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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

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.

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".

[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?

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: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.

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: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: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.

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: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]

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: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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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: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: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: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.)

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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.