committing a criminal act, he's just doing research. Just like Pete Townsend, but with FBI approval.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[CriminalNerd]

Heck, they could even surf child porn sites from your machine and use your credit card and identity to purchase access to such sites. Who is to say that the hacker isn't the pedophile?

The people the FBI had arrested were molesting children who the pedophiles could "access" nearly at will. Surely an investigation would show that fact. RTFA kthx.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[gartogg]

I'm just noticing. This must be the first thread I've seen in a solid year where I can't find the phrase IANAL anywhere. I guess when these issues come up, the Slashdot Law community shows up.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[plumby]

The people the FBI had arrested were molesting children who the pedophiles could "access" nearly at will.

Where in TFA does it say that? The closest I can find is the statement "he had possibly saved two young girls", in relation to one of the trials.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[skoony]

i agree with you lurker, this guy got a lame defence attourny. if he can hack in to your computer,he can modify its contents also. one should reformat often regards, mike

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[Anonymous Coward]

In soviet russia, porn searches for you!

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[freakmn]

I think it's just that people don't want to use that ackronym for fear that it may be misinterpreted. They're trying to avoid being the next target of this hacker. Sorry, that was pretty bad.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[NumerusSpy]

About two months or so ago I was waiting for the police to kick my door down for kiddie porn. I was browsing the net(using firefox), minding my own business when all of a sudden about 10 popups appeared filled with the most loathsome shit I had ever seen. The top level popup then appears with a message saying that your computer has been infected and to buy some product to fix it. I fixed it alright but not with their scummy bullshit product. My software is always patched as soon as a patch comes along. I don't know how it happened but I was shitting myself I would be in the local paper as some sort of pervert freak.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[Axe 336]

I would hope that the FBI would be sensible enough to get some of their experts to check the information to see that the hacker's story matched up. Or maybe you could move to Russia so you wouldn't have to guess as to whether the governement was watching you.

Re:It's called a "search warrant".

[macdaddy]

The ethics of the non-law-enforcement-officer are also in question. What's to stop the hacker from intentionally placing the files in question on what is not the victim's PC? The chain of custody has been broken and any lawyer should be able to get the case tossed. That goes both ways. What if the person really was a pedophile and used the FBI's trust in a person with unknown ethics to get the bastard off? What if an innocent person was framed by an unethical hacker? There are reasons why we've created law enforcement agencies and the checks and balances to govern them. There is no such thing in a vigilanty hacker.

But your honor...

[gwayne]

This hacker obviously planted that child pornography on my computer with a trojan, in an attempt to blackmail me, a promonent local physician...

Re:But your honor...

[legoburner]

Good point, if the defendant can prove they did not have absolute control over their computer, perhaps the charges are null and void. Only if the FBI were directly monitoring him after the tip off would he not be able to use that defense, and even then it can be argued that it was a hacker making his computer do it, making it look like him.

Re:But your honor...

[telchine]

I've read that this is quite a common excuse used by people caught in posession of child pornography in the UK. They say "look my wi-fi connection isn't encrypted, it could have been a hacker that put those images there". Apparently it doesn't work as a defence because they are responsible for the security of their own computer.

Interestingly though, if they catch someone stealing an Internet connection via unsecured wi-fi, it's the person who is using the connection that is at fault, not the person who's failed to secure their Internet connection.

Re:But your honor...

[Loconut1389]

yet another reason to support communism- I mean, if your computer belongs to everyone, then everyone had the porn!
*removes tongue from cheek*

Re:But your honor...

[cpu_fusion]

if the defendant can prove they did not have absolute control over their computer, perhaps the charges are null and void

I am not yet a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I'd say there are two problems here. The first is that judges and juries don't understand technology the way we do, and all they will have to go on is expert witnesses, whom the prosecution would deliver as well as the defense. The second is that when the DA offers a deal, which they will given the desire for an easy conviction, the suspect have to ask himself if he wants to take a very big gamble.

In a more perfect world, plea bargaining wouldn't exist (nor be thought of as "necessary" by a system loaded with vice-crime offenses), our courts would allow scientific facts to be determined through inquisitorial "expert" judges rather than juries, and the FBI and law enforcement wouldn't be cooperating with self-confessed law breakers to catch innocent-until-proven-guilty suspects, who at worst are shown simply to possess an image of an act (not actually participated in the act) no more or less heinous than videotapes of the twin towers falling and killing 3,000 people. (i.e. the images themselves are just images, its the unprovable-without-confession arrousal that is the sick act.)

Anyways, G-d Save the Constitution.

Re:But your honor...

[Jacer]

He was convicted of sexual explotation of a minor, in addition to receiving child pornography. One would guess that some of the pictures on the hard drive depicted him in certain acts with one of the children... Not that anyone bothers to read the articles. I have no problems with the way the evidence was collected if 1.) The guy really is a Turkish citzen acting under absolutely no direction of domestic law enforcement (I do think protecting the constitution is important) 2.) the FBI didn't lie about their involvement with the person (I think their involvement with the guy is fairly suspect, and would merit further investigation, which would invalidate point one. If he were an american citizen, who did act without the direction of law enforcement officals, the evidence would still be admitted to court, which I endorse. However if he is an American citizen, I would also wish him to be prosecuted for whatever digital crimes he commited.)

Re:But your honor...

[Peaker]

Its not the "sick arousal" that's the problem.

The images are a problem if they encourage people to go catch kids to make those images.

If a guy is unlucky enough to be a pedophile, he is expected to avoid sexual satisfaction as to avoid harm to children. You can't expect something that's probably genetic or in any case not in the control of the person to be controlled (i.e aroused by child porn) but you can expect him to do whatever is necessary to not act upon those urges.

The pictures of the WTC are not the encouragement for such acts, and are not problematic - so you cannot compare them with the images that required child abuse and made only for those who seek to view them.

Re:But your honor...

[Anonymous Coward]

its the unprovable-without-confession arrousal that is the sick act.)

Arousal is not an conscious act, so how can it be a crime or an "act"? A device was made to measure "arousal" in men (measures blood flow to penis), it is not admissible in court:

http://skepdic.com/penilep.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_plethysmograph

It is embarassing to admit, but I've experienced "arousal" in circumstances that I cannot explain sometimes. Around one male teacher when I was 14, even though I am not gay nor have never had the least urge to experiment. I have also experienced "arousal" as a teenager and adult with my maternal aunt, she is attractive. Yet I have not acted upon it. Nor do I obsess over it - I figure it is normal for a person to have thoughts/daydreams/arousals that are just out there. Arousals cannot be countrolled nor are they acted upon for the most part.

What should be condemned is someone who can't control themselves and act upon these sudden impulses or like the case for child pornography, cause others to act upon it (demand for more pictures, etcetera).

Re:But your honor...

[Anonymous Coward]

if the defendant can prove they did not have absolute control over their computer

Why should he have to prove anything? The state has to prove his guilt, and prove it with evidence.

There's a reason why illegally gathered evidence should be disregarded. Maybe the hacker is the ex of his girlfriend? Maybe he doesn't like his political orientation? What some random guy (illegally) digs up should not count as evidence in any civilized society. There are always people with hidden agendas who abuse the system to get what they want. I don't think for a minute that this hacker isn't one of them.

Re:But your honor...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, I'd say if I had such notions, then the videos of the WTC falling would be a mighty encouragement for such acts. You'd say video tapes of 3,000 infidels dying wouldn't boost my moral? Murder is ok, but child abuse is not? Personally I feel that neither is ok and should most definantly stay that way.

Re:But your honor...

[DerekLyons]

I've read that this is quite a common excuse used by people caught in posession of child pornography in the UK. They say "look my wi-fi connection isn't encrypted, it could have been a hacker that put those images there". Apparently it doesn't work as a defence because they are responsible for the security of their own computer.
 
Interestingly though, if they catch someone stealing an Internet connection via unsecured wi-fi, it's the person who is using the connection that is at fault, not the person who's failed to secure their Internet connection.

That's not interesting at all - it's simply an extension of the 'unlocked door' doctrine. I.E. just because you leave your door unlocked, that does not grant permission for someone to enter it univited. (Unless one is maintaining an 'attractive nuisance', like a pool for example - then the onus transfers back to the owner of the door.)

Re:But your honor...

[Sage Gaspar]

who at worst are shown simply to possess an image of an act (not actually participated in the act) no more or less heinous than videotapes of the twin towers falling and killing 3,000 people. (i.e. the images themselves are just images, its the unprovable-without-confession arrousal that is the sick act.)

As far as I understand, the rationale behind child pornography laws isn't the arousal, it's the implicit support of child pornographers. The Supreme Court struck down the parts of COPA that made virtual child porn illegal, and I'm guessing that virtual child porn has pretty much the same "arousal factor" as the real stuff.

Real child pornography is illegal because it damages the child. Your possession of it has, in a sense, made you complicit in its creation by giving them motivation. Basically, I think it comes down to that they're really looking for the person abusing the kids, not the deviant jerking off to it, but they need some leverage over the deviant to get to the people producing the images. Also, possession of large quantities of said pornography probably has a pretty high correlation to people that directly supported the making of it with their money or have actually perpetrated such acts in reality.

I'm not sure I agree with that stance, but it is a real tricky issue since legal minors are involved. I honestly don't know how I'd fix it.

Re:But your honor...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh come on really. mods had their humor chips offline today.

Re:But your honor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, So the prepared defence could be to install hardened and encripted (by highly visible on your side) backdoor on your computer when in danger, and make some traffic through it from time to time. After that whatever evidence found by law enforcment could be dissmised as planted.

Re:But your honor...

[ralphdaugherty]

This hacker obviously planted that child pornography on my computer with a trojan, in an attempt to blackmail me, a promonent local physician...


      There was checking account activity as part of the evidence, not just files found on the hard drive. Identity theft activity would also have to occur on an ongoing basis to rise to the level of evidence in this conviction.

  rd

Re:But your honor...

[ultranova]

If a guy is unlucky enough to be a pedophile, he is expected to avoid sexual satisfaction as to avoid harm to children. You can't expect something that's probably genetic or in any case not in the control of the person to be controlled (i.e aroused by child porn) but you can expect him to do whatever is necessary to not act upon those urges.

The pictures of the WTC are not the encouragement for such acts, and are not problematic - so you cannot compare them with the images that required child abuse and made only for those who seek to view them.

This is illogical. In times of war, news and films of victories were used as propaganda all the time. For example, the picture of Saddam's statue being brought down was used as propaganda. So I'm sure that Al-Qaida is even now using their great victory as propaganda to boost the morals of their recruits.

Heck, I'm sure that there's people who jerk off to the video of WTC falling down. Wouldn't be anywhere near the nastiest shit I've come accross...

What about me?

[telchine]

I've been doing something similar, I've been stalking around on Napster and the like since about 2000, gathering "evidence". I now have quite a healthy collection of "evidence". I wonder if this will work as a defence when the RIAA come knocking?

Re:What about me?

[ScrewMaster]

I wonder if this will work as a defence when the RIAA come knocking?

Only if you try to sue them.

Does this terrify anyone else?

[zeroiq01]

This scares the crap out of me. Some third party "hacks" it to a computer of and idividual and claims he/she found child porn/terrist plots/cream cheese recipies....or whatever. Why isnt anyone yelling...... he/she might have just as well planted it themselves how are we to know? He/she had access to the computer. Seems like a real easy way to get someone in trouble they arent going to check. This is the reason the FBI and other "Gov" police agencies have rule that have to be followed. This is sick and very scary. I am not saying that they didnt do it but damn, talk about an easy way to railroad someone.

Re:Does this terrify anyone else?

[kfg]

This is the reason the FBI and other "Gov" police agencies have rule that have to be followed.

If you aren't scared, you haven't been paying attention. Here's the really scarey part, the FBI no longer have to follow the rules by the simple expedient of hiring private information gatherers who are not bound by the rules.

The courts allow this, even though it seems fairly intuitively obvious that if you take Caesar's money, you are Caeser's man.

KFG

Re:Does this terrify anyone else?

[Jacer]

A lot of people are asking how do they know the evidence was not planted by the white-hat. I would speculate that some of the pictures found on the hard drive had pictures of the defendant in them. If you would have read the case breif he was sentenced for child pornography AND sexual explotation of a minor (appearing to be around six years old) Now, like I said, this is speculation, but it seems to be the only logical conclusion, based on the information provided.

Re:Does this terrify anyone else?

[Xugumad]

Okay, better, but there's still the possibility of Photoshop.

Re:Does this terrify anyone else?

[Jacer]

You can't be serious. Photoshop can make somethings look pretty real, but there are a few things we should consider. Presumably the Turkish vigilante had never met the guy, so he wouldn't know which pictures to mangle up. Another, is that it happened six years ago. Photoshop was functional six years ago, but nearly as robust as it is today. Lastly, and most importantly, editing photos in that manner leave plenty of traces that even non-experts can spot if they ever successfully did a where's waldo. A few big ways to spot photoshop fakes are inconsistent focus with items that appear to either be in the background or foreground when they shouldn't be. Non-contiguous elements, small details like angles of extremities, an example of this, a very blatant one, would be someone standing behind a table, but if you look under the table in the photo, he has no legs. Items like this, but presumably a lot more subtle. Shading and skin texture, slight overlays with what is on the layer behind the foreground, whether the lighting on the added elements matches the lighting on the original elements. These are all things that just a casual observer can pick up, get someone with a degree in graphic design, photography, journalism, related field and let them review the submitted pictures. Due to the nature of the evidence, and the very strange manner in which it was collected, I would assume that they had an expert witness, probably one for each the prosecuting and defending attourneys to submit their opinions. With the exception of the hacker doing the gathering of evidence, we have no reason to believe this case wasn't handeled as throughly and professionally in the courtroom as any other case. Attorney competence not withsanding.

Re:Does this terrify anyone else?

[quag7]

This is the first message I have ever encountered which mentions child porn and cream cheese in the same sentence.

Re:Does this terrify anyone else?

[budgenator]

Most of us take the security of our computers a lot more seriously than your normal six-pack joe for those very reasons.

Does No Good

[Bloodmoon1]

It doesn't matter if this evidence nets 1 or 1,000 convictions, every last one of them will be overturned on any number of grounds and the prosecuting agencies that utlizie this evidence will open themselves up to quite a bit of litigation and will probably eat some heavy judgments against them.

Any even remotely intelligent agency will turn away from "help" like this, because it will only jack their asses up in the end.

Re:Does No Good

[Ai Olor-Wile]

Excuse me sir, not if the current government has anything to say about it. Dismissed! To protect our freedom from child pornographers!

Re:Does No Good

[Dun Malg]

It doesn't matter if this evidence nets 1 or 1,000 convictions, every last one of them will be overturned on any number of grounds and the prosecuting agencies that utlizie this evidence will open themselves up to quite a bit of litigation and will probably eat some heavy judgments against them.

Nonsense. 4th amendment doesn't protect you from burglars who catch you growing pot in your basement and tip off the cops. Just like it's not a 1st amendment violation for your boss to tell you to shut up and get back to work. The convicted pedophiles are free to press trespassing charges against this guy from their jail cells, if they wish, but that's about the limit of their recourse. It's not illegal for the FBI to catch you in the act of collecting/trading child porn because the methods of the tipster are questionable. The two issues are actually unrelated.

Re:Does No Good

[Bloodmoon1]

While you are correct to some degree, it's like I said, there is a wide range of reasons that any case made with evidence collected in this fashion will be, if not dead in the water from the very start, overturned somewhere down the line.

Ovbious 4th Amendment challenges aside, which I agree probably wouldn't hold much weight, there is still a large number of reasons these cases will never hold. The first and most ovbious being the defense that many others have pointed out already, if the hacker in question can put a trojan on your computer, what is to stop them from placing some kiddy porn on there as well or directing your computer to download the porn in the first place? I forget the exact case, but I do recall a man beating a child porn rap due to the fact that his computer had something like 50 viruses on it and he claimed that they must have downloaded the porn. I think it was in Canada or England, but there's no reason it wouldn't work here in the US every single time.

And in case that doesn't fit the bill, this particular method of collecting evidence probably violates at least a few state's laws on wiretapping/unlawful entry/various computer crimes. It varies from place to place, and I don't pretend to know the laws of all 50 states, but I'm sure that this approach would get this evidence thrown out in at least some of the prosecuting jurisdictions.

Not to mention that the hacker could be compelled to appear in court by the defense, and if they didn't, the evidence again is likely to becomes trash. There should be quite a few other ways to attack this evidence, but between the few I've pointed out, you'd be able to get this evidence trashed almost everywhere.

Basically, my point is that there is a very good reason agencies have very well documented and followed procedures for collecting evidence, and that they tend to discourage civilians from doing this exact thing, and that is because ill gotten evidence, even when it is clear as day that it would lead to an air tight conviction, is illegal and as such useless evidence. There's something they teach you in law school, and that is that if you follow the letter of the law every single time when it comes to procedure, you will get a conviction that will hold every single time. If you don't, you won't. This sort of shit might net a conviction in a local court in Alabama, but when it comes to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and remember, federal appellate courts exist solely to hear appeals to cases based on improper procedure at a lower level, it will be overturned and the offender will be let go, as the prosecution will then not have the evidence to reprosecute.

Re:Does No Good

[ralphdaugherty]

It doesn't matter if this evidence nets 1 or 1,000 convictions, every last one of them will be overturned on any number of grounds and the prosecuting agencies that utlizie this evidence will open themselves up to quite a bit of litigation and will probably eat some heavy judgments against them.

      According to TFA, none of that happened.

  rd

playing devil's advocate

[iamhassi]

the trojan "it installs a backdoor in the victim's computer and can allow files to be extracted and a keystroke logger to be installed."

Sounds like you can extract and install files so how do we know he didn't put the files on there himself? For all we know these are guys on forums he doesn't like or ebay sellers who have done him wrong. This is a slippery slope and vigilante justice. These are hackers, they're not the most law abiding citizens, not sure if I'd trust a hacker to not install kiddie porn on some guy's PC for kicks, especially if he believes the guy has done him wrong.

Re:playing devil's advocate

[Canordis]

This is a slippery slope and vigilante justice.

Hey, they said the same thing about Spider-Man.

Re:playing devil's advocate

[Dun Malg]

Sounds like you can extract and install files so how do we know he didn't put the files on there himself? For all we know these are guys on forums he doesn't like or ebay sellers who have done him wrong. This is a slippery slope and vigilante justice. These are hackers, they're not the most law abiding citizens, not sure if I'd trust a hacker to not install kiddie porn on some guy's PC for kicks, especially if he believes the guy has done him wrong.

Believe it or not, some of the people working for the FBI are at least as smart as YOU and have already thought of that. They don't drag these people off to rot in the gulag/gitmo based solely on an anonymous tip. They generally just put them under surveilance. When they catch the guy in the act of sharing/collecting kiddie porn, that's when they arrest them.

Re:playing devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah so you're a federal agent who can testify to this? Or are you a convicted criminal offender who was given this "proper" treatment? No? No? Then stfu.

NOTE: if you answered yes to either question, please vacate /.

Re:only a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is saying that child porn isn't wrong. But what if his "trojan" got out of the usenet groups and your mother's computer got it? Or yours? Or your work system? Whether it did or didn't, it doesn't make what this guy did any better or worse.

Besides, as we have seen before, pedophiles aren't the brightest of people. Do we really need such hitech solutions to catch them?

Not (was:Justified)

[Lead Butthead]

This guy seeded alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen, and clearly did it with the intention of catching paedophiles. I'd say it's justified.

Permitting this to continue sets a really bad precedence. Every dictatorial government always have convenient ... secret informants that conveniently produces incriminating evidence on the behalf of the government to demonize and convict undesirables. Affording the defendant to opportunity to face his/her accuser is essential to curb abuses.

If someone was in the blackmail buisness...

[Anonymous Coward]

* The laws against being gay in the UK used to be described as a "blackmailer's charter". If someone was in the blackmail buisness, it would be easy to plant porn in people's PCs, "discover it" with this sort of activity, and then threaten to unmask them unless, etc etc. Given the level of hatred (quite justifiably) directed against kiddie porn users, I imagine a lot of people targeted would buckle. They might say they'd never seen it, but who would believe them?

A couple of questions:

* Has there ever been a time in history when such serious penalties have been used against consumers (as opposed to producers) of pornography? (I'm not saying these penalties are wrong for genuine consumers of this stuff, just curious).

* Wikipedia says...
"the Supreme Court of the United States struck down in 2002 the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that prohibited, among other things, simulated child pornography. The court ruled that it violated the First Amendment to ban material depicting fictional illegal conduct when no such conduct had been involved in production. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#Legal_sta tus_of_pornography

I seem to remember that there were predictions of a tidal wave of simulated child porn from this -- did it ever happen?

Re:If someone was in the blackmail buisness...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Given the level of hatred (quite justifiably) directed against kiddie porn users, I imagine a lot of people targeted would buckle.

The level of hatred isn't really justified, considering that the crimes of rapists, murderers and slave owners(they exist), are far, far worse. People never seem to get to the same level of arousal unless pedophilia is involved in some way. It's not even that major of an issue, despite its oversell by the media.

It's the 21st century's Two Minute Hate, so we can all wax apoplectic at those evil, evil men, and gladly offer up our free society to do so.

Re:If someone was in the blackmail buisness...

[ofcourseyouare]

okay, I agree, good point...

a little liberty, for a little security.

[RShizzle]

I find myself torn after reading the issue. Obviously, what hacker 1069 is doing is good and aiding the authorities by stopping the exploitation of children. However, his means are questionable as well as those of the authorities.

What if third party multinationals are allowed to hack into US systems to aid in the capture of terrorists? Obviously, there was a large amount of evidence provided that made sure the pedophiles being caught were definitely guilty, but couldn't evidence just as likely be planted?

What's even more concerning is that this person doesn't seem to be a third party hacker from Istanbul, but an American citizen (note the american telephone number). If this is the case, isn't this a message saying vigilantism (which strikes at the very base of authority, the fact that it is only the government that is allowed to use force against it's citizens) is accepted? If it is accepted in catching pedophiles, which is a pretty black and white case, what about when it enters the gray areas? What about when it starts being entangled with constitutional rights? (Due process of law seems to be a big one involved).

I believe the authorities involved might very easily have started on a slippery slope. Who knows where it will lead? How much do we value due process? How much do we value freedom? How much do we value results, irregardless of how they were gotten?

But remember:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

A quandry indeed.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, what hacker 1069 is doing is good and aiding the authorities by stopping the exploitation of children.

Really? I don't find it all that obvious. Hacker 1069 is helping to bust slimeballs that look at kiddie porn downloaded off usenet. Not people that pay for the stuff, not people that produce it. Wake me up when he stops someone who actually has exploited a child (and don't give me that crap about how looking at a picture is molesting that child all over again).

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[h2gofast]

rules, ethics, morals, laws, principles, are constructed to protect and further the common good.
If an action furthers the common good but breaks the rules, is the action still wrong, do the principles still apply? Pedophiles are evil incarnate, because their victims often grow up to be really f'ed up adults, perpetuating a cycle that affects us all. From what I could understand of the article, he wasn't trespassing against anyone who didn't take numerous and deliberate steps to acquire photos of children in erotic poses. It did not sound like he was randomly monitoring internet traffic or randomly hacking into citizen's hard drives.

If an action breaks a rule but benefits the common good, is the action still wrong?
It is that simple. The only reason someone would want to enforce the rules in such a case is to place their own interest before the collective interest. I'm not thrilled about the fbi patrolling usenet by proxy, but in this particular case, the mouse wouldn't be in the trap if he hadn't gone for the cheese.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, what hacker 1069 is doing is good

But if it was the authorities doing the same thing, it would be bad....at least in the eyes of many people here. What if 1069 was in fact an off-duty cop, or an FBI agent working on his/her free time? Would it still be good or bad? The intentions might be good, and I'd love to be able to do stuff like this to "help out." But I'll have to continue to do the old fashioned way: Ethically.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[monoqlith]

I agree with you completely except for the first statement:

Obviously, what hacker 1069 is doing is good and aiding the authorities by stopping the exploitation of children. However, his means are questionable as well as those of the authorities.

For all the reasons you've listed 1069 isn't performing performing any good, but a grave injustice. He's providing a means for our government, which must be transparent and subject to the limitations of law, to circumvent the well-placed constraints on governmental power that are there to protect all of us, not just the pedophiles.

He may think he's doing a good thing, and this thought may be what the FBI is using to justify their tacit approval, but he isn't. He is undermining our laws - a fundamental disrespect of our first right to self-determination and sovereignty. If he really cared that much about justice, he would rather see the preservation of a fair justice system than the arrests and prosecution of a few pedophiles. If he doesn't think our justice system is fair the he should work within the law to improve it, not outside the law, not as a replacement for the law.

This also implicates the FBI. If that agency had respect for our law then they would enforce all of them, not just the sex crime statutes but also the ones that are there to guarantee limitations on FBI's own investigative powers. These laws are there for all of us. Pedophiles can hurt a few children gravely, yes. A corrupt justice system can hurt millions.

Moreover, if these pedophiles get off on evidence discovery loopholes or on the basis of law enforcement malfeasance, then it will be harder to prosecute them on legimately obtained evidence in the future due to the double jeopardy restrictions. Even though they are likely to commit separate, prosecutable crimes, prosecuting them incorrectly once makes it harder to prosecute them correctly in the future. This is bad.

If I recall correctly(and I might not), it was the founder of the ACLU, Baldwin, that said something quite right, to this effect(I don't remember the exact quote): in order to defend our rights we are often forced to defend scoundrels, who are usually the first people to lose their liberties.

In this case, even though the pedophiles earn the names of "scoundrels," and "scumbags," I will defend their legal and constitutional rights to privacy because if theirs are at stake, mine are at stake. If theirs are ignored, then any intrusion of my privacy can be justified by the alleged aim of "preserving public good, decency and safety" on the basis of mere suspicion, as you and Ben Franklin aptly affirmed. This is exactly the type of crime in response to which ordinary citizens disarm themselves against the intrusive impulse of the government, and this is exactly the type of situation that the constitution is there to prevent.

Also, why does this (possibly Turkish, possibly American) person take it upon themselves to identify American pedophiles and child pornographers? Isn't that a little strange? Doesn't it remind you of the neurotic character that Robert de Niro played in Taxi Driver - fixating on the pervasive "filth" that he imagines everywhere, to the point of seeking it out and immersing himself in it? This guy is hanging out on child pornography newsgroups. Even if he isn't looking at the porn, he is there uploading trojans and gathering evidence. Isn't that a little creepy and obsessive, not to mention self-righteous and possibly illegal? Doesn't this person have his own country and his own business to worry about?

Enforcing American law is the American law enforcement's job. No exceptions. Period.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if he isn't looking at the porn, he is there uploading trojans and gathering evidence.

And he is looking at the porn, that is part of the absurdity. The article mentions that he attached a kiddie porn pic to an email he sent to the FBI. So it's ok if Mr.1069 looks at and possesses the pics, but if these other guys do they get sent to prison for 17, 19 years? This is just more overhyped think of the children crap.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[budgenator]

What if third party multinationals are allowed to hack into US systems to aid in the capture of terrorists?
I thought that's what the British did, hack our systems to capture info about terrorist, then of course we hacked British systems for the same reason, then of course everybody told the other what they found. Now we just do it directly and dispense with the illusion of not spying on our own citizens, the new way is at least more honest.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[tgibbs]

I believe the authorities involved might very easily have started on a slippery slope. Who knows where it will lead? How much do we value due process? How much do we value freedom? How much do we value results, irregardless of how they were gotten?

It's not as if this is something new. The police have always been able to use information obtained from private citizens that would not have been legal for them to acquire themselves. If no catastrophic consequences have arisen from slipping down that "slippery slope" by now, maybe it's not really all that slippery.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[Anonymous Coward]

When people are determined to commit crimes, there isn't much you can do to stop them. Many studies show that even the death penalty is no or little deterrent. If they are going to break the law at least they break it with good intentions. For the rest of us we will continue to try to make the world a better place without breaking laws.

Re:a little liberty, for a little security.

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] maybe it's not really all that slippery.

Are you even paying attention?

You say this isn't new, that police have "always" been able to do this.

So PATRIOT ACT is where we end up? Seems fairly slippery to me, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb AC.

Re:only a pedophile

[rodgster]

Tell me "Oh Great Defender of all that is just and right", how do we know this isn't a case of extortion, revenge, planting of evidence, or any other possibility?

We don't, but fascists like you have knee jerk reactions based on the charges not the evidence or integrity of the evidence or any of the facts in evidence. One of those facts is that an FBI agent perjured himself on the stand to obtain the conviction.

Re:We don't need no stinking cops!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right! Those hackers and FBI morons should be raped with a shovel! To undermine due process like this...

Re:We don't need no stinking cops!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you by any chance be a descendent of various upstanding, God-fearing citizens that said screw the cops, lets hang this nigger up high, he obviously had his hands on our good, clean, white women?

There's a reason why we don't allow vigilantism in this country. You're it.

Re:We don't need no stinking cops!

[RPoet]

I'll go rape them with a fucking shovel.

That's a very disturbing fantasy you got there. May I check your harddrive?

taking credit for others actions?

[proudhawk]

I hate to say this, but shouting his actions
from the rooftops isn't really helping. all its doing
is adding to his "15 minutes of fame".

there are real cyber-cops out here that do this
job 24/7 and they don't advertise that fact (for fairly
obvious reasons). it is to these folks who work tirelessly,
without praise or award, that I raise my glass in a toast:
"may you always keep us safe in our homes and hearts!"

one last point: real cyber-warriors DON'T USE TROJANS!

Re:taking credit for others actions?

[Broken scope]

Im going to hell for this one but hey. neither do child predators.

Re:taking credit for others actions?

[Frogbert]

That poem sucks.

Re:We don't need no stinking cops!

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're done with that, could you take care of that woman living across the street? I heard she's a witch! You hear me? A WITCH! *makes awkward hand movements*

Seriously, you stupid idiot.

I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Keaster]

As I read the brief article it defiantly made me consider both sides of the story; however, in the end I side with my heart. Fuck the kid touchers, let em' rot. This guy could be doing some real garbage cracking, screwing with legit business and good people, but, he didn't. He went after the scum. I agree 100% with 1069. Go for it!

Before I get the crap flamed out of me I will remind, it's just my opinion.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Anonymous Coward]

He went after the scum.

You forgot the little word "alleged", as in there's no evidence.

And no, a private third party coming up with incriminating stuff isn't evidence. That's what Police are for. Remember? Due process and such? You must have already heard it, although it's slowly getting rotted off over there.

Sometimes us civilized folk think you hillbillies never made it out of medieval times with witch hunts and all that. Exchange witches with pedophiles and you're right on track again. Yep, very civilized. *rolls eyes*

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[RPoet]

Fuck the kid touchers, let em' rot.

There was nobody involved in this story who touched kids, as far as I understand. The alleged crime in question was storing illegal images.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[lawpoop]

I agree with you. People who have molested children should rot in prison.

But here's the problem. How do we know that this guys wasn't framed? How do we know this guy in Turkey didn't plant those photos there? How do we know that there is even a 'guy' in 'Turkey'? It could be some kind of revenge act from a person across town.

I think one of the worst miscarriages of justice would be to be falsely accused of pedophelia -- even if you eventually cleared your name, people would always suspect you got away with one of the worst crimes imaginable, that you were a monster just looking for a new victim. It would totally ruin an innocent person's life.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Renraku]

So..where does it end?

First you OK illegal searching of people's computers 'to save the kiddies'. Next you OK illegal searching of people's homes 'to save the kiddies'. Then you go down a list outlawing or making penalities harsher to unrelated things now that 'to save the kiddies' mentality has caught on and everyone is riding that train.

Pretty soon you can't even take a piss in the middle of the woods without a flying camera bot shooting you in the back with a tazer and hauling you to the nearest detention facility.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[lawpoop]

Another point:

"This guy could be doing some real garbage cracking, screwing with legit business and good people, but, he didn't."

How do you know he didn't? There is nothing to stop him from doing both good *and* evil. In fact, the FBI seemed to give him a pass on his hacking activities for the good he was doing. What a great opportunity for someone who wanted to do a little evil on the side.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Anonymous Coward]

Because everyone knows that child pornography, like witchcraft, doesn't really exist, right?

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[DerekLyons]

As I read the brief article it defiantly made me consider both sides of the story; however, in the end I side with my heart. Fuck the kid touchers, let em' rot.

Ah yes - anything for children, rights and due process be dammed.
 
And I should note in passing, that possession of pictures != abuse of a child by possessor. Except, that legally it is - which is thoughtcrime, which is a Bad Thing. By extending the same legal principle - all those pictures of murder victims in true crime books? Possession of one should make one also responsible for the murder. But it doesn't.
 
 

This guy could be doing some real garbage cracking, screwing with legit business and good people, but, he didn't. He went after the scum. I agree 100% with 1069. Go for it!

He didn't 'go after the scum', he happened across the scum in the course of committing a crime. I don't think for an instance it's either the first or the only crime he's comitted.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[CAIMLAS]

I'm all in favor of doing what works. In this case, it worked.

In practice, I think it was wrong for the FBI to do what they did. But, what're they going to do? Turn him over to the computer crime devision? Isn't that kinda like someone from a Special Victims Unit arresting a prostitute for giving a tip on someone who's going about killing hookers?

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[CAIMLAS]

No, one of the worst miscarriages of justice is when a person who is guilty of child rape, molestation, or abuse, gets out on a technicality, or simply because the child is too scared to testify.

If someone is falsely accused of a crime, and they don't end up serving time, well... it sucks that their life was otherwise ruined, but they can still recover from it. There are paths for civil recourse, and the person can move elsewhere if their life is too greatly impacted.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[TheoMurpse]

Fuck the kid touchers, let em' rot.

And what if the Turkish guy is the kid toucher, and just put some pictures there to frame a guy? Black hats do that kind of stuff all the time, just to fuck with people (see: Freenode getting hacked, DALNet being DDoSed, random person getting their credit card numbers stolen, etc.). Sure, he may have put a Trojan on some pedo newsgroups, but then someone else packages that up as "Britney Spears Nude.scr" and forwards it to all his friends, and bam, the Turkish guy is hacking guys innocent of collecting child porn and framing them for crimes they did not commit. Vigilante justice is wrong. Always. This is why superheros like Batman exist only in comic books.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Konster]

No evidence? They carted off boxes of it from his HOUSE. Photographs of him molesting a child, aged 4-6. Also included were digital copies of his photos and other *physical* evidence that appeared in the photographs such as clamps and chains...all this was gathered under due process.

Since when is convicting a child molester a witch hunt?

I guess in your version of civilization, pedos aren't put in the slam where they belong.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Keaster]

Forgive my hillbilly antics, Fuck the kiddy porn folk that git' thier jollies on the inter-web off. Just like the kid touchers, let em' rot.

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Keaster]

If he is using sub7 he is probably not that talented

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have read another story and article than I did, then. The story and the article didn't mention boxes of physical evidence. It was about a hacker turning over digital evidence which he found while illegaly breaking into a computer. Which was also the only thing I talked about.

I guess in your version of civilization, pedos aren't put in the slam where they belong.

Guess again. People abusing children should be put into prison, no question.

See, what makes this a witch hunt is that you don't even think for a minute that the guy might be innocent. I base this on the fact that the article only mentioned a guy trying to fight his verdict. Don't you think "boxes of evidence" would be worth mentioning there?

So, care to cite some sources or are you just making stuff up because the "pedo belongs in the slam"?

Re:I think its great (preparing for flame)

[Konster]

www.google.com

Use your fucking imagination.

How did it work though? A trojan?

[sgant]

If you're downloading pictures or .avi or .mpg movies...how can a trojan slip by there? You're not executing a script or a program. Are they using that old .jpg exploit? Hasn't that been patched?

I don't understand how people are falling for this.

Re:How did it work though? A trojan?

[Anonymous Coward]

i have seen .mpegs launch web browsers... and its possible that the page this browser is sent to, can exploit a system, thus allowing root access.... nothing new here...

Re:How did it work though? A trojan?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand how people are falling for this.
"HotYounGILRSS(With_A_Trustworthy_video_icon).avi .mpg ...................exe"
(Ignore spaces due to the the slashcrap filter)

Re:How did it work though? A trojan?

[secolactico]

If you're downloading pictures or .avi or .mpg movies...how can a trojan slip by there? You're not executing a script or a program. Are they using that old .jpg exploit? Hasn't that been patched?

I don't understand how people are falling for this.

Go into (almost) any usenet binary group and you'll find the usual "brittany_spears_stolen_home_sex_tape.mpg_________ ________.exe" (replace _ with spaces, slashdot keeps eating them) and the like (why do they always mis-spell Britney Spears' name "brittany" anyway?)

If this attachement is downloaded by someone who has the default "hide extensions for known file types" and the .exe icon is similar to the default .mpg icon, then they could very well double click it without thinking twice.

This trick is older than dirt, but I guess people still fall for it.

Re:How did it work though? A trojan?

[covertbadger]

If you're downloading pictures or .avi or .mpg movies...how can a trojan slip by there? You're not executing a script or a program. Are they using that old .jpg exploit? Hasn't that been patched?

I don't understand how people are falling for this.

Oh, come on - it's not like 99% of people on the internet aren't utter morons. Penny to a pound that the file in question was called something like "preteen_fantasy_blah_blah_blah.exe". If you don't understand how people fall for this, you grossly overestimate the averge net user.

Re:How did it work though? A trojan?

[Anonymous Coward]

.movs launch web browsers, not .mpegs

Re:How did it work though? A trojan?

[Anonymous Coward]

getting a little paranoid are we?

The Name of the pedophile is Bradley J. Steiger?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, pedophilia is defined as mental illness in the ICD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD .

And pedophilia can be treaten in non-medical and medical therapies.

I don't see a reason to disclose the Name of the pedophile. But I guess that's what infotainment is all about, right?

Unacceptable Bypass of the Law

[OnoTadaki]

The fact that the hacker was trying to catch pedophiles is the last concern when figuring out if this is lawful or not. First and foremost, he broke into people's computers and did unlawful things to illicit his information. On those grounds alone it should not be admissible in court. Imagine if you were a store owner and you arrive there one day and see that your place has been broken into and all your files have been gone through. Then you find out that it was just a rogue 'burglar' who breaks into businesses to see if they're legally filing their taxes correctly. The government sides with him and you're left with a hole in your store, thousands of dollars in damages and uncountable damages from the data he might have taken from you, etc... Is that fair or even close to legal? Sure there's lots of hatred towards pedophiles and it's VERY easy to step aside and cheer this because it's presumably dropping their numbers, but the bottom line is it's intirely immoral regardless of whether he's stopping pedophiles, rapists or tax evasion.

Re:Unacceptable Bypass of the Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, do you like dead children?

Ah, yes, blackhat vigilantes...

[TheNoxx]

Normally I'd agree that taking the law into your own hands is not only illegal but a very bad idea; however, there are always exceptions. 99% of vigilanteism is a bad idea, as it does not entail people taking the law into their own hands to help others in a non-violent way, but usually runs from personal matters gone awry to the militant folks that "help patrol" the U.S.-Mexico border or other groups that believe it their duty to create a mob mentality when handling real or perceived threats (I can't help but add my favorite quote, from Men in Black of all movies: "A person is smart and intuitive; people are dumb, panicky, and dangerous animals").

The difference is, when it comes to pederasty, I can't really think of many methods I wouldn't condone to cull the abomination. However, many people make a great logical fault in believing that they need to make the rules based on the exception (people that try and use pedophilia as the means to creating whatever laws they want) or in believing that the exception must fall under the same rules as all other crimes in being found and prosecuted, lest authorities create abusive legislature on the pretense of catching child molesters.
There is a middle road in all things, and vigilanteism makes a fine one for this. You don't want to give police the rights to do what a blackhat does to find a pedophile, but you want the pedophile caught.

However, the case in point is an exception. The man lives in another country and the FBI, of course, won't and couldn't file charges, but I don't believe that this constitutes "tacit approval"... although the FBI may simply be trying to send a signal to the blackhat community that reads something like "Sweet Christ, we have no fucking idea how to use computers (Database? The fuck is that?), if any of you guys wants to give us a hand in catching these guys, by all means, go ahead. Do whatever you can."
The feds can't approve of someone breaking the law, obviously, or acknowledge that someone without warrants or CARNIVORE can do the job better than the ol' FBI. But they can turn a blind eye to it, if only for the crime of pedophilia and nothing else.

If I recall correctly, wasn't there a hacker group in the U.S. that did this in the late 90's or are still doing this? I distinctly remember seeing a few adverts and hearing a few inquiries about people who wanted to join up in the old hidden IRC rooms way back when. Ah, sweet nostalgia... days of linux shell accounts, little sleep, and keeping an extra machine running only OS/2 Warp, if only out of spite, back when code came so easily. Christ, my mind has addled.

Re:Ah, yes, blackhat vigilantes...

[15Bit]

The difference is, when it comes to pederasty, I can't really think of many methods I wouldn't condone to cull the abomination.

I can think of many. They are generally illegal, undermine the due process of law, and result in the aforementioned pederast walking free from court with a clean record.

Re:Ah, yes, blackhat vigilantes...

[MikeBabcock]

The problem I have with this type of situation is that the FBI (or other 3-letter acronym'd agency) can easily set up their own hackers to operate as vigilantes outside the law and deny that it was their own agents doing the dirty work.

PS any blackhat that can download files off your PC can upload them too.

PS any person with good contacts in federal agencies could have a hacker purport to find nasty things on your PC after planting them there and then have you arrested and smear-campaigned to death.

If you don't find that frightening, you haven't read enough history.

Yes, I think its great this has happened so far -- so long as these people really were who they are convicted of being. I have a hard time trusting a conviction based on evidence retrieved by someone with low enough moral fibre to invade someone else's PC without legal permission though ... although my mind clearly seperates the immorality of child abuse and that of electronic b&e so I'm pretty sure these are legit -- for now.

Re:Ah, yes, blackhat vigilantes...

[DerekLyons]

The feds can't approve of someone breaking the law, obviously, or acknowledge that someone without warrants or CARNIVORE can do the job better than the ol' FBI. But they can turn a blind eye to it, if only for the crime of pedophilia and nothing else.

No, they cannot. Under US law what the FBI did is illegal. Not possibly illegal, not skirting the boundaries, not working in a grey area - but black letter law illegal. The police cannot use agents to accomplish what they themselves are not allowed to do. Period.

Re:Ah, yes, blackhat vigilantes...

[TheoMurpse]

You don't want to give police the rights to do what a blackhat does to find a pedophile, but you want the pedophile caught.

I don't want to give anyone the rights to find a pedophile, especially not blackhats who will just as soon steal my bank passwords. I especially don't want the government tacitly condoning these illegal acts for any reason. What's next? Shooting someone and then claiming that they were going to pilot a plane into a building? Ooh, look! A flight sim on his computer! Why, um, yes officer, in fact I did play some games on his computer while he was away. But that doesn't change the fact that he has a flightsim on his computer, and I shot him before he could pilot a plane into a building! That proves he's guilty!

Using evidence obtained by illegal means is absofuckinglutely unpardonable, and it makes me livid to see so many people on Slashdot say that they support 1984 spy-on-your-neighbor stuff. What happened to our tinfoil hats, guys?

Re:Ah, yes, blackhat vigilantes...

[Anonymous Coward]

But they can turn a blind eye to it, if only for the crime of pedophilia and nothing else.

Today it's pedophilia. Tomorrow it's dissenting from Fuhrer Bush's tactics in the WOT.

A lot of laws were put into effect after Watergate, but 9/11 is being used by these cowardly dogfuckers to root out all the restraints. Treasonous bastards.

Re:The Name of the pedophile is Bradley J. Steiger

[RPoet]

I think you mean the DSM-IV, not the ICD. But yes, pedophilia is one of the few mental disorders where sufferers are never shown any compassion, and rarely offered any treatment. What other illness can you have that will make you universally hated, by just about every person on Earth?

So you should be using Patriot Search (tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://blog.outer-court.com/patriot/

Re:only a pedophile

[ashooner]

That's a good point. i mean, if you aren't guilty, you have nothing to hide, right?
 
dumbass.

Steiger's defense attorney must have really sucked

[John Jorsett]

My immediate reaction to this story was: if '1069' had the capability to break in to a computer to extract images, he also had the opportunity to plant the images there in the first place. A strong line of defense would be to assert that the anonymous 1069 is some sort of vigilante nut who gains access to the computers of innocent people, plants bogus evidence on them, then turns the victims in to authorities.

This whole case has so many holes that the defense could use, I'm amazed that they were able to convict. Stiger's attorney had to have blown it.

So what happens if the hacker is a US Citizen?

[superslacker87]

Hacking is illegal here last I checked, so what happens if this vigilante happened to be a US Citizen in Montgomery, AL? Logically, they'd have to arrest the guy once they found out where he was, charge him with hacking and breaking and entering. Who knows? Maybe him and the doc would be cell mates!

Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for being that guy. As a pedophile myself, it is very tiring to read of "pedophile-catchers" and how terribly evil pedophiles are. I did not choose to be a pedophile, and it is without my reach to change. Still, it is not hard for me to live a perfectly crimeless life. At 30, I have never had sex with anything but my palm (that statement may not have a very dramatical effect, considering this is Slashdot), and I am at peace with the prospect of dying as a virgin. Dying (and living) alone, however, is not as nice, but you make the best of the cards you've been dealt in life.

How very appropriate that the captcha Slash dealt me was "reject".

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[ZeroExistenZ]

Poor man. Move to The Netherlands or something... They have like all sorts of freedoms.(that party just disgusses me beyond words and it's beyond comprehension really were a party wants to legalize pedophilia)

I know you're being funny though, but I don't really care about about some guy being a virgin who masturbates frustrated (heck, that's 99% of slashdot. I'm in the 1% percentile fyi). But I do care about a child who got abused and has a warped image of the world and is traumatized to a point where life is unpleasant to unbearable. (Mostly social related, as unability to trust, acquire intimacy or maintain a healthy relationship and that kindof thing)

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me, I find the thought of an abused child with a warped world view infinitely sad too, as does most other pedophiles (and most other people with their sanity intact). The point is that pedophilia is not illegal, because pedophilia is not an action. When you use it to depict an action, you advocate the criminalization of millions of perfectly law-abiding morally aware human beings. You are part of the process which indoctrinates these people into thinking "I am a pedophile, and all my life society has told me that pedophiles act such and such, so I guess I'm worthless and I'll act that way." No, you're not a bad person and you don't have to act that way. We have support groups telling these people that, but we don't reach everybody. You couldn't imagine the suicide rate among young pedophiles. That is another thing I find infinitely sad.

Most child sexual abusers are not pedophiles (as in they're not attracted to children, but the child is just a convenient outlet of sexual frustration), and most producers of child pornography are not pedophiles (they are the Russian mafia, stone cold cynical when it comes to making money). Most pedophiles are not child sexual abusers. Please call a spade a spade; if you mean child sexual abusers, don't say "pedophile".

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that was a joke. Here, let's run some numbers.

Something like 10% of kids get sexually abused. (Exact figures are hard to come by.) Assuming that pedophiles abuse an average of 10 kids each, that means that 1% of the public are pedophiles. Do I think that it is reasonable, given how many people browse slashdot, that we'd have a pedophile who would comment in this thread?

Hell, yeah.

Now I can comment on this from the other side. I am not a pedophile, but I was abused so I know something about it. Pedophiles are just people who are sexually wired to be interested in children. The causes of how we get wired is unclear - just look at the debates on homosexuality. But it is clear that once you are wired, it is something that can't really be changed.

The fact is that many pedophiles are horrified at their interest. For instance the one who abused me tried his darnedest to pretend that it was a consensual relationship. And what he had the most trouble with was evidence that it wasn't. Which was copious since, in fact, it wasn't a consensual relationship. I'm glad that the pedophile we had commenting has not abused yet. However sexual desire is hard to control - the odds that he will abuse some day are very high. And child abusers do not seem to be curable.

And about victims of child abuse. First of all, most of what most people know about child abuse is all wrong. It is based on reports from people with false memory syndrome. Which, despite the memories of being abused, has pretty much nothing in common with real abuse. The most obvious distinguishing characteristic is that people who were abused don't forget about it. The second is that people who were abused pretty much inevitably have some evidence of the abuse - if nothing else then their grades drop. A far more subtle sign is that people who I know have been abused had different kinds of issues around the abuse - for instance we've had to fight guilt that we were in some way responsible for our abuse. (Yes, I know it is obviously not so - emotionally it isn't so simple.)

But that said, all of the things that you list as being inevitable for abused kids simply aren't. If you do nothing about it, those will all happen. Mental health professionals (ie they are paid for their mistakes) are more likely to hurt than help. But I can verify from personal experience that abuse can be overcome and you can become a healthy adult.

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself asshole. It's people like you that ruin the lives of normal human beings who just happen to be attracted to different people then you are. Do you feel the same way about homosexuals? How about people who like girls with blonde hair instead of red? Your the person who should take a gun to your mouth in pull the trigger. Go, and a I can't say this enough, fuck youself.

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[Anonymous Coward]

Your numbers are pretty far off. Statistics show that 1 in 6 are 'molested' by age 16, 'molestation' being a rather broad term ranging from a single touch through clothing to extended abuse involving full-on penetration. Whatever the case, studies have shown that 1 in 10 men (9%) are sexually attracted to boys aged 10 and under and 1 in 5 (23%) are sexually attracted to girls 10 and under. One would guess that these percentages only increase as the age is raised into the early teens (hence the popularity of those like Brittany Spears).

So the number of potential abusers is HUGE, as is the market for kiddie porn. A friend of mine owned a business that offered usenet services to small ISPs and individuals and he had thousands of subscribers. In the three or four years he owned it I got to see the logs a few times. The kiddie porn groups were always amongst the most popular, and as soon as he would stop offering certain groups he would see a substantial drop in his user base. He finally closed his business out of feeling guilty for contributing to the spread of kiddie porn.

I think we as a society need to get past the taboo surrounding pedophiles (most pedophiles do NOT sexually abuse children) and focus more on 1) what exactly it is that causes them to become pedophiles (whether it be nature or nurture) and then ultimately 2) how to prevent future pedophiles from becoming pedophiles in the first place. It may seem impossible, but after all the dust clears from the hysteria we're experiencing now (largely fueled by the media) maybe we'll be able to be more constructive and move forward. As it stands we're just burying our heads in the sand and jailing kids in their homes.

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry that something like that happened to you.

Something like 10% of kids get sexually abused. (Exact figures are hard to come by.) Assuming that pedophiles abuse an average of 10 kids each, that means that 1% of the public are pedophiles.

Your numbers are way off. 10% of kids getting sexually abused, assuming it's an actual number (I don't look this stuff up), would include non-pedophilic instances (kids abusing kids, for example). It also includes every 17 year old who sleeps with an 18 year old (I wouldn't consider that pedophilia, but its sexual abuse or rape). Additionally, the way to find the number of pedophiles is

(children abused) / (children abused per pedophile). Since you're doing percents, you have to have a factor that would represent the ratio of children to the general population (or the adult population).

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[ZeroExistenZ]

But I can verify from personal experience that abuse can be overcome and you can become a healthy adult.

Ofcourse. I never wanted to state it was impossible. For many its hard to get over the experience, but they do not end up in a miserable life persé.

I've had a few friends who've been sexually abused as a child (generally more girls as boys) and they all indeed struggle with the things you listed. (Some would just weave it off, others would just go into a regressive child-like state when something triggered a memory to the events. Triggers could be very subtle). My point was morely that it cannot be considered accepted behaviour.

It doesn't mean everyone who's attracted to solely children should commit suicide, but I believe they shouldn't be act on it with a child. (as you write, you say yourself the abuser reasoned himself into thinking it was consensual). You just can't make them a "discriminated" group who has rights to engage into (love/sexual) relationships with children.

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[wboelen]

However sexual desire is hard to control - the odds that he will abuse some day are very high.

Maybe, but on the other hand, if nobody wants to have sex with me (I post on slashdot ;)) would I become frustrated? Likely. Would I rape random women? No way!

My point is: it really depends on character and I'm inclined to think that most pedophiles are mentally healthy and are able to control their desire, while a bunch of sickos can't control themselves. The self justification part is quite normal in human behaviour when they know they're wrong.

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[hopopee]

I'd love to see the source for your numbers.

Re:Thank you, from a real-life boogieman

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so sure that my figures are way off.

Back when I was doing research on this stuff (to see how common my situation was), I saw figures regularly reported that were anywhere from 10% to 25%. With most abuse being adult on child. Some sources are higher - much higher. For instance a major Canadian study estimated sexual abuse at 51% of women and 31% of men. (I highly doubt that figure.) Everyone who was honest cited tons of methodological difficulties ranging from trouble agreeing on definitions to difficulty in getting people to be honest.

Whatever the real figure, and whichever definition you use, there is no question that sexual abuse is a major problem.

As for my calculation, I was estimating children abused per pedophile over a lifetime to be 10. (I have no idea what the real figure is. Some pedophiles don't abuse. Some abuse far more than that. I know of 2 victims of my abuser over a 10 year period, and he'd had others prior to that, so 10 is not too far off for him over a lifetime.) As long as the population structure is constant (which is close to being true), my calculation of what fraction of people are pedophiles is good. If I was estimating children currently being abused per pedophile, then I would need a factor to represent the ratio of children to the general population.

The figure that I came up with was 1%. The real one might be higher or lower, but the details don't matter. My point was that in a random group the size of this one, one would expect a lot of pedophiles to be represented. The odds that one would respond are fairly high.

And for your information, 1% isn't an unreasonable number for an extreme of human behaviour. For instance mental retardation is officially defined as being in the bottom 1%, and schizophrenia also hits about 1% of people. So it wouldn't surprise me if 1% of people were pedophiles.

Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[Travoltus]

In this case, our heroic hacker has done his job, he's found the pedophile, now it's time for him join law enforcement, assume some responsibility and accountability for future actions, and go legit.

Vigilante justice is sometimes needed to fill the gaps, but society's the worse for it if the problem requiring vigilantes remains, or if the vigilantes remain unchecked.

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[lawpoop]

There is nothing compelling this guy to go legit. You really think that this hacker is going to go through four years of school, studying law enforcement, and then emigrate to the US to search for pedophiles online?

All that's happened is that authorities have given a green light for hackers to go after evil people online as vigilanties with absolutely no oversight, including this guy. And you think future hackers aren't going to plant evidence on innocent peoples hard drives for notoriety, or passes from the FBI? How do we know that that hasn't happened in this case?

Vigilante 'justice' is not justice at all. It is simply retribution, and will quickly descend into gang warfare if not stopped by impartial authorities. Regular, civilized impartial justice isn't perfect, but it's far better than the alternative.

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[Travoltus]

I wouldn't argue against the fact that the FBI has replaced one problem with another, not do I believe this hacker in question will do the right thing in the end; I was just offering my idea for a solution. You're very right about the threat of planting evidence being a major drawback of vigilanteism; which is why I feel 'hero' vigilantes should inevitably go legit.

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Justice is retribution. Sorry to break it to you, but the whole of the law is an instrument of revenge, ever since Hammurabi. The difference is that the gangs are chosen and elected by the majority of society.

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[lawpoop]

"Justice is retribution."

Not everyone agress with you. Retributive Justice is just one theory of justice.

Sorry to break it to you, but here in the United States, we practice very little retributive justice. We don't rape rapists or torture torturers, we don't burn down the homes of arsonists. We do, however, kill killers in some states. And our gangs are elected by about 1/3 of society.

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Well your political problems are your own issues, nothing to do with what I am saying. Where a law exists with a punishment for breaking it, that is retribution against the criminal. This revenge is taken in lieu of the offended party taking revenge, which in the time of Hammurabi lead to a rising cycle of blood feuds and battles in the streets. So the king decreed that only he and his appointed agents were allowed to take revenge.

The whole foundation of the law is one of vengeance. What you are talking about is equivalent punishment, not the same thing at all, and certainly not what I am talking about. The punishment merely needs to be sufficiently severe that the injured party feels no need to add further punishment.

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[lawpoop]

So how does your theory of justice deal with victimless crimes, such as drug use, speeding, or prostitution?

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Theres always a victim, whether that victim is yourself or the broader risk of a danger to random individuals. And yes, putting people at risk demands punishment, because people will seek to punish perpetrators themselves otherwise. I'm not too sure that prostitution should even be illegal to be honest, making it so brings the criminal and hazardous elements into it. One more hangover from the cankered and rotten victorian age. As far as I'm concerned, its just another form of exercise.

Re:Sometimes vigilante justice is needed

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Oops, can't edit posts on slashdot. Just to clarify what I said about prostitution, I mean sex is just another form of exercise, as far as I am concerned, unless you are actively trying to procreate. I don't use and never have used prostitutes, because I never felt the need to and I recognise that it is largely controlled by criminal gangs for their own betterment, as a form of slavery, which should be stamped out. And I spend a great deal of time in third world countries where prostitution is endemic, so I know what I am talking about. Eh treat this as part of the other post, I hate splitting threads.

Mathematically, the ends justifies the means...

[themonkman]

If your doing something illegal, you should be punished if someone other than the police finds out and reports it, regardless of how they get the information. Now, if you had to break a law in your country to prove that someone did something illegal, you should be punished for breaking that law, such as trespassing. This man from Turkey broke no laws because he is not bound to our laws. US law is not universal. If he broke a law in Turkey, then he should probably be punished in some way for breaking that law, while keeping in mind the good he did by breaking that law. He should receive a less severe punishment, such as probation. If he broke that law for his own gain or selfishness (e.g. hacking for the purpose of identity theft or fraud) then he should feel the full force of the law in his country.

While I don't advocate hacking for any other purpose other than to expose threats in an ethical manner, I feel that the good that this man did to bring these pedophiles to justice cancels out the unethical act of hacking those pedophile's computers. Let us say an unethical act like hacking could be expressed in a negative number, such as -3. Let us also say that an ethical act of bringing pedophiles to justice is expressed as a postive number, say 5. You add the sums of the ethical and unethical acts, and together you get 2. The outcome of the actions, and their final sum measured says that in the end, his acts were positivly ethical, overall. Add that to the fact that he is not bound to our laws and opinions of what is right or wrong. This should be considered when forming your opinion on whether the ends justifies the means.

Re:Mathematically, the ends justifies the means...

[15Bit]

Thats ridiculous. You can't justify a crime by saying your victim is a bigger criminal than you. How do you judge the severity of the crime? Ok, so its easy to justify the murder of someone who's killed 5 people (you kill 1, he killed 6. Simple maths), but how many thefts = 1 rape? How many speeding tickets = 1 assault? How many of these "ethical points" of yours does a person need to accrue before someone else can in turn legally:

1. Assault them?

2. Rape them?

3. Murder them?

I'm sorry, you're an idiot. And so am i, cos i should have used my mod points to give you "+1 funny".

Re:Mathematically, the ends justifies the means...

[Sage Gaspar]

If the U.S. government is allowed to prosecute based on the fruits of information obtained by a circumvention of their laws (whether within or without their country), their laws become worthless. Absolute governmental power has the greatest potential for massive abuse, so we agree to give up some of their protection in exchange for protection from them. We take a couple negatives to mitigate the odds on huge negatives, in your language. A child molestor might abuse a couple children and scar them for life, but the government can frame an innocent man as a child pornographer, put his kids in foster homes, and lock him in jail for the rest of his life.

Re:Mathematically, the ends justifies the means...

[symbolic]

This man from Turkey broke no laws because he is not bound to our laws. US law is not universal.

Let's change the target to a major corporation. And let's say that he instead targets their network, and acquires some very sensitive information. I do not think it far fetched that the corporation may well scream bloody murder, and the U.S. government may well demand that this guy be extradited for breaking U.S. laws while invading a network that resides within U.S. borders.

Re:Mathematically, the ends justifies the means...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If your doing something illegal, you should be punished if someone other than the police finds out and reports it, regardless of how they get the information. ... This man from Turkey broke no laws because he is not bound to our laws. US law is not universal.

So, by your argument, shipping terrorist suspects off to be tortured in foreign countries is fully justified, as is any information so obtained.

Here, tell you what. To make it a little less controvertial, hows about we just say that shipping pedophiles abroad for torture is a-OK.

Trolling from the autorities

[dargaud]

Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be allowed to troll. There are many countries where it is explicitely illegal (ie in France for instance). In the US there are many cases where the cops troll you and arrest you if you take the bait. Want examples ? Remember car-maker DeLorean of 'Back to the Future' fame ? He was offered a case of coke for a cheap price. When he said 'sure', he was arrested.

Also a friend of mine on a work visit in a US city, got out at night trying to have some good time, was asked by a guy if he wanted to meet girls, said 'sure', the guy arrested him for 'solicitation of prostitution' (there were no girls in sight and that's _not_ what he had in mind). Spent the night in jail and had to shell 1000$ to a lawyer for him to get off the hook while still technically guilty. Try explaining that to your boss the next day.

So if some FBI/Hacker acts all sexy in IRC and then finally say: 'BTW, I'm 16, do you still wanna meet ?' where is the fault there ?

Re:Trolling from the autorities

[Shadyman]

"He was offered a case of coke for a cheap price"

Coca-Cola coke, or the OTHER coke?

Re:Trolling from the autorities

[Sage Gaspar]

So if some FBI/Hacker acts all sexy in IRC and then finally say: 'BTW, I'm 16, do you still wanna meet ?' where is the fault there ?

If you actually go ahead with the meeting or get into more explicit online contact? With you.

I respect that people have odd fetishes, just want to get their cyber on, or want to hook up with people they meet on the internet for whatever reason. But before you start slipping your virtual pants off, before the conversation even gets to addresses or phone numbers, before the first jpg gets sent out, whatever, make sure you ask what their age is and get it logged and timestamped however you can. You always see people that claim they're role playing or whatever. Well, before you start up, get a straightforward, clear-as-day, out-of-character agreement that what you're doing is just roleplaying and everyone's of consenting age.

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[themonkman]

With a good computer forensics specialist, it would not be that hard to figure out if something had been planted on his computer after he was infected by the Sub7 trojan, which was the point at which the hacker had access to his machine. It would be simple to prove if these pictures existed on his system prior to the hacking. Simply stating that something *could* have been planted does not make it truth. There have been many other cases like this where people have claimed that evidence was planted, which was easy to prove or disprove.

I believe...

[brennanw]

that information gathered by private citizens is admissible evidence -- the laws requiring a warrant etc. apply only to government agencies.

Of course, this is not true if there are specific statutes that apply (i.e., laws concerning the recording of conversations) -- but as far as the Constitution goes, if a private citizen found evidence that police couldn't get without a warrant and turned it over to police, I think it can be used.

FBI involved should go to jail

[Anonymous Coward]

"The man now has tacit approval from the FBI for his actions."
Said FBI agents should go to jail, for soliciting a crime to be undertaken

wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

So most everyone covered most of the comments I had about how legal this is... but next time, why doesn't this guy try going after the people making the kiddy porn? Find evidence that leads the cops to the right guy, so they can get their own evidence and arrest him themselves.

At least then, he would really be getting the guys exploiting children.

1069

[Konster]

1. Why are newsgroups such as this allowed to exist in the first place?

2. The hacker was putting trojans in a newsgroup that existed for the sole purpose of distributing child pornography, which;

3. The arrested went to on his own volition;

4. The FBI didn't contact 1069 and have him hack others' computers; he contacted the FBI with the information;

5. The FBI investigated the arrested person and discovered that not only was he in possession of child pornograph but;

6. He was involved in the manufacture of it by taking photos of himself with his victim, aged 4-6;

7. Let him rot in jail.

Re:1069

[TheoMurpse]

1. Why are newsgroups such as this allowed to exist in the first place?

That's like asking why email that carries child pornography exists, or why Freenet has child pornography on it, or why torrents of copyrighted material exist. Someone needs to read up on how Usenet works: one posts a message to one's own Usenet server, and it propagates to many other Usenet servers in the way data from a torrent propagates (namely, like a web). Blacklisting servers whose users post illegal content would be impossible without destroying Usenet altogether.

Re:1069

[Kjella]

4. The FBI didn't contact 1069 and have him hack others' computers; he contacted the FBI with the information;

The first time. Quote TFA: "Agent Duffy claims that he did not provide directions to Unknownuser or encourage him to do additional searches. The written evidence in Agent Duffy's e-mails as described herein indicates otherwise, however, and the Court does not give great weight to this assertion by Agent Duffy."

There's a huge difference between volunteering information you have obtained, and being asked by a law enforcement officer to conduct unofficial investigations that involve federal hacking crimes. If it is so clear-cut as you put it, are you saying the FBI is that inept at catching child pornographers? Or does the FBI lack probable cause, that pesky little detail required to get warrants?

You can pick out a whole bunch of "suspect" people like Mafia members, Hells Angels, that guy every junkie visits and those visiting that newsgroup, and figure "they're surely doing something illegal". That doesn't give the police the right to encourage private individuals to do the break-ins/searches with promises of immunity, even if that person started out doing it on his own.

By his own admission and proof, he's been hacking US-based computers. That means the FBI could raise federal charges and could get him extradited, that is if he really is in Turkey which seems unlikely. The fact that they're treating him as their pet PI means I don't think the original evidence should be dropped, but I think all subsequent evidence he's provided should be inadmissable.

Re:only a pedophile

[Columcille]

The article says he's spreading the Sub7 worm. It takes a 30 second google to find copies of Sub7. If someone else gets Sub7, it's very unlikely to be because this guy is spreading it in specific usenet groups that your mother is unlikely to visit.

It's called an informant and it's totally legal

[wfolta]

Police have used informants for years and we've all seen it on police shows. Nothing new here. Nothing wrong here.

Informants are involved in all kinds of unsavory business, but it's BECAUSE of where they are and what they do that they know things which benefit the police in an investigation. Yep, let's pass laws that say police can only talk to people who do not commit crimes. (Do we include traffic violations in there? Tax evasion?)

The credit card example is ridiculous. An informant does not have a carte blanche. As another example, consider a bounty hunter: they do work at the edges of the law at times, but if they break the law -- shoot an innocent person, for example -- they are just as liable as anyone else. They are not above the law.

Re:It's called an informant and it's totally legal

[FLEB]

but if they break the law -- shoot an innocent person, for example

Last I checked, using a Trojan horse to break into a computer without permission was illegal. At best, it's selective enforcement.

Re:It's called an informant and it's totally legal

[Sage Gaspar]

The entire point of this article is that the information was gathered by committing a crime.

Re:It's called an informant and it's totally legal

[Kadin2048]

There's a big difference here. Normally, when you have an informant, they either need to give the police enough information to go and do the investigation themselves and find the conclusive evidence; or, if they come up with the evidence themselves (or provide a lot of very specific information), then they usually have to go and testify in court.

In this case, the 'mystery hacker' basically came up with the evidence (he told them exactly where to find it, and he had ample opportunity to have planted it), but he's not in a position where he could easily testify. Because he had access to the defendant's computer (illegally), but can't come testify (because he's in Turkey, because the police don't know who he is, whatever), it seems like they're giving the guy a good defense that the evidence was planted.

It's just sloppy policework.

For a phyiscal-goods example, it's as if somebody dropped a dime on you and told the police that when they had broken into your car earlier in the day to steal your radio, they saw that you had a baggie of heroin in the ashtray. So the police go and arrest you, and find the bag of heroin. Without being able to track down the informant and get their testimony, or some form of physical evidence linking the bag to you in such a way that doesn't leave you with a planted-evidence defense, they have a pretty weak case. (Unless they can get you to confess, which is actually pretty common.)

I'll be interested in seeing what the outcome of this case actually is. If they guy doesn't negotiate some sort of plea deal, and the only thing they found on his computer was the porn that the hacker told them about, I think he has a pretty good chance of either getting off, or forcing the police to find some way of getting the hacker to come in and testify.

Allowing in evidence that was obtained in this manner would be a mistake, and justice wouldn't be served in the long run by it, even if the immediate consequence was letting the guy off the hook.

Re:It's called an informant and it's totally legal

[Elminst]

I'll be interested in seeing what the outcome of this case actually is.
If you pay attention when RTFA... You'll see that both the guys are ALREADY IN JAIL. One of them is trying to appeal, but they've already been convicted and sentenced.

Re:It's called an informant and it's totally legal

[CaptJay]

I think he has a pretty good chance of either getting off,[...]

Sorry, can't resist: that's usually the point of pornography. :P

But of course!

[PontifexPrimus]

But of course we should make an exception for pedophiles! I mean, they're not human, so we shouldn't accord them the same protections of the law we all enjoy! And even if they're only suspected we should be able to hacke their computers with impunity - after all, we only condione that for pedophiles... oh, and terrorists. Terrorists must of course be included... and while we're at it, why not expand that to the really big criminals, you know gangster bosses, mafia-style... which would of yourse mean that we would let the lower ranks go, and since we can't have that, put them on the "exception from the law"-list. Oh, and maybe we should put political activists on there, too, because - you never know what you might find when you illegally gather information on someone. Might as well get some use out of that. I'll leave you with a quote by H. L. Mencken:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[Konster]

The problem the idea of images being planted by 1069 is that Steiger was in possession of photgraphs of child pornography with himself in the pictures.

Your heart is a liar

[Just Some Guy]

As I read the brief article it defiantly made me consider both sides of the story; however, in the end I side with my heart.

Your heart lies to you. It tells you about the good things that could be without pointing out their unlikelihood or the bad alternative outcomes.

If 1069 never went after non-pedophiles, and if he never presented false evidence, and if the FBI's use of that evidence didn't violate any rules and encourage the public to come to accept illegal activies from the police, then this could be a good thing. Break any of those ifs, though, and the result is a terrifying distopia that I want no part of.

My heart agrees with you: pedophiles are scum, and as a parent, their mass death wouldn't bother me one bit. However, my brain thinks that we need to step back and re-assess whether we want to revert to vigilante justice, and that due process and rules of evidence are far more important than any individual situation, regardless of how horrid it may be.

Turkish Hacker Uncovered

[Anonymous Coward]

According to my Turkish sources, this is the veiled hacker. Pictures to follow:
http://www.ikissyou.org/

Mahir, keep up the good work in catching pedophiles, I kiss you!

Re:only a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the possibility of a plant has not actually occured to me, thanks for pointing that out. Come to think of it, it could be that this hacker would plant some evidence on a guy he didn't like, then drop a dime on him :)
Part of the reason we require warrents of law enforecement officers.

BTW, this should be 'O Great Defender', not 'Oh Great Defender'. Like 'O Canada'.

Caveat lector!

[Ceriel Nosforit]

"...and a list of directories on his computer's hard drive where sexually explicit photographs were stored."

Caveat lector. There is something wrong here. There is nothing here which says these photographs featured people not yet of age. Though this information was probably just neglected by the author, it's rather damn imortant information to include. Regular porn has been legal for quite some time now in most civilized countries, and the USA.

(Oh, that last part was a joke. Laugh. It's supposedly funny. =p )

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[John Jorsett]

The problem the idea of images being planted by 1069 is that Steiger was in possession of photgraphs of child pornography with himself in the pictures.

Interesting point, which the article omitted. Even so, these days a skilled Photoshopper can put somebody in a picture in a way that's difficult to detect. A decent lawyer would still be able to make the argument of it being a frameup by 1069.

1069's information

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI may have used 1069's information for what is known as "lead purposes only". That is, they were tipped off by 1069 and started their own investigation into these individuals. The information they obtained from this subsequent investigation is what they may have used in court to convict the folks.

This technuque is used when intelligence angencies uncover illegal activity that is not of intelligence interest but they can't just turn a blind eye to. Also the intelligence agency / operatives do not want to have to testify in court. So, they turn the information over to the appropriate law enforcement agency "for lead purposes only". The law enforcement agency then begins a law enforcement investigation from that point forward using the proper warrants, evidence techniques, etc. None of the information obtained by the intelligence agency is ever used in court, only new information developed by law enforcement is brought into court.

Lets say you are doing some "urban astronomy" and see neighbor is packaging illegal drugs for sale. You decide to anonymously alert law enforcement about possible drug sales. The cops are probably not going to get a warrant on an anonmous tip. But it is a slow day in the narcotics unit so they decide to follow this tip. They legally setup surveillance on the suspect house and see what looks like drug sales. Now they have probable cause and ask a judge for a warrant to tap the phones. The phone tap reveals what sounds like drug sales. They send an undercover officer or informant in who successfully buys drugs. Now they have a good case that will stand up in court so they make the arrest. They do have to say they received an anonlous tip but all the evidence was legally developed by the cops. If the anonmous tip was bogus, then the subsequent investigation would not have revealed any drug sales.

FBI agents make points for getting convictions not losing cases in court on bad evidence. The prosecutor is no fool either and does not like losing cases which waste his or her time. He or she will review all the evidence to make sure it was legally obtained and will stand up to defense challenges and/or judicial scrutiny. It looks like the FBI agents did things right and the prosecutor made a good choice since these challenges have so far been unsuccessful.

Re:Plausible deniability

[symbolic]

And you think future hackers aren't going to plant evidence on innocent peoples hard drives for notoriety, or passes from the FBI?

All the suspect has to do is claim that there's no way that the planted evidence is his, because all of *his* illicit material is encrypted. oops...

Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[Kadin2048]

I can't believe they'd ask the guy to keep "investigating." It seems to break every basic rule of police procedure and preservation of evidence.

If this guy's defense lawyer isn't a total retard, or if he doesn't blow it and confess under interrogation, he's going to walk.

All he has to say is "hey, I don't know where the porn came from -- my computer was hacked! The police even have proof that some mysterious Turkish guy was in my computer!" And what are the police going to say, ask the judge and jury to take the word of some anonymous guy on IRC, that he didn't plant the evidence?

When you do your 'investigation' that way, they're creating a hole the size of the Titanic.

Look, I don't like defending kiddy pornographers, but it seems like a pretty good defense that there's a good possibility that you're being framed, when all the evidence came to the police by way of some mysterious, psuedonymous foreigner who had the opportunity to plant the material themselves; unless Mr. Turkish Hacker is willing to come and testify, that is.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[jeremywc]

Seriously, read the article. These people were actively molesting children and taking pictures of themselves while doing it. The pictures were turned over to the authorities.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[ultranova]

Seriously, read the article. These people were actively molesting children and taking pictures of themselves while doing it. The pictures were turned over to the authorities.

I have a picture of a rock troll taking a morning jog in a desert. Does it mean that rock trolls exist ? Or does it mean that Gimp is quite good at photomanipulation ?

For that matter, I've found pictures of Bush and Osama having sex. Does it prove that Bush is giving comfort to the enemies of the US (and therefore committing treason) ?

A photo from a hacker proofs nothing.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[Anonymous Coward]

A photo which is manipulated can be detected by algorithms.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[ultranova]

A photo which is manipulated can be detected by algorithms.

Any algorithm can be defeated by sufficiently skilled manipulation. And conversely, if these algorithms can detect things that human eye can't, then you can manipulate a real photo enough that the algorithms see it as manipulated but you don't see any difference to original.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with you (I'm not the OP). But what is surprising is that Hollywood can't get this right. I watched King Kong for the first time the other day and many of the scenes are blatantly composite. Because, despite spending bazillions, they don't get the lighting right. How hard can it be?

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[qurk]

So how is this different from someone saying "I saw so and so" and ask the cops to come check it out. I think what people are having a problem with is the cops telling such an individual to "OK JUST keep checking it out and let us know what you find out." No, the cops should check it out if they suspect a law is being broken, getting a warrant from a judge if needed. Asking an unknown or unaffiliated individual to do so is not only awkward, but stupid.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[ultranova]

But what is surprising is that Hollywood can't get this right. I watched King Kong for the first time the other day and many of the scenes are blatantly composite. Because, despite spending bazillions, they don't get the lighting right. How hard can it be?

Well, according to the IMDB the movie is 187 minutes long. With 24 frames per second, that's 269 280 pictures you see during the movie. So hand-adjusting them all would be 269 280 times harder than hand-adjusting a single photo. And this is not including things like keeping the adjustments consistent in subsequent images (which would pretty much neccessiate going through them in order, at least within a scene).

It should also be noted than oftentimes the "this is fake" feeling comes from motion, not lighting. Even if you motion-capture primary motion (joints), secondary motion (bouncing breasts & stomachs, ripples from impacts, etc) are very hard to get right. A computer model is ultimately just an empty skin; making it behave like a real human being would require simulating all the bones, muscles and fat underneath, the latter two being soft deforming bodies. And that is beyond the power of current computers.

And then there's voluntary motion (initiated by your own muscles), involuntary motion (relaxing your muscles and letting motion come from outside forces) and forced motion (fighting against outside forces). All of these cause different deformations on underlaying muscle tissue. Not to mention the fact that a muscle actively working is much more resistant to deformation than a muscle that's relaxed - just try pushing your finger into a relaxed and working muscle and see how much harder the later is.

And of course, even if the computer could handle all this, who is going to input it all ? Making those empty-skin models is hard and labor-intensive enough. And animating them by hand is also impossible, you need them to have AI that takes care of controlling all of those hundreds of muscles when you give it broad instructions. After all, you don't control even your own muscles directly, but let your motion cortex take care of the details.

So... Anyone up for building an open-sourced AI actor system ?-)

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[darkonc]

Well, if this guy is a real kidddy pornster, chances are that he'll have prints of his kiddy pictures to masturbate to. That'll be independant of any computer manipulation by the hacker.

That having been said, I think that it sets a bad precedent to have hackers breaking into people's computers looking for signs of criminal activity. It looks to me like this guy could have obtained enough evidence to identify this creep for the purpose of a search warrent without having to put a backdoor on his machine.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[JimDaGeek]

As a father of 1 girl and 2 boys, I think all sicko pedophiles should go down.

With that out of the way I can respond to your statement:

So how is this different from someone saying "I saw so and so" and ask the cops to come check it out

It is very different. This guy broke in to someones computer. The equivalent would be me breaking into your house and then calling the cops and saying I found child porn, and "come check it out". How would the cops know if I planted it or not? Granted, if the cops find child porn with you in the picture or hard evidence showing that you created the child porn, then the case would be strong. However, what if the only evidence were a few directories of child porn that couldn't 100% be linked back to you? There is a good chance you will be charged and even if you are found not guilty, you can bet your life and career are over.

I hate to see a criminal get away, however that has to be the only option when evidence is obtained illegally. We are a nation of laws. If the citizens are expected to follow those laws, then so too should the law makers and law enforcers.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I don't like defending kiddy pornographers [...]

On the contrary, I do; because "Child Porn" is the root password to the Constitution of the USA, as someone's sig says.

People who have images on their computers have committed no crime.

People who created the images in the first place are the ones that committed crimes.

Spending our tax dollars finding, catching, and prosecuting those who look at images is not in the public's best interest. We should catch those who actually violate the children. For all we know, the images on the perp's computers were digitally created/modified. Is animated child porn considered a crime? (It's not a rhetorical question, I truly don't know.)

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[Anonymous Coward]

he'll have prints of his kiddy pictures to masturbate to

Why? I'm mastrubated to lots of porn on my computer. I've never printed any of it.

And if it were illegal porn, I'd be doubly sure not to print any of it ...

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it great how pedophiles are hiding behind the AC label? You're sick dude, if you think it's remotely okay for someone to own (and buy and sell!) child porn, just because someone else took the pictures or did the penetration. People who are involved in child porn, including just viewing it, are without a doubt the most cancerous element in society.

Re:Creates a good "I've been hacked" defense

[qurk]

Alrighty, I think we are on the same page here. It kinda slipped by me that they had found out the information in the first place, illegally. Kinda compounds the icky incurred after the cops tell them to "just go ahead with what you are doing and let us know what you find out, so we don't have to do our jobs ourselves." Script kiddies are annoying enough....without the cops rewarding them for their childish behavior. I guess the only way to make this legit would be to hire the "hacker" into the police force, but still require them to get a warrant before they did any searching on anyone's computer.

Re:1069 - some answers

[etresoft]

1. Why are newsgroups such as this allowed to exist in the first place?
   Good point! Let's get rid of them. But then, they could just use alt.slashdot.flamebait instead. Better be safe and shutdown all of usenet.
2. The hacker was putting trojans in a newsgroup that existed for the sole purpose of distributing child pornography, which;
   That's what Mr. Anonymous said. He didn't say he wasn't distributing the virus through other channels as well (see below)
3. The arrested went to on his own volition;
   Well, his computer did. And we know his computer was hacked via back-door trojan by someone who trolls said newsgroup.
4. The FBI didn't contact 1069 and have him hack others' computers; he contacted the FBI with the information;
   And we know for sure that 1069 isn't an off-duty (on-duty?) FBI agent with a Turkish accent.
5. The FBI investigated the arrested person and discovered that not only was he in possession of child pornograph but;
   And we have already establish his computer had been hacked into.
6. He was involved in the manufacture of it by taking photos of himself with his victim, aged 4-6;
   Where did you get this? I didn't see that in TFA.
7. Let him rot in jail.
   That'll save those kids.

Here is an alternate scenario. A clever pedophile grabs a copy of Sub7 and sends it out into spam. They phone home and he uses those hacked computers to download porn - anonymously and for free. Poor doctor notices his computer is running very slowly and installs anti-virus, which removes Sub7. Bereft of his porn, there is now an angry, but clever pedophile. He anonymously calls the feds and gets the doctor arrested. While the feds are pursing one presumably innocent man, they don't have time to track down 1069.

All we have is a known virus-writer who claims to be doing a community service. Is writing viruses now OK? What if future pedophiles get wise and stop using those groups? Maybe I should seed alt.slashdot.flamebait with my own virus. Eventually I'll find something worth reporting. That would be OK, right?

There's an old polish-Soviet saying

[Travoltus]

They could come in looking for pedophile material and find an old audio tape copy of a Depeche Mode song played on radio. That could be enough to get you prison time in America.

"There's a line in the book for just about every citizen." or so the approximate saying goes.

Re:There's an old polish-Soviet saying

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no.
Warrents list specifically what they are looking for (Narcotics/bootleg material/etc), so if they find something else that they were not looking for, they can't use it in court.

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[humankind]

How do you figure this? By checking the file timestamps? There is no fool proof way to identify such things. It depends upon the situation, but your statement that a forensics specialist could tell when a file was placed on someone's machine is patently false.

Re:1069 - some answers

[Konster]

The alternate scenario doesn't work because the FBI agent had collected (legally, and not from 1069) a number of photographs of Steiger in which he was engaging in child molestation. It's not just that the guy was in possession of random child pornography; he was in possession of it with himself in the pictures.

FBI's M.O. is to encourage illegal activity

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't surprise me. I reported a computer crime case to the FBI and when I met with the agent, he was so impressed with my skills in tracking down people online, he offered to pay me "under the table" in cash to help him with other cases. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, especially when you're dealing with the FBI.

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[Konster]

I read from the court documents that the evidence collected was physical as well as digital, and that additional evidence...chains, cuffs, etcetera was collected from Steiger's home that also appeared in the photographs.

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[themonkman]

"How do you figure this? By checking the file timestamps? There is no fool proof way to identify such things. It depends upon the situation, but your statement that a forensics specialist could tell when a file was placed on someone's machine is patently false." Not true. Just like in other fields of forensics, you can tell when something has been modified. Therefore, even if the timestamps on the file were altered by the hacker, there are several ways they can still tell when the actual date was. There are alot more tools out there, software and hardware based, that can identify tampering.

Like they would ONLY look for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever pretext they concoct as justification for examining the contents of your PC is irrelevent...the fact is they are trawling, and will nail you for whatever they can.

"Child Pornography" is an excellent way to silence critics, since nobody wants to be associated with child pornographers, letalone being seen to actually sympathising with them.

The cops can silence critics and deflect any criticism of themselves or their actions by simply playing the Kiddi3 pr0n card, and they know it.

Most of Middle America will urge them on, because teh intarweb is teh eval.

Everyone's search results

[humankind]

If this is ok, then why not make public everyone's search queries? I'm sure we'd find plenty of criminal evidence. Why just a lone hacker vigilante? Let's unload everyone's private information publicly and have random people sift through it and report each other. Look on the bright side, we'll lock up criminals. Maybe AOL had it right after all and they shouldn't be apologizing for releasing private information into the pulic domain. The end does justify the means right?

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[humankind]

Yes, there are several ways to tell if and when files have been modified, NONE of which can't be subverted by a capable hacker.

If this guy is clever enough to deploy trojans, he's in the business of fooling people, and your typical "forensic specialist" would be a pushover to him. Your statement does not match reality... it may get more airplay because many expert witnesses, especially in the field of technology, are more politicians than technologists and the court doesn't know better, but it won't fly here.

This reminds me of the recent publicity over the VA laptop computer that was stolen, and the feds claimed they recovered it and the data was "untouched". 90% of everyone who routinely participates on Slashdot knows that's a total load of bullshit. The VA data, encrypted or not, could have been copied without anyone ever knowing. Save those lies for people who know better.

1069 is not a vigilante

[Tek Tekson]

Disclaimer: I think (being Canadian) of this issue on a global level not a US legal system level. So before you start quoting US Constitutional rhetoric, please don't.

There needs to be professional discretion on the part of the law enforcement investigators about how they use this kind of "alternative" resource. Publicizing the use of it is NOT appropriate, IMO. But where children are concerned, I think that the means were justifiable because they were harmless and especially because 1069 advised the police instead of taking any sort of action against the suspect.

Also, someone aptly pointed out that the hacker could plant the evidence. For this reason, the cops need to be smart and be sure to get independant evidence that could not have been planted by the supposedly ethical hacker, but somehow I think the prosecution would have thought of that already. I don't imagine that hacker-provided evidence would be admissible in court.

There were also some comments about abuse of anti-terrorism laws and violation of privacy. I agree this is a serious concern - especially in the US right now. But I think that anyone who says police shouldn't have the capability and resources to crack systems is being naive. If we cannot even approach the capabilities of hackers like 1069 in law enforcement, then we have a system that is ineffective in the world we live in.

Re:1069 is not a vigilante

[TCM]

especially because 1069 advised the police instead of taking any sort of action against the suspect.

Umm, I'd say breaking into his computer is very much taking action against him. Enough to invalidate the whole "evidence".

Re:1069 is not a vigilante

[Tek Tekson]

Okay you got me on semantics. Argumentative much? I was trying to be concise! I thought the subject line made my point clear...

1069 is not a vigilante.

1 - 1069's action was arguably illegal but not immoral (considering intent)
2 - it was not violent
3 - it was appropriate, surgical even, use of expertise - no tampering
4 - no risk to any third parties or innocents by his hack

Oh yeah and did you read the part where the COPS TOLD HIM TO DO IT?

1069 did the right thing and he handled himself honorably. He could have just as easily broadcast the suspects' info all over the net, forcing them to turn themselves in to avoid inevitable 'sidewalk justice'.

Re:1069 is not a vigilante

[TCM]

1 - 1069's action was arguably illegal but not immoral (considering intent)

Are you psychic? How can you know his intent? Because he said so?

3 - it was appropriate, surgical even, use of expertise - no tampering

Again, because he said so? Otherwise, breaking into a computer is as close to tampering as it can get.

4 - no risk to any third parties or innocents by his hack

Unless you assume the victim of the hack to be guilty in the first place, then yes, there were no innocents.

I can't think how this whole thing could be any more fishy. You jump to judging the guy and praising the hacker, because the subject is child porn; or to apply the meme: "Won't somebody think of the children!"

It's scary how you dismiss due process because the crime gets to you on a personal level or whatever.

Re:1069 is not a vigilante

[Tek Tekson]

The way you talk, it sounds like you would have the offender go free on a technicality...

I don't advocate the US legal system. I qualified this from the beginning. Honestly my opinion is that your legal systems sucks ass through a straw. You know, mostly hot air and sometimes messy with a bad aftertaste?

1069's intent was made obvious by his course of action. You really are argumentative aren't you? Infer a little, geez.

I'm gonna pull the tampering point because the trojan does imply some sort of altering of the child porn downloader's machine, kinda sorta... That could easily become a semantics debate.

I think it's far more scary how readily you dismiss child welfare in the name of your precious fifth amendment. Anyway, didn't the offender get his 'due process'? 1069 just provided a tip to the cops.

And I didn't "jump to judging the guy". He was GUILTY AS CHARGED dammit. Also, you'll notice that I was opposed to the idea of him getting 'another form of justice' at the hands of the public. I do believe in due process, just not dumb process 'or whatever'.

Re:1069 is not a vigilante

[arth1]

Tek Tekson (601577) wrote (to someone else):

The way you talk, it sounds like you would have the offender go free on a technicality...

It's better that ten offenders go free on a technicality than one single innocent be judged and sentenced for a crime he didn't commit.

Better yet is for no offenders to go free and no innocents be found guilty, but that won't happen. The best our system can do is to err on the side of the accused, who is innocent unless and until proven guilty. Just because the crime is child porn doesn't mean that this principle should be set aside, and the accused be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Also, the right of the accused to confront his accuser which is made a farce of here. How can the defense investigate whether he is the criminal who planted evidence, when they can't even get a name?

Re:I say the Information is Free

[Handover Phist]

> I don't think the police should be allowed to use illicitly gained information or that they should be allowed to encourage private citizens to commit felonies.

I think the Internet is Free. If we as citizens can use information gained, why cant the police/FBI/CIA/RIAA?

Yup, I'm going that far.

A man's computer is his castle...

[QuincyDurant]

...but I'm not sure his server is.

I believe that public sites, like slashdot, are protected by the first amendment.

I believe that a personal hard drive is protected against unreasonable searches by the fourth amendment.

But private and semi-private uses of the Internet, which are used to facilitate a great many other crimes and conspiracies than crimes against children, belong in a somewhat different category. Consider, for example, the difference between ordering a product with a credit card over the telephone and ordering a product with a credit card over the Internet. In one case, a single credit card number is at risk; in the other, tens of thousands are at risk.

One poster said that sex crimes against children are not especially serious, but if four year olds could type, I'm not sure they would agree. The NYT recently published a chilling study of Internet usage by pedophiles who did much worse than simply store dirty pictures on their hard drives. And while I agree that this is an especially emotion-laden issue, the successful use of the Internet by any group of criminals to further crime should be of concern to all.

If crime in the U.S. reaches the level it has in the former Soviet Union, there will be no Bill of Rights left to protect. When it comes to kicking your door in, gangsters can be as bad as policemen.

The first step should be an increase in legal remedies and penalties for misuse of the Internet. A ten-year prison sentence for knowingly abetting a felony on the Internet could help, just as the simple steps of putting posters of criminals on Post Office walls and threatening kidnappers with the death penalty both did some good.

This is a constitutional minefield, but we need to protect not only the Bill of Rights but also our most vulnerable, youngest, and most helpless citizens. Raping a child is no laughing matter, and whether the rapist is a criminal or a mental patient (he is both), such a rapist needs to be captured and locked away forever, not necessarily in a hell-hole, but some place with a lock on the door and no kids in reach.

Here's an NPR audio clip on the NY Times story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5069301

Re:A man's computer is his castle...

[QCompson]

The NYT recently published a chilling study of Internet usage by pedophiles who did much worse than simply store dirty pictures on their hard drives.

I read the New York Times article, and it was far from "chilling". I think it would be more accurately described as sensationalistic. What exactly were the pedophiles doing on the internet that was worse than storing dirty pictures on their hard drives? Chatting with each other? Oh the horror!

A ten-year prison sentence for knowingly abetting a felony on the Internet could help

Please explain, Captain Think-of-the-children, what you mean by this statement. Are you suggesting there should be a 10 year sentence for approving of certain actions? If I say, "I approve of girls having sex at the age of 15," I should go to prison for 10 years? So much for freedom of speech.

If crime in the U.S. reaches the level it has in the former Soviet Union, there will be no Bill of Rights left to protect.

This type of statement is often used to argue, "In order to save the Bill of Rights, we have to ignore the Bill of Rights." Complete rubbish. If you want to abandon the Bill of Rights and everything the United States is supposed to stand for, just come out and say it.

Re:A man's computer is his castle...

[QuincyDurant]

Here is a brief summary from the first few paragraphs of the the carefully-written New York Times Story

But it is no longer just chatter in the ether. What started online almost two decades ago as a means of swapping child pornography has transformed in recent years into a more complex and diversified community that uses the virtual world to advance its interests in the real one.

Today, pedophiles go online to seek tips for getting near children -- at camps, through foster care, at community gatherings and at countless other events. They swap stories about day-to-day encounters with minors. And they make use of technology to help take their arguments to others, like sharing online a printable booklet to be distributed to children that extols the benefits of sex with adults.

The community's online infrastructure is surprisingly elaborate. There are Internet radio stations run by and for pedophiles; a putative charity that raised money to send Eastern European children to a camp where they were apparently visited by pedophiles; and an online jewelry company that markets pendants proclaiming the wearer as being sexually attracted to children, allowing anyone in the know to recognize them.

Any crime involving more than one person begins with "chatting" of one kind or another, and yes, "horror" is the right word for men telling each other exactly how to accomplish intercourse with a seven- or eight-year-old girl.

The article that you describe as sensationalistic was called "world-class journalism" by Alex Jones, the director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. This quotation is from the link I provided in my first post. The NYT article requires registration to read and may soon cost money, but slashdot readers who read it may decide for themselves whether its contents are merely sensationalistic.

What I meant by "ten-year prison sentences" was that simply that the threat of punishment deters crime. I do not propose that these sentences be handed out without due process. But I do think that a person convicted of knowingly hosting a private, secret website that allows people to plan and carry out crimes against children should go to prison. Under our system, such a conviction would not be easy to obtain, nor should it be.

I tried to distinguish between protected free speech, such as a letter to the editor of a newspaper or a website posting defending the right to read and distribute child pornography--on the one hand--and conspiratorial use of the mail, telephone service, or Internet to carry out a crime, on the other. Some war protesters once blew their noses into an American flag in front of a marine recruiter in an attempt to provoke him--a protected, if disgusting, act of free expression. Had they met in secret to make explicit plans to blow up the recruiting office and took steps to carry these plans out--that would not be protected speech.

You should not have construed what I wrote to suggest that I want to abandon the Bill of Rights. I explicitly said otherwise. I do not believe we need to "balance" our rights against the need to fight crime, but I do believe we need to fight crime. Many kiddie porn laws are probably unconstitutional, as you suggest. For example, it would probably be possible to ban Nabokov's Lolita under some of them on the grounds that the author may seem to be "approving" of underage sex. On the other hand, we can strengthen laws to stop people like this currently over-publicized creep from Thailand (trebly a creep for confessing to a crime he would have liked to have committed but probably didn't) from lurking around Internet back alleys exchanging information about child care centers that hire men without background checks.

The founding fathers had good reason to fear the government and fear the police. And yet, they needed government, and they needed police, as do we. The Times story shows why the Internet needs better governing and better policing.

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[munpfazy]

Not true. Just like in other fields of forensics, you can tell when something has been modified. Therefore, even if the timestamps on the file were altered by the hacker, there are several ways they can still tell when the actual date was. There are alot more tools out there, software and hardware based, that can identify tampering.

Even if you can unambiguously date every file, that only makes a set up harder, not impossible.

Consider the following (rather extreme) thought experiment:

You create a trojan that downloads a bunch of child porn to some out of the way place on the infected computer and then removes itself. You selectively distribute it to individual users, so as to make discovery less likely. Perhaps you make it fairly smart, so that it hunts for directories containing legal porn and hides material there or in an analogously labeled place.

Then, ten months later, you release a very simple trojan that installs itself, looks for child porn using a very general search, and then reports what it finds. Make sure your victim gets it, and also post it to child porn usenet groups and other seemingly incriminating places in order to distribute it as widely as possible.

Then, when it finds the porn on your victim's computer, you go the FBI. Tell them what you found, and give them the source code to your new trojan. They take a close look at your victim's hard drive and find your trojan right where you said it would be, no other backdoors or exploits, and a 10 month old stash of kiddie porn.

I'm no computer forensics expert, but trying to prove that a machine has never been infected by software able to download material and then remove itself seems pretty close to impossible, at least if you don't know exactly what you're looking for. (Sure, there are security policies that would make such an identification possible, but I imagine a large number of home pc users don't employ them.)

If you're lucky enough to find a really tasty exploit in some exisiting software (like an unpatched browser) you might even be able to get by without ever writting anything (except the pornographic images) to the hard drive.

Now, I will readily agree this is a pretty extreme example. But, if it weren't for ethical constraints, I or thousands of other slashdot readers could pull this off, given a few months of work and a suitable victim (a windows user who's lazy about patches and doesn't run a good virus checker). There are plenty of personal grudges out there that would compel someone to go to this much trouble to set up a foe. And, if you are lucky enough to make friends with some organized crime types, you could probably turn a nice profit offering it as a service.

Now, if you really want to go to town and are willing to risk early discovery, you modify the user's software so that it adds a few MB of kiddy porn to every burned CD and DVD and then mounts them with a filter that removes any sign of their existence. Now the FBI finds physical media obviously burned and handled by the victim, containing child porn. Your victim is going to have a tough time explaining that he had no idea that the DVD he burned of legal porn also contained a directory called "young children" full of explicit images.

Is a pedophile someone who loves walking?

[solanum]

Amazing the difference an 'a' makes.

Re:Is a pedophile someone who loves walking?

[titzandkunt]

"Is a pedophile someone who loves walking?... ...Amazing the difference an 'a' makes."

I'da thunk it meant someone with a foot fetish.

For the love of God: Won't someone - anyone - please, please, think of the feet?

Re:Is a pedophile someone who loves walking?

[Azuma Hazuki]

I am not a pedophile myself nor (to the best of my knowledge) do I know any either online or in the Real World (TM), but it was interesting to read the account of a supposed real-life one here. Pedophilia is one of those issues that, as several people have mentioned, triggers knee-jerk responses; however, a little cold, calm thought is beneficial in cases like this.

Let's start with the dictionary definition, "(sexual) love of children." For purposes of this discussion we are including ephebophiles, those who are attracted to children during or past puberty but not yet of the age of majority, under the heading or "pedophile." The point is that this says nothing about any propensity to commit any act, just that the attraction is there. Think about that for a few minutes.

Essentially, jailing or otherwise punishing someone simply for being a pedophile is an example of thoughtcrime. What should be punished (and more importantly, publicized in the media as being punished) is the abuse and exploitation of the child victims. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist and have some doubts about how someone can be "wired" to pedophilia, but as long as they do not harm a child, why should they be punished?

The definition of "harm a child" doesn't just mean direct abuse or harrassment of course; if you're buying, selling, or accessing kiddie porn, you are continuing the cycle. I also do agree that computer-generated images that look lifelike should come under the heading of child porn, if only because they are supposedly nearly indistinguishable (not that I'm gonna check) from the real thing. But if a pedophile does not harm children directly or indirectly, if s/he is "celibate" as our Anonymous Brave is, there shouldn't be any need to cause problems for that person.

See the problem? Pedophiles are the new boogeymen. They've been turned into a class of untermensch, fodder for one of the modern Two-Minutes Hate campaigns. Pure evil, something no patriotic (notice I didn't say "critically thinking") American should feel any qualms about seeing harrassed, imprisoned, and even tortured or killed. This is a fundamentally sick mindset and one that serves the government, in its ablation of civil rights, very well. All these supposedly good Christian people might want to consider one of Jesus's quotes: "Hate the sin, not the sinner." In the same vein, "punish the act, not the thought."

Now, part two. I moderate a fairly large subsection of an anime image community, and one of the things we need to deal with is "lolicon," a back-loan-word meaning "Lolita complex." No one would ever mistake a lolicon image for actual child porn (eyeballs the size of hardboiled eggs and pink or blue hair tend to do that). It is against my particular board's policy, but it gave me an idea: why not use lolicon as an alternative or "safety valve" for the real thing? And I don't mean ration it out like drugs in rehab; I mean let the artists make it so pedophiles can access it through normal channels on the 'net, like I would to go looking for "normal" porn. By definition no actual child can be harmed in its making because it's hand-drawn or computer-generated, and anime/manga art looks nothing like real life.

Heh, and my vericode is "bargains." Sounds like even the server has the right idea. Also, anyone who's ever whacked it to Sailor Moon hentai is a pedo; those girls may look and (usually) act like adults, but they're only 16.

Re:Is a pedophile someone who loves walking?

[titzandkunt]

Judging by your response to the OP, you either can't get an obvious joke or you can't spell.

Paedophile != pedophile.

Re:I say the Information is Free

[rodgster]

Well IIRC, Title 18, U.S.C. 1030 makes "unauthorized computer access" a federal felony in addition to a civil matter.

So you are advocating what exactly?

Just because you're in Canada doesn't mean that your actions aren't crimes, because they affect a computer in the US.

The mounties will be along shortly.

Have good day.

EH.

House Resolution 666

[Anonymous Coward]

HR 666, (see link) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=104_cong_bills&docid=f:h666rfs.txt.pdf already makes this behaviour from the gov legal. On a side note, for those that didn't read the story, the judge overturned an appeal, and sentence has already been given.... Hacked PC was not accepted as a defense.

Re:House Resolution 666

[bwcbwc]

Such an eerily appropriate HR number...

I say you are a moron!

[satcomdaddy1]

Surely you have made that statement with no other basis than what you learned in college about 'constitutional rights'. I truly hope, for their sake, that you have no children or young relatives that could fall prey to this type of thing.

Re:I say you are a moron!

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off asshat!

Sounds like the movie 'M'.

[solitas]

Anybody ever see 'M' (1921, Peter Lorre, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/)?

The German government can't catch the child murderer, but the criminals of the underworld go after him, catch him, and administer their own justice.

Ends/Means

[Z34107]

I don't think the police should be allowed to use illicitly gained information or that they should be allowed to encourage private citizens to commit felonies.

Forget worrying about a Gestapo-esque police organization using hackers to circumvent the law - this kind of information can't be used in U.S. courts because of the lack of a warrant, amongst other things. (And if they had a warrant for the information anyways, it probably wouldn't be illicit to use the hacker to serve the warrant, would it?)

The information makes it easier to find criminals, as they probably wouldn't have known he was a pedophile without the hacker's snooping. But, they still have to use all the normal legal channels to prosecute him and put him away.

Of course, that doesn't really justify the hacking, but if some good comes from a deed that would be done anyway, that's better than having a Usenet hacker who doesn't help put pedophiles away.

Re:Ends/Means

[rodgster]

You obviously didn't RTFA

CLUE:

IT HAS BEEN USED FROM THAT EXACT SOURCE!

At least twice.

Man /. needs a way to require that posters at least clicked on the link.

No, I say U R the moron!

[rodgster]

This IS how fascism starts.

How can people who are likely otherwise intelligent be so blinded and not see the larger picture and the implications.

If you think I condone pedophilia you are a fool.

Unlike you spineless worms who want government to protect you from everything, if someone molested one of my kids, I'd take the Ellie Nesler approach.

The fact that fools like you vote is why we have warrant less wiretaps, infiltration of peaceful protect groups (like grandmother's again the war), email and Internet monitoring, etc, etc.

Maybe you're too young to remember or know about some HISTORY like Nixon, Watergate, Church Commission, J Edgar Hoover, etc, etc. I am Not.

Try turning off Fox News and reading instead. Just be careful what you read as library records are watched too.

There is a famous quote, which goes something like those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Indeed...

[TheNoxx]

Proxy groups are always a giant pain in the ass, shit, just look at the giant headache Hizbollah is causing the world at the moment. However, we usually can avoid them here (well, not avoid per se, but rather find out about whether or not they are sponsored by a government agency) pretty well. The paper trail and incredible ease of information to be passed around makes running a front difficult in the US, particularly for the public image of any agency that tries it. I don't mean advocate groups, lobbyists, or viral marketing whatever-the-fuck, but actual fronts; like ones the CIA sets up.

On the other hand, Congress is making it damn hard for anyone to leak information out right now, which puts corruption in a safe and moist place to grow wild... It's a thin line, and with the way the government's heading, well, I will probably end up switching my opinion to the other side out of circumstance.

Well, shit, now that I think about it, the more respect and renown these vigilante types get, the more others will want to grab their 15 minutes of fame, by whatever means they have, even if it involves framing an innocent citizen.

I still currently lean towards my original stance, but obviously, I'll have to think about it a bit more and come up with something that works a bit better.

Bounty ?

[Daas]

What about bounty hunters ??? It is about the same, they use methods that police can't use because of their status. Daas

Re:Steiger's defense attorney must have really suc

[ZachPruckowski]

It's not the particular case people have an issue with, it's the principle. Volunteer hackers cracking people's systems for the FBI? What do you want to bet that we only saw this case because the guy was extra double guilty? I mean, if this gets written up as legal, then the RIAA can have people hack our computers to look for music. When we get to the point where we can't expect privacy anywhere on our computers, we're pretty screwed. Also, from the technical point of view, it'd be nice to be able to say "X, Y, and Z are hacking and wrong and can always be stopped" (where X,Y, and Z are hacking, keylogging, etc.), rather than being like "Hey, I'm ZoneAlarm. I see a problem. I guess I have to check with the FBI to see if this is legal hacking or not."

Well, yes and no...

[TheNoxx]

Pederasty is a unique crime in that its motives don't fit in with the majority of causes that drive people to commit crimes. Not only is it a mental disease, but one that can spread from the perpetrator to the victim over time, as most child molestors were once victims themselves. I'm not trying to argue away their humanity or imply they should be summarily round up and shot, or anything else along those lines. I should've clarified my point a little better, as when most people refer to "culling the abomination of pedophilia", their intentions are probably going to lean towards the more vicious and vengeful.

Anyway, back on point: I meant that only pedophilia should be treated in a different way because of the magnitude of damage it causes society. I don't mean to lock them up forever, just that we need to find a much more effective method of stopping them from acting out on that behavior. I realize that I may very well sound like some bleeding-heart, bleary-eyed soccer mom at a PTA meeting, but I'm quite serious.
Terrorism and organized crime do very little damage relative to pedophilia (yes, I am of the opinion that terrorism is, in actuality, one of the smallest threats one faces in day to day life as an American; 9/11 was an incredibly lucky sucker punch from terrorist groups and a fairly suicidal move in terms of not having their movement blasted off the face of the earth with artillery), with terrorism a distant third behind a fairly distant second of gangs. This is simply because I know maybe one or two people that have been affected by terrorism, a small handful of people that have been robbed or are involved in gangs, but I couldn't possibly count all of the people I've talked to that have been molested as kids, and developed suicidal tendencies/depressive/bipolar/obsessive-compulsive /etc as a result.

Re:Well, yes and no...

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, "pederasty" is something entirely different.

Second off, it's hardly unique--child abuse of the totally non-sexual variety follows the exact same pattern (children violently abused tend to become violent abusers themselves). Yet we see comments all the time on threads about kids who break some law or other that they should just be whipped into shape (ok, spanked and/or beaten instead of literally whipped most of the time). Why is it ok to perpetuate that cycle?

Hmmm....

[TheNoxx]

As far as I can tell, all the FBI did was say that they can't prosecute someone in another country; whether or not that's the truth, I'm unsure, as I'm not up to date on the current gumbo of international policing of crimes that cross borders mixed with various countries' governing old men trying to each come up with the completely wrong way of dealing with the internet. I suspect that they could have pressured Turkey into giving him up for extradition if they really wanted to be pricks about it, but Turkey would've told them to piss off and every news outlet would murder the public image of the agency in full public view.

Besides, I think turning a blind eye to someone hunting for pedophiles is the least illegal thing the FBI has done in a while.

And the police can use agents in the form of paid informants who are involved in drugs to find drug-dealers or somesuch, and yes, that informant will use the money paid to him by the police to probably shoot up again.

Re:Hmmm....

[DerekLyons]

I suspect that they could have pressured Turkey into giving him up for extradition if they really wanted to be pricks about it, but Turkey would've told them to piss off and every news outlet would murder the public image of the agency in full public view.

You suspect incorrectly - hunting pedophiles and handing them over for justice is something virtually every nation in the world pays at least lip service to. (Even nations that (behind the scenes) encourage sexual tourism make a great show of hunting child prostitutes and their johns.) They *might* have just made a pretense of searching rather than a real search - but the last thing they would do is refuse outright.
 
 

And the police can use agents in the form of paid informants who are involved in drugs to find drug-dealers or somesuch,

Certainly. I never said they couldn't use agents - but that they cannot use agents to circumvent the restrictions the law places on police.

Re:Hmmm....

[TheNoxx]

I'm not quite sure I read you correctly, as the man in Turkey is the one who sent the FBI the information leading to the capture of the alleged pedophile. Being that Turkey has a large muslim population and we seem well on our way to becoming a staple feature in the curses of the arabic language, and that we'd have to get him over here to prosecute him... and he has committed the single crime which will immediately win over any of the hearts of the masses in general, breaking the law to catch those that prey on kids... not gonna happen. If it wasn't publicized and we wanted to know more about how blackhats over in that part of the world operate, then there'd be a 1% chance.

But, the more I think about my position, the more it seems to sway. I'm tenuously staying my ground on this case, because the hacker in question never gained root access to the criminal's machine, but rather laced the child pornography he found on, as the article even names the damned spot, "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen" with malicious code to report back what was found on the machines. Nevertheless, with the current administration's keen knack to employ good ideas in ways the mock the logic behind them (namely God and justice), what seems like a noble endeavor (and that's fading fast in my head too, and may have been there just because of all the damn super hero movies coming out) quickly snowballs into a monument of fucking up.

In context...

[Anonymous Coward]

A year later, "1069" fingered another man, William Adderson Jarrett, who lived in the Richmond, Va., area.

Heh heh heh...

As a father of 4 children, ...

[thephydes]

two daughters of my own and two sons of my wifes from a previous marriage, I actually dont give a flying fuck how they catch these perverted bastards. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Actually, put them in the toughest prisons and let them really see what is like to be treated like a worthless piece of meat.

Re:As a father of 4 children, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

two daughters of my own and two sons of my wifes from a previous marriage, I actually dont give a flying fuck how they catch these perverted bastards. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Actually, put them in the toughest prisons and let them really see what is like to be treated like a worthless piece of meat.

Nice work. How very brave of you to stand up and vocally oppose pedophiles on behalf of children. If only the media in America would wake up and take notice of this enormous problem. Don't forget your pitchfork!

Re:The Name of the pedophile is Bradley J. Steiger

[Anonymous Coward]

Try antisocial personality disorder. That's the one where you literally have no conscience whatsoever.

Double Standard

[ClamIAm]

So if I run some blackhat ops on the FBI to make sure they're not doing anything illegal, will I get some doggie treats as well? I didn't think so.

Boondock Saints

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever seen the movie The Boondock Saints? It's about two Irish brothers who got sick of so much crime in Manhattan and decided to do something about it. They took out mob leaders, gang leaders, big time drug dealers, killers, rapists, etc. because the Police wouldn't do it. The moral is: Standing by and letting something happen is just as bad as or worse than actually doing it.

This Turkish guy is acting as the Irish brothers. He's using his knowledge to find these sick bastards who rape and photograph underage girls who are helpless against these rapists and child pornographers. I'm all for this Turkish guy. He's catching pedophiles who pretty much willingly download his trojan. They may not know they are downloading it, but hey, what's a trojan when you've got kiddie porn, right? I say take these sick fuckers off of the Internet no matter what it takes. I'm not afraid of someone looking through My Documents, I've got nothing to hide. Personal letters? It's a text file. Some guy from the middle of the US isn't gonna know who Johnny and Suzy are if he looks at love letters.

It's about damn time someone stepped up instead of pussyfooting around laws which are constantly being changed.

Re:Boondock Saints

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about two Irish brothers who got sick of so much crime in Manhattan and decided to do something about it.

Boston. Not Manhattan

Re:Boondock Saints

[orzetto]

Ever seen the movie The Boondock Saints? It's about two Irish brothers who got sick of so much crime in Manhattan and decided to do something about it. They took out mob leaders, gang leaders, big time drug dealers, killers, rapists, etc. because the Police wouldn't do it. The moral is: Standing by and letting something happen is just as bad as or worse than actually doing it.

A similar real-life story is the first part of the life of Tookie Williams. His conclusion, many years later, was that this idea is bullshit.

Re:I say the Information is Free

[Anonymous Coward]

better hide your weed farm before the mounties get there.

u r RIGHT

[rodgster]

Your comment warrants your rendition to Jordan.

Oh and btw it has been you and your ditto head idiots who have created the largest bureaucracy in history and increased the national debt to unheard of levels.

Oh and to speak to your pathetic excuse for comments on air travel, I flew on one for the first flight after 9/11 and I've flown more time since then than most people have in their entire lives. So STFU.

You are a pathetic and weak POS who is afraid of his own shadow. Grow a sack loser.

Re:u r RIGHT

[pgnas]

WOW! How does anyone live their life with that much anger and hatred flowing through their viens? Oh, is that passion

There is really nothing in your reply that warrants this post, however, I would like clarify the notion that I subscribe to the beliefs of that well known pompus fat-man from hailing from Central CA. It scares me that anyone would cast a judgment so quickly, based on only a few sentences....

The simple fact of the matter is this: I have no sympathy for pedophiles , just as I have no sympathy for terrorists. The thought that there is some line that needs to be drawn(or questioned) when we are exercising an effective means of bringing this worthless element to justice elevates my sackless, weak POS, "afraid of my own shadow", blood pressure.

If there were some, reasonable question as to whether this person actually committed this crime, well then maybe the flags should go up, but lets just use some common sense and think rationally when we are talking about this.

My post is not about any specfic event and it really means nothing to me nor does it add to your point how many times your have boarded a plane since 9/11 other than the fact that you travel.

Our laws needs to be about protecting the safety and lives of the innocent, lets just talk about these pedophiles (and leave the terrorists out of it), let's put aside all politics because it has no place in the matter as well. We are dealing with an element that works tirelessly on stealing the innocence of children for their own sick, morally corrupted personal gain. This is a person who will ultimately affect and possibly destroy many lives even after one act. We are also talking about a person who will more than likely go on again and again, even after being caught, and incarcerated (for any length of time).

Where is the rationale behind anything that would remotely inhibit the means to bringing such a destructive force in our socity to justice swiftly and minimizing any and all damages? When we are dealing with forces which cannot be ratioanlly dealt with, why would anyone chose to handicap the forces we put in place to protect us?

The only fear I have is of a collective society who rationalizes with those who are incable of rational thought. I fear this collective group of people cry foul even while our very own future, our most valued resource, is being threatened. I fear both sides of the extreme are so blinded by their views, they can't be reasoned with and are incable of making sound and selfless decisions that are good for the masses.

The weak sackless losers are those that are not doing everything possible to do the right thing, and if we are talking about self preservation(collectively) then there is a definitive moment when the "gloves need to come off".

Why didn;t the FBI get a warrant and log in

[DrSkwid]

As the target machines where infected with Sub7, why wouldn't the FBI get a warrant to access the trojanned machine themselves the Sub7 back door?

Gary McKinnon is "not a citizen of the United States and are not bound by our laws" and yet he was extradited to face trial in the US. He was accessing Pentagon, NASA, US Air Force and other DoD facilities in 2001 and 2002 the same time 1069 was breaking into private US citzen's systems.

As usual, it's one law for private individuals, one law for the poice.

How to protect yourself against being set up by ..

[3seas]

.. a hacker.

Hmmm, "Hacker" used to be a good thing, then it was a bad thing, and now it is a bad/good thing...

Anyway, the way to protect yourself against a hacker putting child porn on your system is to already have a ton of adult porn on your system. That way in your defence you can show that your really not interested in children.

Manipulative deceptions techniques most certainly include the human judgement system of playing guilt on sex. Sex being a topic that is unavoidable to our species. The church has played on it and so does the government and now the us gastopo...

All in all, using citzens to rat on their neighbors sounds so gastopo that it must be a Bush admin aproved tactic, along with things like removing evolution studies from the classroom and other dumb downing of the public.

When it comes to matter of morality, there is no such thing as a double standard, ends justifies means, or any such breaking of morals to bust broken morals.

There is a wide scope of sexual drives and desires and abilities or lack of. From the handicap to the physically amd mentally fit. In a time of a disease such as AIDS, safe sex means what? No physical contact, use your imagination. Where does pornography come in on this, no physical contact? It should be obvious, not everyone has a vivid imagination.

It should be clear that child porn criminality is at the creation of, point. The point where a child is abused, not at the point of proof of. The difference being that hacking innocent peoples computers to put such proof on, is not proof they commited the child abuse crime, but that their system now has such proof a crime was commited contained on it.

Otherwise what is being driven towards is "Thought Police" to bust people for imagining anything that some other person or party thinks is wrong. And this goes beyond sex, into patents and more...

Don't think or imagine, or your can get busted by the thought police.

Pathetic intent to control people to force them to be non-human drones, the living dead.

Re:only a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

So...you won't mind if folks routinely look through your computer? Post your IP, we'll all only look...honest! I mean, if you're not guilty of anything, then you won't mind.
Come on, put your IP where your mouth is!

LOL

[Brian Ribbon]

Would you be able to tell me how "pedophiles" are the scum of the earth and how you can prosecute someone just because they are a pedophile? I doubt you can.

Do you know what "paedophile" means?

[Brian Ribbon]

"My heart agrees with you: pedophiles are scum, and as a parent, their mass death wouldn't bother me one bit."

Well it would have to be a mass murder, because there are a lot of us and we aren't going anywhere. You may put a few hundred paedophiles in prison on child porn charges and some of the 10% of child sex abuses which are committed by paedophiles might result in prison sentences (and rightly so if it's sex abuse), however if you think you're going to have the 33% of people who have at least some attraction to children, or the 5-25% who are technically paedophiles killed, you're fooling yourself. It's not illegal to be a paedophile, because it is not illegal to exist, however it is illegal to abuse children and download child porn.

For the record, the huge majority of us spend time with children, without needing sexual relationships. I spend time with my younger brother's friend and I'm going to become a teacher. I don't need sex with young boys, even though I find them sexually attractive; spending time with them is enough.

People won't be able to fight paeds so hard in the future, because we're fighting back. See AN if you want an example.

And, if you're really so terrified of us, maybe you should learn more

~ BLue

Re:Do you know what "paedophile" means?

[stitches77]

Get over it BlueRibbon. Those statistics you keep trying to give people (as you are already well aware) are being misrepresented, misquoted and blatantly lied about by you and every single one of your activist pedofreak cohorts.

You keep stating repeatedly that only 10% of child sex abuse is committed by pedophiles. The FACT is that you are using a statistic that was quoted by a journalist in an online alternative newsletter. The ACTUAL FACT as quoted by Dr. Gene Abel, the world's leading expert in this area, is that 95% of ALL child molestations are committed by pedophiles.

Now, I can see why that figure might disturb you, but running around LYING isn't helping your cause. Nope, not one iota.

Also, if you really love children like you say, and you're not just out for sex from them, then you should be interested in Dr. Abel's latest findings which are the single most effective way to prevent child sexual abuse to is identify the pedophile before he offends.

After being presented with the truth about these academic studies, you should be shamed into backing off. By continuing to quote them as FACT when they are instead LIES makes you deceptive, and obviously malicious. If you feel compelled to try to prove that you aren't a menace to society, go dig you up another resource. These don't say what you say they say.

Anyone wanting the truth about pedophilia, about the true motive of the online community, the sneaky nature of their movement need only come to absolutezerounited.blogspot.com, where our goal is to inform, expose and silence these dangerous lies.

Stitches

Re:Do you know what "paedophile" means?

[Brian Ribbon]

Hi Stitches!

I've read your post and I think I'm considering giving it a point for "funny". Oh, were you serious? I'll assume you are serious.

First of all, if you read everything that Abel says, her numbers don't add up, do they? Try doing the math yourself, if you don't want to believe a pervert.

The fact is that I don't believe Abel because I have done the math and she doesn't appear to be unbiased on this subject.

Now, could you please tell me what is wrong with the study by Australian Police which found that only 14.8% of child sex abusers in their country were even suspected to be paedophiles? What does that say about your claim that 95% of paedophiles molest and that they each molest hundreds of boys? It shows that something went wrong with Abel's statistics, doesn't it?

BTW, when JD asked Daydreamer about her past with her mother, it seemed to strike a raw nerve, didn't it? I'm not surprised though. Despite those awful revelations, you and your friends did help me to sort things out with my Dad and have a GREAT vacation, so I should at least say thanks for that :)

Re:Do you know what "paedophile" means?

[stitches77]

Oh Dear Bri, you and your cohorts obviously have difficulty being able to distinguish gender. Nevertheless, Dr. Gene Abel is a man. Daydreamer is a female though Rookie calls her a man, and I am a female despite Twilight calling me a male. I wonder if this rampant dysfunction among the pedo community is related at all to its inability to distinguish between appropriate sexual partners?

I did not wish a bad vacation on you Bri, what I wished for was a safe vacation for your little brothers 12 yr old friend that you had been lusting after and physically assaulting your Dad over.
You ran to the pedo community wildly stating that you would DESTROY your parents because your Dad was trying to interfer in your predator grooming behavior.....and your own community responded with "WOAH boy, WAIT...YOU need HELP!" we were all concerned about society's safety with you free to walk amongst us. YOU are the guy who walks into McDonald's and indiscriminately murders strangers who have nothing to do with whatever your major malfunction is. Which is why law enforcement HAD to be made aware of you and your problem. Do you see? YOU ARE A TICKING TIME BOMB!

You rejected your therapy, refused anger management, you speak with derision of anyone who might could help you if they say something with which you disagree.

Not only is this a symptom of your typical teenaged immaturity but of a deeply seated borderline psychotic personality disorder. And NO before you start your attack, *I* didn't inform law enforcement that they should be aware of you, but I do know who did.

So you won't even consider the possibility that Abel's research could be correct because you feel he's biased, but you DO consider the research of Rind? This says to me, that you don't want the truth you only want to hear what you want to hear. Anyone who tries to offer another persepective is merely pissing into the wind as far as you are concerned.

JD making insinuations about me and daydreamer (my daughter) is absurd and reeks of desperation. Anyone can see that. He can say it all he wants, we don't seem to be disturbed by it do we? No what disturbs me is him accusing me of being a liar for repeating what someone else says. On the other hand, nothing he says is believable or worthy of even reading.

So here I've asked you questions and I've made multiple statements with which I know you disagree. Say whatever you want, have at it, no one is reading it, it's buried in the depths of a thread gone cold. So this is wasting your time and mine. I won't be responding further in THIS thread. I'll be responding somewhere MUCH more visible. It's your job to find out where, should you choose. It's already getting lots of responses. We're DESTROYING your argument.....better hurry

Re:Do you know what "paedophile" means?

[stitches77]

Oops forgot this Bri, the Australian police DID NOT say "that only 14.8% of child sex abusers in their country were even suspected to be paedophiles?"

I know the study to which you are referring and they didn't say that at all, I suggest you go actually read it instead of relying on friendly local pervert. It doesn't say that NOT AT ALL, it wasn't even a study to try to determine that and they say specifically within it that with the data they had available there was no way to determine it. You're grasping at straws.

You said: "if you read everything that Abel says"

OH well really now. You would know that if you had read everything HE wrote correct? So have you read:

Classification models of child molesters utilizing the Abel Assessment for sexual interest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 703 - 718.
Standards of care for the treatment of adult sex offenders. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13, 115 - 121.
The paraphilias. Oxford textbook of psychiatry (Vol. 1, pp. 897 - 913).
Standards of care for the treatment of adult sex offenders. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 11 - 17.
Paraphilias: Prevalence, characteristics, evaluation and cognitive-behavioral treatment. Sexually dangerous offenders (pp. 43 - 79):
Behavioral therapy treatment for sex offenders. Sexual deviation (3rd ed., pp. 382 - 398).
Synopsis of treatments of psychiatric disorders (2nd ed., pp. 821 - 828
Cognitive-behavioral treatment for professional sexual misconduct among clergy. Pastoral Psychology, 45, 49 - 63
Treatments of psychiatric disorders (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1959 - 1975).
The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbook (pp. 270 - 281)
Sexual abuses. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 18, 139 - 153
Screening tests for pedophilia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 115 - 131.
Sexual assault through the life span: Adult offenders with juvenile histories. The juvenile sexual offender (pp. 104 - 116).
The Paraphilias: The extent and nature of sexually deviant and criminal behavior. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15, 675 - 687
Stopping sexual violence. Psychiatric Annals, 22, 301 - 306
Sex guilt and paraphilic sexual arousal. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 520 - 525.
The nature and extent of sexual assault. Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 9 - 12).
The impact of parolees' perception of confidentiality of their self-reported sex crimes. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 293 - 303.
Mental health professionals as expert witnesses concerning perpetrators of sexual crimes. The Expert Witness, the Trial Attorney and the Trial Judge, 5, 12 - 16.
Behavioral treatment of child molesters. Perspectives on behavioral medicine (pp. 223 - 242).
Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry, Vols. 1 & 2 (5th ed., pp. 1069 - 1105).
Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16, 153 - 168.
Predicting child molesters' response to treatment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 223 - 234.
Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 3 - 25.
The treatment of child molesters Final report Rockville, Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health
Behavioral approaches to treatment of the violent sex offender. Clinical treatment of the violent person (pp. 100 - 123).
Sexually aggressive behavior. Forensic psychiatry and psychology: Perspectives and standards for interdisciplinary practice (pp. 289 - 313).
Sexual symptoms specific to diabetes.Proceedings of the first World Meeting on Impotence (pp. 215 - 219). Paris.
Sexual offenders: Results of assessment and recommendations for treatment. Clinical criminology: The assessment and treatme

NAMBLA

[Faux_Pseudo]

I remember in 2000 when some people in alt.hackers.malicious broke into the NAMBLA.org server. After trashing the place they grabbed the mailboxs and sent it off to the FBI and CPS. The email response from CPS was to the effect of

Hacking is bad. Mmmkay
Child porn is bad. Mmmkay
But if you are going to hack NAMBLA again please let us know! Thanks!

alt.hackers.malicious has had a long history of bringing down pedo sites and with some great detective work by Vampi even helped track down a indavidual who is now serving time.

The best perk of hunting down pedo sites is that no one is going to go to the FBI and say "Excusme me Agent Smith? Yes I was wondering if I could talk to you about filing charges against the people who cracked my child porn site".

a morally bankrupt response

[TomRitchford]

For all the reasons you've listed 1069 isn't performing performing any good, but a grave injustice.

Hard to believe a caring human being could hold such a morally awful position.

Looking at the facts of the case as stated, the result appears to be that two children were saved from sexual servitude or even horrible deaths and that two pederasts were jailed. If what we are told is true, justice was clearly done -- if you wish to refute me, please identify who is being unjustly treated. The childen? The criminals? The police? Please do not claim that you, as a representative of the "people", are experiencing an injustice, because you are not.

If this hacker really did present the police with information which would allow them to save two children from sexual abuse, what would you have wanted to happen?

I believe what you are actually claiming is that allowing law enforcement officials to operate in this fashion is illegal and would allow possible injustices to occur in the future. I agree that sometimes injustices must occur because of the "system", the rules that ensure fairness: this is not one of those cases.

Do you really believe that police shouldn't be allowed to use evidence gathered by criminals? Why? Exactly how do you think law enforcement works, anyway? Police routinely use informers, stool pigeons and the like -- why is this wrong? There are very specific rules on conduct, on admissability of evidence, and defence attorneys routinely and often successfully challenge the believability of such witnesses because of their poor character, but there's nothing intrinsically "unjust" in having criminals testify against other criminals, it happens every day.

In fact, it's not even clear that the hacker is doing anything that is illegal.

If the facts are as presented, the police had physical evidence linking the criminals with the children in question -- the possibly-unreliable hacker's information would be presented as corroborating evidence. It's interesting to note that the defense attorney did not in fact challenge the reliability of the evidence as gathered.

I might add that I'm very much a liberal and strongly support strict oversight of the police and limits to their powers. But this is not one of those cases I think illustrates any sort of problem, and worse, I think you seriously damage our case by screaming about "injustice" in a case where your mother or any common-sense person would see that justice was obviously done (if the facts are as presented in the short article in question).

Oh, and don't waste the Franklin quotation! It gets a little weaker each time we use it pointlessly. Save it for things where it really applies.

Re:a morally bankrupt response

[monoqlith]

Hard to believe a caring human being could hold such a morally awful position.

It is counterintuitive and on its face offensive, but the entire point of my post was that setting a precedent for circumvention of our legal and justice system is not justified by catching a few pederasts unlawfully.

Looking at the facts of the case as stated, the result appears to be that two children were saved from sexual servitude or even horrible deaths and that two pederasts were jailed. If what we are told is true, justice was clearly done -- if you wish to refute me, please identify who is being unjustly treated. The childen? The criminals? The police? Please do not claim that you, as a representative of the "people", are experiencing an injustice, because you are not.

I'm not sure where these mentions of sexual servitude or horrible deaths are. The hacker sent a picture of a 6 year old being abused unlawfully - again, as the other poster mentioned, why is it OK for him to possess such pornography and the criminal in question not? This whole case is riddled with questions like th is, and this is exactly why there is court oversight for things like issuing warrants, etc.

Justice may have been done in this case(although any violation of a person's privacy and failure to execute the normal procedures of evidence collection via search warrants is to me an injustice to the criminal, even if that criminal is disgusting.) But this sets a precedent for how to obtain evidence which is entirely unconstitutional and unlawful. If more cases proceed in this same way, suddenly the privacy rights of everybody are being eroded. This would be the whole point of my post.

Now, I support catching pederasts, but the important part is that we don't have to resort to illegal means to catch them. They're pretty much out in the open on these newsgroups anyway, and a substantial amount of data(and probable cause to search) can be obtained(I presume) from whatever posts are in the newsgroups without having to resort to searching a person's private data without a warrant via some hacker's trojan horse. If they want to search his computer they should do so legally based on evidence they gather from the newsgroup.

Do you really believe that police shouldn't be allowed to use evidence gathered by criminals? Why? Exactly how do you think law enforcement works, anyway? Police routinely use informers, stool pigeons and the like -- why is this wrong? There are very specific rules on conduct, on admissability of evidence, and defence attorneys routinely and often successfully challenge the believability of such witnesses because of their poor character, but there's nothing intrinsically "unjust" in having criminals testify against other criminals, it happens every day.

They should be able to use evidence gathered by criminals. That's not what the issue is here. The hacker (according to our laws, which are the ones we are trying to enforce) illegally intruded this downloader's computer and used it to gather evidence, that evidence was given to the FBI, and the FBI used it in court to prosecute the defendant. This is not a legal use of informant in any sense. Most of the time informants are informants because they *witness a crime being done* and happen to be around evidence at the time of the investigation, and they are willfully cooperating with investigators due to this unique position and in part are owners of or have legal access to the evidence involved. This is something altogether different from purposefully intruding a person's computer with the intent of gathering evidence for trial without a warrant. There's nothing unjust about having criminals justify against other criminals, as long as it is done within the law.

In fact, it's not even clear that the hacker is doing anything that is illegal.

It's pretty clear that he is. Even if it wasn't, the FBI *is* doing something illegal by using the e

Re:a morally bankrupt response

[TomRitchford]

It is counterintuitive and on its face offensive, but the entire point of my post was that setting a precedent for circumvention of our legal and justice system is not justified by catching a few pederasts unlawfully.

What you said was that it was a "grave injustice". It was not: I proved it: you did not succeed in refuting that.

I'm not sure where these mentions of sexual servitude or horrible deaths are.

Why, it's in the referenced article that you didn't bother to read. The FBI investigator claimed that the hacker saved the lives of two children; the charges included "sexual exploitation of children".

That's not what the issue is here. The hacker (according to our laws, which are the ones we are trying to enforce)

The hacker is claimed by the article to be in Turkey, where this sort of activity is not illegal.

illegally intruded this downloader's computer and used it to gather evidence, that evidence was given to the FBI, and the FBI used it in court to prosecute the defendant. This is not a legal use of informant in any sense.

Sorry, you are wrong. Read hereabout the exclusionary rule: "The Exclusionary Rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, for prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which provide for protection from unreasonable searches and seizure and compelled self-incrimination." Note that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect individuals from search and seizure by the government, not by other private citizens.

The hacker is not "acting as the agent of the FBI" -- if you'd *read the article* you'd see that he simply provided anonymous tips that were later used to apprehend the criminals. Again, this happens all the time. Cocaine dealers turn in their upstream dealers; kidnappers turn in their accomplices; thieves rat on other thieves; in each case, they got their information during the commission of a crime. In fact, police routinely outfit criminals with a wire and use them to gather information which holds up in court -- this is far closer to the idea of "acting as an agent of the FBI" than simply an anonymous tipster is.

Again, I ask you -- what would you have wanted to have happen? Should the police have ignored the information and, according to the article, allowed two children to die horribly?

Er... Absolutely not.

[TheNoxx]

"Pederasty" is defined explicitly as a man having sexual relations with a boy, and if you want to go by a reference for pederast, they get even more explicit and define it as "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy". The term is often found juxtaposed with the term pedophilia in modern lexicon (well, when one is around those keen enough to absorb and use terms like "pederast" or "lexicon" in a sentence, of course).

Secondly, a comparison between physically reprimanding one's child, even with a belt, and sexually molesting/raping one's child is fucking ludicrous. Of course, we can't compare right now because the article is talking about someone seeking to molest someone else's children (in most cases), and there is a damned ocean between what it's like for a child to be molested by their parents and someone else. Strictly speaking, the developemental mind can readily cope with physical pain, it's part of how we learn about the world and grow; lo and behold, the reason most ignorant parents smack their kids is to simply trigger the most base instinct of "If something bad happens after you do something, try not to do it again. Rinse and repeat until memorized." Sometimes people do need the firmest of reprimands, particularly with the trend of modern society to romanticize drug use and criminal activity. This can get out of hand, but not too often, and usually the victims just have to take anger management courses later on in life.
I'm running of no sleep right now, so I'm having difficulty putting the difference between physical abuse and sexual abuse into words, so let me put it as simply as I can: Physical abuse causes rage and anger in a child, an evolutionary "Fuck off!" response to something causing undue harm to you. Sexual abuse, particularly in the fragile state of a kid and particularly when it's the parents doing the molesting, quite simply makes something snap. Let's see... you know that fear that men have of ticking off the wrong person in jail and being raped? Right, take that, take away all of the mental toughness and emotional durability you've built up since you hit puberty and transplant yourself back to the days of Thunder Cats and then seeing your father disrobe you and decide it's time you learned damned fucking well the meaning of "pederasty".

Sexual molestation absolutely annihilates most every chance for that child to grow up and lead a normal, mentally healthy life. Will most of them go on living and get past it? Yes, of course. That doesn't mean they aren't completely fucked in the head, which rather neatly explains why the difficulty of going through life with broken set of circuitry calls many of them to simply not live; the exact phenomenon occurs when someone is slowly dying of an incredibly painful disease and they want to be euthanized.

Re:Er... Absolutely not.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never actually studied psychology, have you? Particularly child psychology? You might want to try it sometime.

As for pederasty, it is the institution (quite popular in Greek and Roman days) of having a boy be tutored and mentored by an adult male outside the family, with sexual relations frequently being involved. It bears no relation to modern child abuse.

What about planted evidence?

[fygment]

The article doesn't say, but couldn't the claim have been made by the defence that if a hacker could enter a computer and find evidence, then a hacker could also plant incriminating evidence.

We had this come up during an investigation of small government network. Against explicit direction, some computers were found to contain games and "hacker" files (for spoofing, etc.). The institution tried to implement its zero tolerance rules. The users of the identified computers denied the files were theirs. Furthermore, they countered that since their computers were accessible by anyone able to enter the building, then the files could have been "planted" by another user. The whole thing was dropped.

A few things..

[Anonymous Coward]

People are only "wired" to a small degree. Most of the rest is learned behavior--that is, something that creates an association between an activity and the anticipation of sexual pleasure. Not unlike Pavlov's dogs. Yes, people may start out with certain predispositions, but they *can* be changed and, if you want to, overcome.

If you expect to be sexually excited, you will be. And it's worse for males--get your blood pressure high enough (e.g. thinking about something taboo/forbidden) and you generally end up getting an erection pretty quickly if you link that to sex.

You can, in fact, use biofeedback (really easy for males--watch the erection fall until you can surpress it conciously) to unlearn and "unlink" any unwanted desire. It's easy to start, but quite hard to master. But you can block it out, you can get rid of it, and you can't be willing to give up.

Part of the problem is an implicit self-reference. Sort of like trying to forget something. But in remembering that you have to forget it, you remember what you're trying to forget, which causes the opposite effect. Instead, you have to conciously disassociate it from everything that comes to mind when you think of it. In other words, to isolate the thought from anything which would make you think of it. And you have to become aware of your thoughts that you know when you're about to think of it, and surpress the thought before you quite think it. Sort of like hearing it slam into a closed door. If you're doing it right, that'll only remind you that there was something you wanted to forget. But you keep the door closed, so you don't think about it, even implicity. And in a few days, or possibly longer if it's pernicious, it's gone and you only remember that there's something you chose to forget. And once you have more than a few thoughts in there, even remembering the category of "things I have forgotten" won't bring up the thoughts, because that category is too large--like trying to remember all the times you've eaten cereal. You know you have, but it's not like you remember how many there are, or even anything specific about it save maybe about the most recent time...

You can control your feelings. They don't have to control you.

You're obviously an american.

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone hates america. turn yourself into a retard.

what we have here is a moral dilemma

[mapkinase]

What we have here is a moral dilemma, not the legal one, otherwise it would not make it to the fron page of /. with 25 A+ comments. And as it often happens, this dilemma elucidates the flaw of a current legal system, that does not allow stricter control over business transactions done over the internet.

The state is a gang of armed people. If the gang is strong, there is no (a) need or (b) feasibility for other gangs.

What we have here is a weak (in this particular aspect) state gang and strong competiting gang of hacker vigilante. He posesses what law inforcement lacks - skills, time and ability to break the law without serious consequences.

Either we keep having this situation: weak law enforcement and vigilantes (glamorized or would be glamorized by Hwood) or we have a situation when government have more freedom to crack down on all the filth that saturated Internet nowadays. One thing is clear, when somebody does such an appalling as child pornography, he will be targeted either by government or by other gangs.

The same happened to all other criminal activities: petty bookmakers, drug dealers, prostitution. Either government takes care of them or mafia. The main principle is control. The details (cooperation between gangs or non-cooperation, aligning or opposing) are different, but the essence is the same: who controls the illegal activity: it is either government or the gangs, but never any of them.

People who are doing shady things will be always in a very weak and vulnerable position - they lack moral support of the community and legal support of the system. There are billion ways of treating two persons differently in a legal system.

Do you want one gang or several gangs?

I'd love to see the source for anyone's.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, how do you get a realistic sample of the population's sexual interests, especially the single most taboo of taboo sexual interests? I see a lot of figures, but no real methodology or substantiation. I'm not just talking about abuse reporting rates and extrapolations based on that, but the percent of people that are pedophiles in any sense of the word. Preferably from an agency that didn't have a vested interest in using "think about the children" to get more money or power.

I'm also curious why there's such a high observed correlation between pedophilia and child molestation vis-a-vis the quoted statistics, but we don't seem to see the same in the case of S&M and violent sexual acts. I have a couple ideas why this might be true, but it'd just be me making idle conjecture.

1069 could be helping the defense

[Slashdot Parent]

If the defense team can show that the defendant's computer was compromised, and the machine was under 1069's and possibly others' control, that raises serious doubts about who actually put the illicit images there.

If the FBI were already investigating this guy and then 1069 r00ts his machine, 1069 probably just destroyed the FBI's case. Not good.

But that's just my personal opinion.

Incitement to commit felony, conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I can't believe they'd ask the guy to keep "investigating."

Isn't incitement to commit a felony, also a felony?

In this case, I would say FBI is conspiring with this person in Turkey
and inciting him to commit more felonies.

Where is the world coming to..

The Avenger

[Anonymous Coward]

This might as well be the story of the Mass Avenger who presented himself as the "Pedophile-catching Hacker" to the FBI.
I know some spammers are very rabid and try to get revenge when they get caught, and start posting shit in your name.

Pulling shit like this with a trojan to put you in jail would be just like them.

Also a good chance for blackmail here.

Face the facts

[rodgster]

You are a fascist. Please gather all your like minded fellow brown shirts and move to somewhere more friendly to your police state beliefs (such as N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, etc). We freedom loving Americans used to have a Constitution here until one of your fellow fascists subverted it, ignored international treaties, willfully ignored laws, etc etc.

Either that or you too young or ignorant to know about or remember 1984 (the book), J Edgar Hoover, Church Commission, Nixon, etc. etc.

See some of my other responses to your fellow fascists for further enlightenment.

There is a reason the framers of the Constitution feared a strong central government. That's why the first attempt (see Articles of the Confederation) failed. The central government was designed to be SO Weak as to be totally ineffective.

What's education coming to nowadays? Or maybe you went to a charter school.

Try turning off Faux News and thinking for yourself.

Good Luck.

"irregardless" is not a word

[Anonymous Coward]

you dumb fuck