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.

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: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*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.