Slashdot Mirror


Malware Can Download Child Porn To Your Computer

2muchcoffeeman writes "The Associated Press tells the story of Michael Fiola, a former Massachusetts government employee who was arrested in 2007 after child porn was found on his state-issued laptop computer. He was eventually cleared of all charges after some digging by the defense found that the laptop was infected with malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute — an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half. Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped — 11 months after it was filed.' The article also discusses the technical aspects of how it could happen and about similar cases in the United Kingdom in 2003."

586 comments

  1. new? by Turiko · · Score: 1

    how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.

    1. Re:new? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's new because the prosecutors are actually being reasonable about it. Remember this story from last year?

      CP is disgusting but we shouldn't lose our freedom over it..

    2. Re:new? by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

      how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.

      Next thing you'll know the news will be warning people about strings of armed robberies in their neighborhood, when anyone should know that someone with a gun can rob people. I mean what's the point? Oh, and forget about weather reports, why bother when it's perfectly logical and foreseeable that the temperature reached the level it did today, considering the long-term climatological trends, the time of year, the latitude, and the altitutde?

    3. Re:new? by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      You mean to tell me rogue code can download things? Say it isn't so!

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    4. Re:new? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't even know why this is illegal. First-off, nude images are not a crime, even if you're a 15-year-old taking pictures of yourself in the mirror and sending them to your boyfriend. Second, a photo of sex is not a crime, since it's considered free speech (hence the existence of Penthouse and other porn websites).

      The only person who's committed a crime is the adult raping an underage child, and also the photographer (an accessory). They are the ones who should be arrested.

      It's also a bit nuts when some Australian court can say, "Cartoons of children having sex is illegal." No victims; no crime.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:new? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      How is this anything new? It was reported on slashdot last year.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    6. Re:new? by kklein · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is advocating the arrest of child rapists "sick?"

    7. Re:new? by Capsaicin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's also a bit nuts when some Australian court can say, "Cartoons of children having sex is illegal." No victims; no crime.

      If you insist on maintaining the equation between "crime" and the existence of victims while trying to come to grips with Australian (or any other jurisdiction's) Criminal Law you will end up with an ulcer. Remember in NSW it is a crime to leave your car unlocked when parking on a public street! Victimless crimes (including crimes that have merely potential victims, think: drug importation, traffic offences etc.) form the overwhelming majority of crimes.

      In any case, you are in a tiny minority in not being offended by child pornography. Even in the US, where SCOTUS has found that CP per se is protected speech (and the offenders are the personae you refer to), the law of obscenity, which is determined by local "community values," will almost always criminalise CP.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    8. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tempting other people into crime is bad! The victim is the thief who was forced by his impulses and the owners carelessness into committing the crime and having to pay a fine/spend time in prison~

    9. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To me it is new and very interesting. Just last week we buried a relative I haven't seen for many years . Apparently he went to jail for having child porn on his computer after a girlfriend reported him. After he served his full time he was homeless and could not get a job - let's face it who is going to hire some one convicted of having child porn? Apparently after six months of living on the streets he decided it was hopeless and he ended it. His body was found in an abandoned building along with a duffle bag of clothing several days after he died. I don't believe he was a pedophile, but was branded one by rules of society with the help of a distraught woman that wanted him out of the way.

    10. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      shut the fuck up, bitch

    11. Re:new? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Tempting other people into crime is bad! The victim is the thief who was forced by his impulses and the owners carelessness into committing the crime and having to pay a fine/spend time in prison.

      Cute, but the thief is still only potentially a victim, (s)he might be walking down the an other street that day.

      I suspect that the 'victims' here were the insurance companies and that their lobbyists had a little word in the Premier's ear. But hey, don't listen to me, I'm just a cynical old bastard.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    12. Re:new? by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      I see your quote, I don't see *.eu.

    13. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look. An european.

      Evidence?

      They hate americans like the GP, and just love to find an opportunity to insult us ...

      How do you know GP is American?

      But I guess I can't expect logic from the *.eu domain.

      This coming from someone who reasons thusly: Somebody insulting someone must be European insulting an American. How do we know this: Europeans hate Americans. How do we know that: They insult us. Therefore when we see person A insulting person B, A must be European and B must be American. Yeah!

      I am not a European and you are a fucking moron.

      Now go and dare me to post this with my "real" username so you can mod me -1 Troll and "damage my rep" just like you have damaged your own. Dipshit!

    14. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He couldn't mod you -1 Troll because he has already posted here with his account...

    15. Re:new? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm glad to see finally someone in power having some common sense. As a PC repairman for way too many years i don't know how many times i have had customers reluctant to come in because they got a "nasty" bug, and after assuring them that I keep everything confidential have them bring it in with something like a bug I call a "topsite hitter".

      If you haven't seen one of these it is a really nasty piece of work that'll spew connections to just about every sleazy topsite on the net, my guess it is is for some kind of click fraud. But the sites that'll come up have horse and dog, rape, scat, and yes CP images. Now these folks weren't looking for that, hell nobody would want a bug like that as it slows a network to a crawl spewing connections. It is always either some guy or some teenager who got on his families PC that was looking for plain porn like "lesbian Cheerleaders" and didn't know one should NEVER use IE, much less unpatched IE, and got driveby downloaded.

      So I can vouch from years of cleaning bugged PCs that crap like this happens all the time. I have seen bugs that opened backdoors, dumped who knows what into the system files in encrypted folders, spewed connections to every sleazehole on the net, you name it I've probably seen a bug that has done it. I'm glad to see that prosecutors may actually be developing a brain, too bad it took them nearly a year to let this guy off. Surely one look at the log could have told you it was an automated connection. And from talking to a buddy in the state crime lab he says the real CP guys are pretty easy to spot, as they keep tons of the crap lying around on DVDs, flash drives, etc, so a basic search warrant could have shown whether he was a CP perv or not.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:new? by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Mind citing where SCOTUS found that child porn is protected speech?

    17. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He couldn't mod you -1 Troll because he has already posted here with his account...

      I dare you to log on with your real username and post that!

    18. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind citing where SCOTUS found that child porn is protected speech?

      More precisely, it can be protected speech. The SCOTUS ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that a law banning simulated images of minors engaged in sexual activity violated the First Amendment. The distinction the majority made was between images in which an actual person was abused, and one in which that did not take place (e.g. CGI, illustration, dramatization). In other words, being a sexual image of a minor was not by itself sufficient reason to declare something "obscene" (and therefore not protected speech). It's only because the state has the compelling goal of protecting actual children from abuse that real child porn is not protected. Simulated child porn can still be ruled obscene, but that requires failing the Miller Test ("lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value") like any other work.

    19. Re:new? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 2, Funny
      You don't know why looking at child pornography is illegal? Wow. See, if my niece got raped or otherwise sexually exploited, and I knew that it had been photographed and men were downloading that picture to wank to, I'd have them strangled with their own guts.

      CP is governed by supply and demand like everything else. If there were no buyers, then there would be no sellers. Sure, those who sexually exploit children would still do that, but the majority of people involved in CP aren't sexually interested in children - it's just a source of money for them.

    20. Re:new? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Don't know how to use google?

      http://zetachannel.com/index.php?topic=5297.0;wap2
      http://epic.org/free_speech/copa/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

      "Simulated child pornography was made illegal with the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The CPPA was short-lived. In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, holding that the relevant portions of the CPPA were unconstitutional because they prevented lawful speech. Referring to Ferber, the court stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children.""

      On the other hand:
      "In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."..... On December 19, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.[6] The court stated that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists." Attorneys for Mr. Whorley have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court."

      and:

      In October 2008, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund became involved in a case defending 38 years old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley - "there are no actual children. It was all very crude images from a comic book." ... Judge Gritzner was petitioned to drop some of the charges, but instead ruled that 2 parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional. Handley still faces an obscenity charge..... CBLDF leader Neil Gaiman remarked on how this could apply to his work The Doll's House, saying, "if you bought that comic, you could be arrested for it? That's just deeply wrong. Nobody was hurt. The only thing that was hurt were ideas."

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    21. Re:new? by Thiez · · Score: 2

      Done. I guess I will survive the -1 offtopic.

    22. Re:new? by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      P.S. I think it's rather stupid to criminalize God's creation (the body). Only a completely and total dipshit, also known as a politician, would find the Creator's work a perversion. It's sickening.

      But then I've long thought Puritan americans have a mental aberration where they can see violence on television without concern (think 24), but fear nudity (like Janet Jackson's naked breast). That can't be normal.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    23. Re:new? by theaveng · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>Sick Fuck

      Yes because attraction for beautiful teenaged women (even those who, like Miley Cyrus or Emily Osment, are only 16/17) or beautiful twenty-something women clearly means I'm sick. Sure. Yep. Uh huh. I'm curious to know what the cure might be? Sterilization of everybody who finds young women attractive? Wouldn't that make the human race..... ya know, go extinct from lack of babies?

      Sorry but I disagree.
      Sexual attraction is not "sick".
      On the contrary it's extremely healthy.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    24. Re:new? by nomadic · · Score: 3, Informative

      But then I've long thought Puritan americans have a mental aberration where they can see violence on television without concern (think 24), but fear nudity (like Janet Jackson's naked breast). That can't be normal.

      I have never understood this weird and insupportable belief on slashdot that this is somehow restricted to Americans. In terms of acceptance of violence vs. acceptance of sex in media, America falls somewhere in the middle--less permissive of sex than England, but more than say India, or several Asian countries, or just about the entire Middle East. Dismissing it as uniquely American is pure eurocentrism.

    25. Re:new? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
      This discussion is largely about people who are sexually attracted to children, not young women of 16 or 17.

      We would definitely "ya know, go extinct from lack of babies" if sexual attraction to children was the norm.

    26. Re:new? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Citation, please.

      I don't have any knowledge one way or the other, but I find it hard to believe that child porn is a big moneymaker. The risk and stakes are high, and the market is small. All the news articles I have read seem to indicate that kiddie porn is traded amongst the perps, rather than outright sold.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    27. Re:new? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      P.S. I think it's rather stupid to criminalize God's creation (the body).

      You need to read your Bible dude! Nakedness is a big deal to God. It was by their self-awareness of their nudity that God realised that A&E had gained knowledge, threatening to "become like one of us." Gen 3:22 Quick get them outta here!

      Consider the story of Canaan seeing his dad Noah nude in his tent after Pa hit the plonk. (Gen 9:18-26) Just looking at "God's creation" justified the Joshua's genocide of the nation that had issued from him.

      So I don't know where you are coming from in thinking that nudity ought not to be criminalised (and I agree with you), but it ain't the Judeo-Christian headspace.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    28. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dare you to log on with your real username and post that!

      Which account? I have 38 of them.

    29. Re:new? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1
      Well that's really the problem with CP and age of consent laws. Their definition of "child" doesn't jibe with reality, and simply causes confusion and miscommunication.

      I personally am all for attempting to extend a period of blissful ignorance for kids, but it would be nice if we could acknowledge that that's what we're doing.

      Sweet little sixteen
      She's got the grown-up blues
      Tight dress and lipstick
      She's Sportin high heel shoes
      Oh but tomorrow mornin
      She'll have to change her trend
      And be sweet sixteen
      And back in class again

      -Chuck Berry "Sweet Little Sixteen" 1958

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    30. Re:new? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      The law and, to a certain extent, popular culture, don't make that distinction. "Ephebophile" isn't heard very often.

    31. Re:new? by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem IT Pros face is that it is a potential crime to not report CP sightings because you could be said to "endangering children" which is a very broad and yet serious charge. The whole law in this area is far too vague and cloudy for the level of seriousness it comes with, and so you are forced to basically make some innocent person's life even more of a hell than the malware has already, or to assume some liability in case it comes out that you didn't report something.

    32. Re:new? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      You need to be careful about talking about "Asian countries". Asia is a big place. Taiwan, Japan and China are very permissive about sex. Korea is not at all. My impression is that Malaysia is somewhere in between. Of course all the majority Muslim countries are not at all permissive.

      The problem is that "Asia" was defined somewhat naively by the Greeks and Romans as "anything East of Turkey". That's a huge chunk of the world, with much more variety in culture than Europe or America. At that point it becomes meaningless to talk about "Asian culture" or, shudder, "Asian values".

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    33. Re:new? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I have never understood this weird and insupportable belief on slashdot that this is somehow restricted to Americans. In terms of acceptance of violence vs. acceptance of sex in media, America falls somewhere in the middle--less permissive of sex than England, but more than say India, or several Asian countries, or just about the entire Middle East.

      When it's said to be an American view, it's generally implied to be "among Western countries"; the so-called "Judeo-Christian" civilization and culture, if you will. In that subset, America is a prude, no question about it. Not the only one, perhaps - I hear Greece is rather backwards in that regard as well - but certainly among the worst offenders.

    34. Re:new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bug"... you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    35. Re:new? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      Tempting other people into crime is bad! The victim is the thief who was forced by his impulses and the owners carelessness into committing the crime

      The law wasn't made to protect the car thieves.

      It was made to protect pedestrians, other motorists and businesses from 2 tonne projectiles in the hands of unscrupulous criminals. Unlocked cars were regularly being used for ram-raids at the time.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    36. Re:new? by noundi · · Score: 1

      how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.

      The subject in TFS is bad. It should have read "Malware downloads child..." instead. The possibility has always been there, it just hadn't happened yet, as far as I know. This gives new angles to tackle from the prosecutors side.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    37. Re:new? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Surely one look at the log could have told you it was an automated connection. And from talking to a buddy in the state crime lab he says the real CP guys are pretty easy to spot, as they keep tons of the crap lying around on DVDs, flash drives, etc, so a basic search warrant could have shown whether he was a CP perv or not.

      How very 2000. I would have thought that in this age of full-disk encryption, or hidden encrypted volumes, that they would have

      ... dumped who knows what into the system files in encrypted folders...

      You can't be so sure.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    38. Re:new? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same fallacy as with terrorists: These people are no IT experts. Yes, you, me, anyone with an IT background would do just that. They'd keep it on a safe storage place, an encrypted file system filled with again encrypted files that maybe even self destruct if you touch them the wrong way and not litter the place with plain standard DVDs and VHS cassettes and keep their contact addresses up for grabs on sheets of paper.

      But these people do that. Because they are no IT experts. They use the technology because it's handy and faciliates what they want to do. Now, there certainly are a few where these "interests" intersect with a lot of IT knowledge, coupled with enough paranoia to actually use the technology. But these people are rare. And, frankly, it's easier to catch these people by using the ones with less IT knowledge to sniff them out, by raiding them and getting their unencrypted, plain text contact lists.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:new? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nicholson put it pretty well: Chop off a tit and it's PG13. Kiss it and it's at the very least R.

      Why it's more socially and morally acceptable to hurt people than to show affection is beyond me, though.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re:new? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But you don't have to be eurocentric to notice how these views start to seep into the laws of countries in Europe as well.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:new? by xelah · · Score: 1

      If a man forced you in to an apartment, tied you down, tore off your clothes and shoved his penis up your arse whilst his friend took pictures, you probably wouldn't be too keen on millions of Internet users getting excited over them later. It needs to be kept in proportion, but at the very least knowingly distributing it should not be allowed.

      Where you do have a point is that the law's and popular culture's way of dealing with it has lost sight of the victims. The response is too much about public distaste, inflexible rules and reflex reactions to hearing the label 'paedophile', which is why in some places teenaged lovers end up in prison. The experience of the victim should be central to the response. If the 15 year old sleeping with the 20 year old doesn't feel like and wasn't treated like a victim, then there should be no punishment. A significantly injured ten year old? The opposite. People need to look beyond the label.

    42. Re:new? by Skapare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's REALLY sick is that this kind of activity, and many others that can result in infections, were well known YEARS BEFORE Fiola was persecuted. Yet on that basis, instead of the state being required to prove their case (they apparently got to assume he was the perp just because the computer he was using had the porn on it), he was required to prove that he was innocent. WE already knew this kind of thing is not just possible, but significant. But THEY didn't want to bother having to separate the real pedophiles from the innocent victims ... or were just computer idiots (like the department he worked for that forced him to use an insecure computer).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    43. Re:new? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > First-off, nude images are not a crime, even if you're a 15-year-old taking pictures of yourself in the mirror and sending them to your boyfriend.

      Sadly, in at least two or three jurisdictions of the US, that's not true. Google "sexting" to read plenty of stories about teens charged as sex criminals for possessing nude photos of themselves. There's at least one case where the prosecutor sought to have the teen adjudicated as an adult. Hey, if two teens can be simultaneously classified as victims and assailants for having sex after school, it's not a huge leap of logic to conclude that they're dangerous pervert pedophiles...

    44. Re:new? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      It's new because the prosecutors are actually being reasonable about it.

      But the really worrying thing in this is that it took 11 months; in which time two innocent people may well have experienced massive damage to their lives from the suspicion they were subjected to.

    45. Re:new? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You need to be careful about talking about "Asian countries".

      Which is why I said "several Asian countries," not just "Asian countries."

    46. Re:new? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What is really sad is that after reading TFA (I know, but I got bored) that no lawyer will take his case to sue his former employer or the prosecutor, because I'm willing to bet my last dollar that the IT dept of the place he worked for had ZERO security policies, and in fact their entire "policy" was simply cleaning us messes by putting a new image on after the fact.

      Being a PC repairman I have over the years worked with a ton of business that had their own "IT dept" that frankly were pulling Mickey Mouse shit more suitable to the noob working at Worst Buy than an actual professional IT dept. We are talking handing out boxes running as admin, no WSUS, hell not even turning on auto updates, not bothering to put on a functional AV or misconfiguring it, etc. Truly amateur hour stuff.

      Considering how "badly infected" they say his machine was the FIRST thing they should have done is look at the IT security policy and found out what bozo had set up a security policy that would have ALLOWED a laptop to get that badly pwned in the first place. Now that these buttmonkies have screwed him out of his job and nearly a quarter million defending himself he is being buttraped again by greedy scum sucking lawyers that won't help him because his state has damage caps. Maybe NYCL could point this poor guy toward a lawyer that isn't a douche?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    47. Re:new? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Don't know how to use google?

      Don't know how to properly insult people for not knowing how to use google?

      http://tinyurl.com/d5x3uy

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    48. Re:new? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > You don't know why looking at child pornography is illegal? Wow. See, if my niece got raped or otherwise sexually
      > exploited, and I knew that it had been photographed and men were downloading that picture to wank to, I'd have
      > them strangled with their own guts.

      Well Sir, I understand your concern. I too have family. A wife and sister that I care about. If they were raped, I would be quite upset, I would feel justified in tearing whatever piece of shit did it limb from limb and rejoicing in the gore.

      However, the criminal justice system is NOT about retribution.

      Excuse me while I repeat that. The criminal justice system is NOT about retribution.

      What a person 'deserves' is besides the point. Has nothing to do with justice. Justice is about making the victims whole (if possible), and making sure that offenders know that they have the law to fear if they do it again. Anything further, any action designed solely to make the victim "feel better" is, at best, gratuitous.

      In short, the criminal justice system is supposed to be a bigger man than I would be if it were my family. The bigger man who doesn't break willy nilly into houses looking for evidence without oversight and probable cause. The bigger man who can say "we can't win this without stooping to breaking the law ourselves, so we will let this one go".

      In short, how you would feel is not relevant and should not be relevant. Lest we open the door to letting the law take into account how offended someone else is that your daughter is allowed to leave the house on her own and not covered head to toe. Or that you don't pray to the right gods. How such a person feels is not relevant to the law and shouldn't be, for the same reasons.

      Punishing someone else because you feel wronged is retribution, something the criminal justice system exists for the very purpose of lifting us above.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    49. Re:new? by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's tunnel vision. The same Slashdotters who call Americans "Puritan" scarf up anime created in a country where perversions like tentacle porn exist, because the Japanese have outlawed any depiction of genitalia.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    50. Re:new? by operagost · · Score: 1
      I hope you realize that your interpretation is pretty superficial. First of all, as you even hinted it wasn't Adam and Eve's nudity that was the problem but their very awareness of it-- which actually disproves your argument. Second, most men would find it mildly awkward to see their dads naked, a little more embarrassed to see him drunk, but totally sloshed and nude? I don't think that situation is "OK".

      Basically, you just cherry-picked, because the book "Song of Solomon" pretty much goes on and on about the loveliness of the human form.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    51. Re:new? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Taiwan, Japan and China are very permissive about sex.

      Nope. See my previous post about the anti-porn law in Japan.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re:new? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>This discussion is largely about people who are sexually attracted to children, not young women of 16 or 17.

      Images of 16 or 17 year olds (i.e. Miley Cyrus or the nude Vanessa Hudgens) on your work or home PC does have consequences. It can get you fired/jailed just as equally as images of 6 or 7 year olds. Pull ya head outta ya ass, and wake-up to the reality of this world we live in.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    53. Re:new? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>if my niece got raped or otherwise sexually exploited, and I knew that it had been photographed and men were downloading that picture to wank to, I'd have them strangled with their own guts.
      >>>

      And yet if your niece had been a burn victim, or mugged by a thief, or murdered and left in the street, those photos can not only be distributed but also published in the nightly newspaper or tv news for everyone to see. Why should one type of image be banned, but the other is a-okay to distribute?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    54. Re:new? by computational+super · · Score: 1

      And never forget - 90% of the posters on the especially-permissive Slashdot (which means 99% of the rest of the world), think "good riddance, justice was served."

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    55. Re:new? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's not the worst. There's an expert witness here in the UK who really annoys the police by finding evidence in child porn cases that malware did it. Recently, he was raided by the police for possession of child porn - more specifically, the drive image of the computer from the case he was working on, provided to him by the police. This was eventually ruled to be an unlawful search and seizure - but not before the person he was currently working for lost their case as a result. Even then, the police refused to return any of the seized documents or data, including documents with legally privileged status, until it became clear they were in imminent danger of being held in contempt of court.

    56. Re:new? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Try going there. Seriously the anti porn law is one thing. How people behave in night clubs is quite another. In fact I think Japan is a classic case of a repressive public attitude to sex concealing a very open private one.

      Which reminds me of this video -

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi4CRKxT8yU

      There's a deep truth to this - I lived in countries with a very open attitude to sex and a ones which on the surface seem puritanical. I'd bet money that there are more one night stands, affairs and so on in the ones puritanical ones.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    57. Re:new? by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Googling "disgusting" gives many things I consider more disgusting than this, and they're legal to photograph. Why single this out, because of psychological harm to innocents? Those living in war-torn areas are far worse examples of that.
      Kids losing family to disease (or anything) is even worse psychological harm, and more of that happens than CP.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    58. Re:new? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. The news isn't that malware "can", we knew that already... the news is that this malware does.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    59. Re:new? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      First-off, nude images are not a crime, even if you're a 15-year-old taking pictures of yourself in the mirror and sending them to your boyfriend.

      Um, yes, actually, in Soviet America it is.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    60. Re:new? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In any case, you are in a tiny minority in not being offended by child pornography. Even in the US, where SCOTUS has found that CP per se is protected speech (and the offenders are the personae you refer to), the law of obscenity, which is determined by local "community values," will almost always criminalise CP.

      So you have a right to speak freely, unless someone doesn't like what you say to third parties.

      Wouldn't it be a lot more honest to simply admit that people don't have the guts to deal with the consequences of free speech - namely the fact that even people they don't like can say things they don't agree with - and remove the First Amendment from the Constitution? All this twisted reasoning to explain why a particular limitation doesn't really break it would be unneccessary, then. Do the judges really honestly believe that rubbish, or are they simply trying to keep up appearances? Or, more on a more sinister vein, do they want the benefits of free speech for themselves while denying it for others?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    61. Re:new? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Why it's more socially and morally acceptable to hurt people than to show affection is beyond me, though.

      Adrenalin makes people easy to manipulate, and the guilt resulting from the deeds done under said manipulations allow hooks to sink ever deeper. Sexual frustration and resulting perversions make this task even easier. On the other hand, sex makes people calm, relaxed and feeling good, as well as promotes building of bonds, making it hard to divide and conquer them.

      A neurotic wreck is much easier to rule over than a healthy, confident and strong person. Which one do you thing your overlords, past and present, prefer?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    62. Re:new? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Why it's more socially and morally acceptable to hurt people than to show affection is beyond me, though.

      Here's why: Most people don't have the urge to hurt other people. It's very rare, in fact. On the other hand, almost everyone has the urge to engage in sexual congress with other people. Religion and politics both thrive on control, and you cannot control the masses by regulating an urge that does not exist. Religion and politics together essentially control the social environment. The former by legislation, the latter by inspiring guilt.

      It *is* a sign of a sick society (considering sexuality something to be "defended against"), however at least here in the USA, it's not going to change any time soon. We're poorly educated, largely superstitious, and have a political system where any two uninformed people outvote an informed person in an environment where informed people are rare -- and this applies both at the voter level, and at the representative level.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    63. Re:new? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You don't know why looking at child pornography is illegal? Wow. See, if my niece got raped or otherwise sexually exploited, and I knew that it had been photographed and men were downloading that picture to wank to, I'd have them strangled with their own guts.

      Cool story, bro. But still boils down to "I don't like it", which is an invalid reason to forbid anything.

      Or was this supposed to be some kind of attempt at argument from intimidation?

      Out of curiosity: How would you react if someone took a picture of your niece in swimwear, and wanked to that? What if they simply saw her at the beach, and retreated to a WC, inspired by the memory? What her parents gave him a (non-pornographic) picture of her and he wanked over that?

      CP is governed by supply and demand like everything else. If there were no buyers, then there would be no sellers. Sure, those who sexually exploit children would still do that, but the majority of people involved in CP aren't sexually interested in children - it's just a source of money for them.

      Every case of CP I've ever heard of involved some moron recording/photographing his activities and posting them online for bragging rights. This usually leads to said person getting caught, since they almost invariable leave enough clues to be identified - the infamous Swirl Face being a good example.

      This, then, leads to an argument that allowing CP would actually lessen child molesting, since it would give molesters more opportunities to get themselves caught.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    64. Re:new? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      It's important to distinguish pedophelia from age of consent issues. One involves sexual attraction to children. Teenagers are not children - many young people are sexually active before the age of consent.They are two distinct things.

    65. Re:new? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, 15 yr olds have in fact been charged with CP distribution for taking photos of themselves to send to their boy or girlfriends (of the same age), in the United States at least.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    66. Re:new? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize that your interpretation is pretty superficial.

      Sure, I hope you realise that a fair degree of humour was incorporated into it. My more serious biblical intepretation tends to be somewhat less jocular.

      First of all, as you even hinted it wasn't Adam and Eve's nudity that was the problem but their very awareness of it-- which actually disproves your argument.

      Hinted? I thought I was pretty explicit actually. My argument was that subsequent to that awareness the very idea of human nakedness was threatening to God. I'm not entirely serious, of course. What is threatening to YHVH, as Genesis makes clear, is the idea of human self-awareness, knowledge and indeed enterprise (cf. human tower construction).

      Second, most men would find it mildly awkward to see their dads naked, a little more embarrassed to see him drunk, but totally sloshed and nude? ...

      Now it's your turn to be superficial. Canaan's awkardness or embarassment is not relevant. Canaan innocently walked in on the naked old drunkard. In this story the idea of drinking yourself into a stupor is considered morally neutral (or at least not as negative), while the idea of accidentally looking upon ones naked father is deserving of a curse and all that subsequently entails in the biblical story. We all know what happens to the nation of Canaan, right?. We don't think the naming is merely coincidental, right? (BTW, Noah, was Canaan's grandad, of course. My bad.)

      Clearly the author(s) of this story had issues with nudity. That such issues persist and are exacerbated (the human body as the locus of "corruption") in ideology derriving from this source is not surprising. Indeed their particular view of nudity (the guilt of the unintentional perceiver) can seem somewhat odd to people schooled in a more liberal culture..

      ... I don't think that situation is "OK".

      Ah! Now you, in contradistinction to OP, are looking at it from a traditional Judeo-Christian perspective. At least you are if you regard Canaan as more guilty than Noah. ;)

      Basically, you just cherry-picked, because the book "Song of Solomon" pretty much goes on and on about the loveliness of the human form.

      LOL. You cite the Song of Solomon (which piece of erotica is generally regarded as sitting uncomfortably within rest of the biblical corpus) and accuse someone of cherry-picking from the Bible in the very same sentence?! Props man!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    67. Re:new? by poptones · · Score: 1

      Ah, except that "sweet little sixteen" is neither child nor illegal. As an uncle who has recently dealt with this issue involving a niece I can assure you "sweet little sixteen" is fair game in most states... just so long as no one is sharing pictures of the deed.

      Also, pederasty does not involve young women, it involves children. A 12 year old may be sexually mature but (s)he is in no way emotionally mature enough to provide an informed consent - (s)he is a "child." Ergo, this entire subthread is moot.

    68. Re:new? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Victimless crimes (including crimes that have merely potential victims, think: drug importation, traffic offences etc.) form the overwhelming majority of crimes.

      Traffic offences have a risk of harm to a victim - so yes, I agree that it's reasonable to include the risk, as well as what actually happens (e.g., we have laws like attempted murder, which applies even if no one is actually harmed). This doesn't apply to cartoon images.

      Drugs shouldn't be illegal either.

      In any case, you are in a tiny minority in not being offended by child pornography.

      Where did he say whether he was offended or not?

    69. Re:new? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Basically, you just cherry-picked, because the book "Song of Solomon" pretty much goes on and on about the loveliness of the human form.

      Yes, and it was considered too explicit for boys to read (until they became adults, which occurred at age 13 for Jewish children).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    70. Re:new? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      See, if my niece got raped or otherwise sexually exploited, and I knew that it had been photographed and men were downloading that picture to wank to, I'd have them strangled with their own guts.

      Why, because thinking about the event makes it worse? If nobody sees the pictures, it makes it better?

      Nah, you're just creeped out by the fact that there are men out there who'd find your niece attractive. You'd probably be equally creeped out if someone photographed her anywhere else and wanked to it, but you can't call for their disembowelment since they technically haven't done anything illegal. Wanking while merely thinking about an underage girl is not illegal, but looking at an underage girl who's in a state of nudity is. Which, I'm sure, her own parents have done many times in the process of changing diapers, dressing her, and bathing her, but it's okay for them because they weren't thinking "naughty thoughts" when they did those things. Or so you assume... most sexual abuse occurs within the family, after all, so "they're her parents, they're not thinking dirty thoughts about her" isn't always a safe assumption. (Perhaps it is, in your niece's case – I'd certainly hope that's the case – but you can't extend it to everyone.)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    71. Re:new? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If a man forced you in to an apartment, tied you down, beat you senseless with a crowbar, and the police later found your lifeless body, disfigured, covered in blood and bruises, and the journalists photographed your corpse in that state, you probably wouldn't be too keen (if you were still around to care) on millions of TV viewers and newspaper readers hearing about you and seeing your pictures, some of whom of course actually get off on that sort of thing.

      Unfortunately, there's fuckall you can do about it, because although you think viewing horrifically violent and gruesome images and getting jollies from it makes one a disgusting pervert, it is not illegal to see the pictures and you can't criminalize things that people are thinking about (unless they're thinking about naked children).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    72. Re:new? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      charged as sex criminals for possessing nude photos of themselves

      You understate the case quite badly, I'm sorry to say. Teens have been charged not only with statutory rape but with creation, possession, and even distribution of child pornography (and this despite the fact that they didn't share them with anyone else), which are much worse charges than mere statutory rape and which can automatically bump the case up from a minor to an adult trial.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    73. Re:new? by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      I spoke with the MPAA rep and you are dead wrong. Because CP is a niche market the prices would be sky high and the fact that they are traded for free does not diminish the amount of money lost. The rep reckoned that the CP copyright holder is losing $190 billion a second.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    74. Re:new? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      That is just wrong, on so many levels...

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    75. Re:new? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
      I'm at a loss, here. I was talking about children, not "underage girls". You are correct when you say: "Wanking while merely thinking about an underage girl is not illegal". As far as I know, only the Church thinks thoughts are the same as deeds - I've never heard of a case where a person has been jailed for "wanking while thinking about X"(unless you do it in public).

      You are incorrect when you say: "looking at an underage girl who's in a state of nudity is [illegal]." Since when? Maybe it's different in your country, but in Australia naked children aren't a shocking or particularly rare sight. My friends let their 4 year old run around their house naked. Children swim in our local creek naked. Ads for raising money for aid show naked kids. That award-winning photograph of a child running down the road naked in Vietnam is used on an ad here. I've never heard of anyone going to jail for looking at a naked child. As you say, every parent would be a criminal. In fact, since I'm assuming we've all seen naked children, we'd all be criminals

      What is illegal is when you join up the two. Because you become part of the child pornography industry. And while producers or distributors of that porn may not be pedophiles, those at the end of the supply chain (those who wank to photos of naked children) are unambiguously pedophiles.

      How can you say that there are no victims? The industry largely wouldn't exist without the end-user. Of course there would still be pedophilia, and rape and incest. And shoplifting as well. So what? At least there would be a reduction in the number of children exploited simply to supple someone's demand for this material.

      It's a crime, and so it should be.

    76. Re:new? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The industry largely wouldn't exist without the end-user.

      Pedophilia as big business would not. Sure.

      Most child abusers, however, do so not for profit. Most of the pictures they take are not published, perhaps shared with small rings of trusted people, and if they do hit the 'net, they generate no profit and have absolutely nothing to do with the original crime in terms of encouraging or supporting it. If anything, they allow investigators to catch leads that may eventually bring about the capture and conviction of the pedophiles that took the pictures.

      Outlawing possession does absolutely nothing to prevent or discourage the mom & pop child abusers.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  2. Uh... DOOOOYYYYYYYYY? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 0

    No Doooooooooooy!?

  3. its like episode V by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

    Pedobear strikes back

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    1. Re:its like episode V by atheistmonk · · Score: 1

      Pedobear strikes /from/ the back

  4. But the records are kept by Xiph · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wherever she goes, the police will be aware that she was once accused of something related to pedofilia.
    Accused of course implies she was linked to it.

    ok, i meant to make this longer and darker, but i'm just not really feeling that paranoid tonight =)

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    1. Re:But the records are kept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ok, i meant to make this longer and darker, but i'm just not really feeling that paranoid tonight =)

      Noted. Thank you citizen. This matter will be investigated and remedial action taken fnord if it is deemed to be warranted.

    2. Re:But the records are kept by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Something about your post makes me feel uneasy....

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    3. Re:But the records are kept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i meant to make this longer and darker

      I'm sure you do.

    4. Re:But the records are kept by breser · · Score: 1

      That's not always the case. Some states (not sure if it's the majority) allow this type of thing to be expunged. It typically takes a civil action to request the removal but I'd think in a situation like this where you were found not guilty of something that has such a social stigma that you'd bother to go through the process.

    5. Re:But the records are kept by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 1

      All it would take is a motion from you or your lawyer, if it is not automatically offered.

    6. Re:But the records are kept by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      If you want to talk more about this, why not take a seat. Over there.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:But the records are kept by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      easyness is mandatory, citizen!

    8. Re:But the records are kept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does he do that??

    9. Re:But the records are kept by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And can he go back in time and get the newspaper to not print the story of his arrest? Or ever convince the neighbors who shunned him to forget their suspicion? Or get his employer to hire him back?

      Sadly, this is one of those crimes that can and will destroy your life with even a mere *accusation*.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:But the records are kept by Cederic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Except in the UK, where she would be effectively banned from doing anything involving children or vulnerable adults (including working, sports, driving them to the theatre once a month, etc) for pretty much the rest of her life.

      It's a shitty system, but apparently we have to think of the children.

      (I do. I think about how nice it would be to kill them all and end this stupidity.)

  5. This guy was lucky. by iYk6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lucky for this guy there was evidence to prove he didn't do it. A hacker could might have installed a remote access program, downloaded the files manually, and then uninstalled the remote access program. There wouldn't be much evidence to suggest that this guy didn't download the kiddie porn himself.

    1. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The guy could also download some kiddie-porn-visiting malware, have a good time jacking off to cool pics and when finally caught, blame it all on teh viruses.

    2. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet another reason that simple possession of such material should not be a crime. The whole notion of a crime should involve actual harm caused by one's actions; go bust the people who are giving child rapists money.

    3. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lucky for this guy there was evidence to prove he didn't do it.

      There is something about this sentence that worries me.

      I just can't put my finger on it...

    4. Re:This guy was lucky. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your idea is antithetical to the government's goal to dictate morality, even when no victims exist.
      You will be audited. Prepare thyself.
      Even if you have nothing more than *drawings* of children having sex (like that comic called Y), you will be found guilty of this victimless crime.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:This guy was lucky. by reashlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean 'Innocent until proven guilty'

    6. Re:This guy was lucky. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe. But ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? Being accused already ruined that guys life (and finances). It could be worse, his wife could have left him. He has little chance of gaining everything back, and there will always be that who-knows-cloud over his head.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    7. Re:This guy was lucky. by turing_m · · Score: 0

      I think he means that if the would-be framer had the ability to craft something that would automatically download such images to this guy's computer, he should also have the smarts to be able to destroy all the evidence. That the alleged framer left evidence behind sure is convenient for the accused.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    8. Re:This guy was lucky. by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      Except for the bit where the guy responsible lives in Thailand, or Rwanda, or Guatemala. Most probably you don't have a suspect at all--at most you have a picture of the victim. So now you are going to search for an unknown victim who could be anywhere in the world... and since when does the United States bring cases on behalf of victims that aren't US citizens anyway?

      Cracking down on child porn means cracking down on possession. Generally speaking there is no practical way to find the initial distributor or the victim. Sometimes you might get lucky and catch the perp, but that's only sometimes.

      go bust the people who are giving child rapists money.

      How have the people who gave them money caused "actual harm" anymore than in the "simple possession" case? If you're willing to punish the one you should be willing to punish the other.

    9. Re:This guy was lucky. by theaveng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think, if the U.S. discovers a photo of a Japanese girl being raped, the police should simply turn-over the evidence to our ally and let them track down the criminal.

      Cracking down on child porn means cracking down on possession.

      Okay. But what's the logic of making cartoons of children having sex illegal (as is the case in Aussieland). Where's the victim? Where's the crime? This is nothing more than morality enforcement except now instead of the Catholic church doing it, it's the government.

      Your view also calls into question the existence of sites like this: http://clubseventeen.com/ (warning nudity). In that country, the Netherlands, 17 is the legal age of consent, so no crime has been committed in any of those photos. But am I going to get arrested in the US for a non-crime that never happened??? ----- Or what about American nudist sites? http://www.nude2000.com/Family_Pageant_Activities.htm (nudity again). Is daddy going to get arrested because he took a photo of his underage daughter or son???

      How about we embrace that concept "land of the free" and just let people enjoy liberated speech without fear of jail time? Arrest the rapist, or the murderer, or the thief, not the guy who just happens to have the photo of the event.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    10. Re:This guy was lucky. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Cracking down on child porn means cracking down on possession. Generally speaking there is no practical way to find the initial distributor or the victim. Sometimes you might get lucky and catch the perp, but that's only sometimes.

      From a practicality standpoint (and harm reduction), I don't care too much about possession - simply making CP production a nonviable business would be enough for me. Sure, you can't go after some guy in russia directly, but making it hard/impossible for him to get paid will tilt the risk/reward ratio against him. Of course, you have the option of going after him if you can locate him, but that's probably harder than cutting off his air supply.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    11. Re:This guy was lucky. by LBt1st · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you think child rapists will stop molesting children if they're not getting paid?

      There is no business model here. These people rape children because they're sick fucks. Not being able to sell a picture isn't going to change them. Thus taking away "demand" isn't going to do to anything. Nothing at all.

    12. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

    13. Re:This guy was lucky. by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

      I am surprised that the malware did not erase itself after about populating the files with stuff. What sort of idiot would not think of adding that feature it its repertoire?

    14. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really this dense? Giving the abusers money is financing them. Giving them a means to conduct further abuse. You have, by giving them money, improved matters for the criminal. Downloading the shit for free from a sixth hand source doesn't impact the abuser in any way. You aren't connected with them, you aren't making it easier for them, the situation is exactly the same as if you hadn't done anything. Therefore, no crime.

    15. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jacking off to cool pics

      Those damned necros again!

    16. Re:This guy was lucky. by Thiez · · Score: 1

      'All persons depicted in Club Seventeen were over the age of 18 years at the time they were photographed or filmed.'

      If you'd have scrolled down on that website you point to, you'd know that your example does not support your argument. There are many sites whose names suggest their girls are 18, but that is rarely the case. Also, I'm reasonably sure one has to be 18 in Dutchyland if one wants to make some porn there.

    17. Re:This guy was lucky. by Firehed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your view also calls into question the existence of sites like this: http://clubseventeen.com/ [clubseventeen.com] (warning nudity). In that country, the Netherlands, 17 is the legal age of consent, so no crime has been committed in any of those photos

      All persons depicted in Club Seventeen were over the age of 18 years at the time they were photographed or filmed.

      So, um, yeah. Valid point, bad example.

      As for the other example... yes, it's happened. Children have been taken away by CPS from parents who have taken pictures of their young kids in the bath - you know, the ones that every single family has. And while I'm inclined to generally agree with your viewpoint, I do take at least some issue with the second site which sells videos (and damned expensive ones, at that) of nudist activities that very clearly contains children. While clearly non-pornographic and non-harmful in nature, you know some people are getting off to it. No harm no foul I'd say, but it's certainly sleazy even if it's not technically illegal - and I'd have no trouble finding people that would say it IS illegal (not that their opinion matters unless they happen to be a juror).

      And for the record, I'm blaming you if I get arrested now.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    18. Re:This guy was lucky. by jeric23 · · Score: 1

      Possession is nine tenths of the law.

    19. Re:This guy was lucky. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So you think child rapists will stop molesting children if they're not getting paid?

      There is no business model here. These people rape children because they're sick fucks. Not being able to sell a picture isn't going to change them. Thus taking away "demand" isn't going to do to anything. Nothing at all.

      No, they rape children because there's money in it and they are amoral. Remove the money and they stop. The child rapists will rape kids, money or no.

      Why don't you try thinking through this instead of kneejerking about sick fucks?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    20. Re:This guy was lucky. by KlaasVaak · · Score: 1

      What about the privacy of the victim?

      --
      Dyslexics are teople poo
    21. Re:This guy was lucky. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      So now we're arresting for "being sleazy"?

      What the hell? Did the Church of Rome take-over the US and EU governments while I was sleeping? We're now under a moral oligarchy that tells us "nudism is bad"??? I feel like I've been dropped into some Robert Heinlein novel.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    22. Re:This guy was lucky. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Actually if you read ClubSeventeen's history, they used to have seventeen year old models until the U.S. Government imposed its will upon the company (on the theory that the website is viewable in the U.S. therefore that company must follow U.S. law). It's somewhat akin to how the U.S. Government (or RIAA) is trying to impose the Digital Millennium Copyright Act upon the EU and Australia.

      Anyway if you live in the Netherlands they let you see the 17 year old models.

      >>>I'm reasonably sure one has to be 18 in Dutchyland

      What? Too lazy to drag your ass over to wikipedia and double-check? Well you're wrong - 17 is the legal age

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    23. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it gets strange indeed... in some countries (Canada included, IIRC), representations of a child in sexual positions can be treated the same as "child pornography".

      So, drawings of a character which is under the age of majority= child porn. Finding harm to an actual person takes quite a bit of looking.

    24. Re:This guy was lucky. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I am surprised that the malware did not erase itself after about populating the files with stuff. What sort of idiot would not think of adding that feature it its repertoire?

      It could be that it did delete itself, but neglected to overwrite the disk blocks that it had occupied, and therefore those disk blocks were still readable by forensic tools later on. Plenty of idiots forget that when you "delete" a file in most modern file systems, the data it contains isn't necessarily erased.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    25. Re:This guy was lucky. by Thiez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelXIV/Artikel240b/geldigheidsdatum_09-11-2009

      ---------------

      Met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste vier jaren of geldboete van de vijfde categorie wordt gestraft degene die een afbeelding - of een gegevensdrager, bevattende een afbeelding - van een seksuele gedraging, waarbij iemand die kennelijk de leeftijd van achttien jaar nog niet heeft bereikt, is betrokken of schijnbaar is betrokken, verspreidt, openlijk tentoonstelt, vervaardigt, invoert, doorvoert, uitvoert of in bezit heeft.

      ---------------

      Your turn.

    26. Re:This guy was lucky. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except for the bit where the guy responsible lives in Thailand, or Rwanda, or Guatemala. Most probably you don't have a suspect at all--at most you have a picture of the victim.

      You also have a money trail. Follow the money.

      Cracking down on child porn means cracking down on possession.

      No, it means cracking down on sales.

      Generally speaking there is no practical way to find the initial distributor or the victim.

      You just have to get close enough to cut off the money.

      I still see no real reason why possession of the material itself should be a crime. That's a bit like suggesting mere possession of a Jihad video should be a crime, because it's difficult or impossible to track down the people who actually chopped some guy's head off with a sword.

      Do you see how fucked up those priorities are? It isn't as though people will stop chopping people's heads off because no one watches the videos. And it isn't as though the child rape will stop, even if there's no market for the porn -- I hate to be cold, but there's still plenty of demand for the girls themselves.

      Yes, it's hard. But it would also actually do some good.

      How have the people who gave them money caused "actual harm" anymore than in the "simple possession" case?

      Please think about that for more than two seconds, and see if you can really hold that position.

      Simple possession does no harm. That's like claiming, again, that me watching a Jihad video is like me cutting someone's head off. Or how about the 9/11 attacks -- should the entire country be punished for watching the videos of those planes flying into buildings?

      No, you punish the people who fly planes into buildings, the people who send them, and the people who finance them. And you do this not just for punishment's sake, but to prevent things like that from happening in the first place.

      People who give the child rapists money are giving them a real, monetary incentive to keep doing what they're doing. It directly supports that act, much like "vote with your dollars" applies to anything.

      People who don't, aren't really doing much other than stroking their egos, which they're doing already anyway.

      If you're willing to punish the one you should be willing to punish the other.

      I'm willing to punish anyone who actually gives money to Al Qaeda. I am not willing to punish people who watch the 9/11 videos, or visit Ground Zero.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    27. Re:This guy was lucky. by westlake · · Score: 1

      A hacker could might have installed a remote access program, downloaded the files manually, and then uninstalled the remote access program. There wouldn't be much evidence to suggest that this guy didn't download the kiddie porn himself.

      Child porn becomes an obsession.

      There are usually two elements in an arrest and conviction for possession:

      1 The number of files retrieved is enormous.

      In the thousands or tens or thousands. Authorities arrest 64-year-old man for child pornography

      In this case, 40,000 photos and videos.

      2 The defendant's behavior was reckless and self-destructive.

      He'll try to slip his porn stash through customs. Va. man headed to prison for child porn It will be found on the cell phone he left behind at Starbucks. The laptop he brought into his grade school classroom. Pike High School teacher charged with possession of child porn

      This guy was lucky.

      Luck as nothing to do with it. Criminal investigation at its most basic isn't about tech, its about people. The frame has to fit or you look elsewhere.

      The geek should give up his life of crime. He isn't as smart as he thinks. The schemes he contrives are overly complex and fragile. The human element is ignored.

    28. Re:This guy was lucky. by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 1

      I agree. Unfortunately, I can't see any legislation like that actually happening. I doubt there are many politicians willing to go out there and look like they're defending pedophiles (which in many minds means the same thing as child rapists).

    29. Re:This guy was lucky. by visualight · · Score: 1

      With prison sentence of highly celebrate years or money fine of the fifth category is punished the one which an image - or a fact bearer, containing an image - of a sexual behaviour, where someone who has reached obviously the age of eighteen years not yet, is concerned or seemingly has been involved, spreads, openly exhibits, manufactures, sails in, passes through, carries out or in possession has.

      Online translators that don't suck are only 10 years away I guess.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    30. Re:This guy was lucky. by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      um, you appear to be contradicting yourself.. or maybe I didn't hear the woooosh over my head.
      Either way, I agree with what you said, "The child rapists will rape kids, money or no."

    31. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also in some countries it is child porn if the images are in any way misidentifiable as children. This means that images of real people over 18 may be considered child porn if the actors look too young. This also applies to drawings, so be careful with your erotic stick figure drawings, hard to tell the age of a circle and 5 lines.

    32. Re:This guy was lucky. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's actually fairly common for people accused of downloading child porn to blame it on some kind of a virus. Another common defense is that they were downloading a lot of random porn and accidentally downloaded CP.

      This can be difficult to buy if they've carefully organized their CP by type in folders on their desktop and burned backups of the data onto DVDs that are stashed underneath the couch.

    33. Re:This guy was lucky. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, there are two distinct groups, the ones who do it because that's what they like (and they think the kids are okay with it) and the ones who do it because there's money to be made. The original CP laws were all about removing group 2.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    34. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Netherlands requires adult actors and prostitutes to be 18 just like most of the rest of the world.
      Furthermore the site you linked clearly states in the disclaimer all girls are 18 years or older.

    35. Re:This guy was lucky. by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      Ah, I wasn't aware a group 2 existed.
      If that's the case it's pretty fucking sad what people will do for money.

    36. Re:This guy was lucky. by duguk · · Score: 1

      so be careful with your erotic stick figure drawings, hard to tell the age of a circle and 5 lines.

      Wait, FIVE lines? Queer!

    37. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go bust the people who are giving child rapists money.

      and what if those people turn out to be victims of credit-card fraud?

    38. Re:This guy was lucky. by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be new to you unless you've been sleeping for the last 2000 years.

    39. Re:This guy was lucky. by VShael · · Score: 1

      But am I going to get arrested in the US for a non-crime that never happened??? ----- Or what about American nudist sites? http://www.nude2000.com/Family_Pageant_Activities.htm (nudity again). Is daddy going to get arrested because he took a photo of his underage daughter or son???

      In the UK, especially in the pre-digial camera age, there were many cases where a parent had taken a photo or two of their newborn, or young child in the bath, or whatever. And the person developing the photos contacted the police. They felt it was better to err on the side of caution, and treat any nudity as potentially sexual.

      It never made sense to me, because what paedophile would be dumb enough to drop his photos off at the local chemists for development?

    40. Re:This guy was lucky. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The idea behind this law is to avoid people circumventing it by photoshopping real CP images to look like drawings. It is possible, and it has been done. So unless you know that there is an "original" for this "drawing", you can't even prove that a real crime has been committed. And then you'd have to prove that the person where you found the "drawing" knows that it is actually depicting a real crime.

      Not to mention the followup question "so why is this illegal while photographies of murder victims ain't"...

      The unfortunate portion is that there's no distinction between realistic drawings that could well be photoshopped images of real photos and anime drawings that can't by any standard ever have been real. If only because even childrens' eyes don't cover 2/3 of their face. But then again, where to draw the line?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:This guy was lucky. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh yes it will. It will make the crime invisible and that's basically all our lawmakers want to achive. If you cannot see it it does not happen. And if I close my eyes you are not there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    42. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 The number of files retrieved is enormous.

      In the thousands or tens or thousands. Authorities arrest 64-year-old man for child pornography

      In this case, 40,000 photos and videos.

      What the hell is number of files supposed to have with it? In ye olde days that kind of accusation might've meant something, but when you can download a torrent with tens of thousands of photos with a single click and few hours of waiting, it's really hard to argue that it's somehow evidence of obsessive behavior.

    43. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the age of consent in The Netherlands is 16, not 17.

      Wikipedia link

    44. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what's the logic of making cartoons of children having sex illegal

      The logic is...they don't like it. So they use the fear of "kiddie porn" to ban it.

      Arrest the rapist, or the murderer, or the thief, not the guy who just happens to have the photo of the event.

      The implication is that if you posses it, you were the cause of it being created (or one of the causes). The idea of, if no one buys it, no one will make it.
      Again, an incorrect cause/effect relationship. The abuse will still happen, the pictures/video will still be taken.
      This also does not take into account the numerous anonymous ways to acquire pictures or video on the internet. Ways where the person filming the abuse would never know anyone was downloading it. so by their reasoning, it couldn't have instigated the abuse.

      Is daddy going to get arrested because he took a photo of his underage daughter or son

      Actually, yes, this has happened. The US used to have a rule that more than 3 pictures of nude children was considered child-porn. So families that frequent nudist camps were being arrested/harassed.
      Not sure if they ever changed those laws.

      But it is more examples of "I don't like your lifestyle, so I'm going to have you arrested for the sake of the children!". Their kids are then taught that mommy and daddy were "EVIL" and brainwashed into the Moral Majority.

    45. Re:This guy was lucky. by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Luckily, Windows cannot properly uninstall anything ;-) There will always be some DLL, some registry key and some spurious file lost in the filesystem never to be deleted.

    46. Re:This guy was lucky. by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 0

      How about we embrace that concept "land of the free" and just let people enjoy liberated speech without fear of jail time? Arrest the rapist, or the murderer, or the thief, not the guy who just happens to have the photo of the event.

      But of course! Surely a person who, say, has pictures or footage of a gangrape is not at all a danger to society or possibly connected to the incident, and should not under any cirumstances be investigated by the police.

    47. Re:This guy was lucky. by noric · · Score: 1

      Very interesting!

    48. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this.

    49. Re:This guy was lucky. by ewenix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay. But what's the logic of making cartoons of children having sex illegal (as is the case in Aussieland). Where's the victim? Where's the crime? This is nothing more than morality enforcement except now instead of the Catholic church doing it, it's the government.

      First, all laws are based on somebody's definition of right and wrong, i.e. morality.

      Second, if it is illegal then it is a crime. However I think you were trying to make the point of "who is damaged" in the
      scenario. Well, you seem to have made the assumption that there is no damage to individual who "uses" child porn.
      I'd like to know how many studies or testimonies of previous "users" will it take to convince you that it is/does

      Third, I'd like you to honestly think to yourself if you would have the same opinion if someone drew cartoon images of your wife, daugther, mother, or sister being raped.

      Lastly to address your comment about "land of the free," I'll just quote John Adams:
      “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.”

    50. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course five -
      2 arms
      +
      2 legs
      +
      1 torso
      -----------
      5

    51. Re:This guy was lucky. by duguk · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I presumed you'd drawn the arms as one long line and was referring to his penis.

    52. Re:This guy was lucky. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      1 body/neck, 2 arms, 2 legs. What, are you into amputees or something?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    53. Re:This guy was lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Ohio the age of consent is 16. I can legally go fuck a 16 year old (Not that I would. They are nice to look at but I'm too old to deal with a teenager's baggage), but if I take a picture of one in the nude I'm committing felony.

    54. Re:This guy was lucky. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Or what about American nudist sites? http://www.nude2000.com/Family_Pageant_Activities.htm (nudity again). Is daddy going to get arrested because he took a photo of his underage daughter or son???

      To be fair, most of those "nudist sites" are pretty obviously porn sites, offering access to naked pictures of people, sometimes of very young age, for pay. I can't imagine any reason why anyone would pay to see someone else's vacation pictures, except the fact that they're naked vacation pictures. Not to mention that some of them combine nudism with outdoor activities in the snow, which simply can't be a part of any lifestyle, since you'd end up dying of pneumonia in short order.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    55. Re:This guy was lucky. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      You're a fucking idiot. You're defending the outlaw of teen comics drawn by Neil Geiman and other famous artists. If teenage superman has sex with his high school girlfriend in some issue, not only will the creator be arrested but also any customers who own it

      Damn tyrant.. Take your anti-sex bullshit and asghove ut yup goyoyur ass. I hate people like you who think sex is somehting to fear andn dsestroy.

      dzmn fucki8gn religious bnutreerrt

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    56. Re:This guy was lucky. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Care to expound on that statement?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    57. Re:This guy was lucky. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's right! He must enjoy watching that footage, and by golly he should be arrested for thinking those naughty thoughts.

      Whereas the guy with a several-gigabyte collection of graphic gore and violence images is perfectly safe because unless naked children are involved, we can't arrest people for thought crimes.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    58. Re:This guy was lucky. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look up the 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids – particularly, the one source cited on that page which notes that the majority of girls' parents knew, or had a suspicion of their children's "work" – and none of them went to the police.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    59. Re:This guy was lucky. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Gee, don't kill the messenger. I only told why it was done, not that I think it's a good idea.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    60. Re:This guy was lucky. by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 0

      Being in possession of such images is not a "thought crime," it's "being a probable accessory to a crime."

    61. Re:This guy was lucky. by Hacker_PingWu · · Score: 0

      The overall point is that the law is uncomfortably ambiguous in this case, as I see it.

      There are levels of legality or illegality. In this case, I would not so strongly argue that possession is/is not or should/should not be illegal, as it is minor enough to be unworthy of active tracking by law enforcement save for mass distributors of child pornography.

      This is also how law enforcement in the US treats it for the most part - that unless you do something stupid to get yourself caught, like look at CP on a company computer and/or view it while at work using company computers, take film rolls of your newest home-made stash to Walgreens or something equally absurd - they don't care too much. They are first and foremost tracking the people making CP, followed closely by child predators using the internet to meet and rape underage children, followed by major online traffickers of CP. For practical and logistics reasons possession is too petty and too difficult a crime to track on an individual basis for them to devote energy to. It *is* still a crime.

      As far as how much sense making/keeping possession illegal makes, I'd say it's situational. Perhaps treat it like drug possession. If you just have a dime bag of weed and you're caught with it, the penalty is comparitively minor to possessing large quantities which qualifies "intent to distribute/sell," and cops usually don't go sniffing for people who only have small amounts, even though all possession is illegal.

      "...However I think you were trying to make the point of "who is damaged" in the scenario. Well, you seem to have made the assumption that there is no damage to individual who "uses" child porn. I'd like to know how many studies or testimonies of previous "users" will it take to convince you that it is/does"

      You are making an equally fallacious assumption that it *does* damage individuals who use child porn. And damage to oneself is not a crime and falls under personal choice not withstanding restriction on controlled substances, and with contraband substances (drugs for instance) in which case the law concerns not the damage to yourself but the ban of the material altogether. And, you're going to run into a *LOT* of trouble trying to make that argument, for numerous reasons. At a baseline, it's similar in form to arguments/"studies" that pornography damages your character, hurts relationships, ends marriages, instills unhealthy addictions and so forth. These assumptions, and their not-so-hidden assumptions are only conditionally true, taken as a global generalization they are very false.

      Modern rigorous studies of Human sexuality and relationships that are scientifically conducted and published demonstrate that pornography overall and its use is only destructive in the presence of other behavioral-cognitive issues. To illustrate a point by comparison, it's very similar to video games being potentially destructive to people who have underdeveloped or unsound reasoning skills and are unable to realistically evaluate priorities, distinguish between fantasy and reality, and or has predisposition to commit a criminal act beforehand. So, videogames didn't make your college student flunk out last semester, their inability to priorize their activities and budget their time was, video games were simply a replaceable tool used to that end. Pornography does not make one ignore their partner, view women only as sexual objects, make one disregard their responsibilities, and break up families - nor does it provoke them to commit rape or sexual crimes. The person in question was unable, unwilling or uninterested in maintaining a healthy relationship. They had pre-existing misogynistic or otherwise unrealistic attitudes toward the opposite sex that was not and could not be instilled by the existence and usage of pornography. They didn't abandon their family because of porn or the lure of another person in cyberspace - they quite frankly weren't cut out for the commitment involved with a spouse and/or

    62. Re:This guy was lucky. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You can prove that he asked for the pictures to be taken or that he paid to obtain them? I thought not.

      But no... guilty until proven innocent, of course. And a moot point, in this case, since he's convicted for the thought crime, not for being an accessory to the crime (which would require the inconvenience of proving he actually was... you can't convict on a "probable" crime).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    63. Re:This guy was lucky. by metacell · · Score: 1

      There are usually two elements in an arrest and conviction for possession:
      1 The number of files retrieved is enormous.
      [...]
      2 The defendant's behavior was reckless and self-destructive.

      Well, yes, that may be typical, but is it necessary in order to get someone investigated and convicted?

      If child pornography was planted on someone's computer in such a way that it came to the police's attention, would the case be dropped just because the suspect wasn't a "typical" child pornogropher (if there is such a thing)?

    64. Re:This guy was lucky. by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 0

      You can prove that he asked for the pictures to be taken or that he paid to obtain them? I thought not.

      Doesn't matter.

    65. Re:This guy was lucky. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No, obviously, and that was my point. Guilty until proven innocent.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    66. Re:This guy was lucky. by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 0

      If someone is in possession of such images the most likely conclusion is that he had something to do with it, so he must be investigated.

    67. Re:This guy was lucky. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and investigate all you want... but if it couldn't be proven that he did have something to do with it – proven, mind you – then he should, logically, be released.

      If not, you're punishing him for thought crimes and/or hypothetical (unproven) charges.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  6. Great! He's cleared! by parlancex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too bad his life is already ruined beyond repair.

    1. Re:Great! He's cleared! by NoYob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he has a life. Many times, poor bastards like this get assassinated by folks who have no idea. It's on thing if the pedo hurt innocent children, but when it's a guy who was arrested for sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18 because of our retarded sex laws passed by retards to impress retards who vote for them.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    2. Re:Great! He's cleared! by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>>laws passed by retards

      You will shortly be arrested for hate speech. Please do not move from your current position. The police will let themselves in.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Great! He's cleared! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could sue for massive compensation if he was using commercial OS.

    4. Re:Great! He's cleared! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pages in your copy of 1984 are sticking together, faggot.

  7. A new name for this? by Monoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frameware ? :-)

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    1. Re:A new name for this? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The hysteria around child porn makes the ideal way to frame someone. Need to get rid of an enemy, a politician you don't like maybe ? Just break into their computer and load a single image on there. No one will look too closely, everyone will be scrambling to condemn you first to avoid looking guilt by association. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    2. Re:A new name for this? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I seem to recall reading that the FBI ran some honeypot sites that were linked to indicating that they contained child porn, but didn't. For this kind of malware you'd want to make sure it hit a few of them, downloaded some real child porn, and then deleted itself. Do it to a Senator, for example, and it wouldn't matter if they were cleared within a few days; the scandal would be enough to ruin their political career for life.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:A new name for this? by Monoman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

      Maybe it does. Hmmmm....

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    4. Re:A new name for this? by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Probably a good reason why many politicians won't ever come into direct contact with a computer. Well that and they're old.

    5. Re:A new name for this? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The hysteria around child porn makes the ideal way to frame someone.

      People need witches. People need easy targets to vent the full fury of the legal system upon. Pedophiles are perfect, because unlike witches, they actually exist. The public delights in these show trials, and delights even more in being able to treat the accused and especially the convicted as the scum of the earth.

      It's a kind of blood sport. It's a form of entertainment. It's completely shameful.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:A new name for this? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

    7. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

      That's what happens when nonviolent victimless activities such as adult consentual personal drug use are made into crimes. That 1% would be a tiny fraction of a percentage if there were no such thing as the War on Drugs.

    8. Re:A new name for this? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

      You have a higher opinion of human nature than I.

    9. Re:A new name for this? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Meh, if going 5 over the speed limit was a jailtime offense most people would be in jail. There's probably something very wrong with the laws or the culture or something, but I don't think that 99% are innocent.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:A new name for this? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      American culture IS that wicked.

      It's just the other 1% that should be in prison -- the richest one.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    11. Re:A new name for this? by JacobSteelsmith · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hope I'm reading the parent wrong or missing something as I often do. People who molest children, or partake in child porn, are the scum of the earth. I can't believe what I'm reading here. There are intelligent people who believe it shouldn't be a crime, or a big deal, to possess child porn, or molest children and record it?

      I know it's not popular to have morals or take a stand these days, but here it goes. People who get off on naked children are beneath the scum of the earth. There should be little leniency for these "people." The "humans" who use children for their own sexual pleasure are not normal and should be removed from the population post haste.

      And anyone who disagrees is naive, inexperienced in life, or abnormal themselves and should seek professional help.

    12. Re:A new name for this? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Was the double entendre on purpose?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:A new name for this? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      Now I know how to get rid of Madam Pelosi. Just load a few images of naked boys sucking other boys onto her office PCs. Even if she manages to salvage her political career, she'll never again by Speaker.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope I'm reading the parent wrong or missing something as I often do. People who molest children, or partake in child porn, are the scum of the earth. I can't believe what I'm reading here. There are intelligent people who believe it shouldn't be a crime, or a big deal, to possess child porn, or molest children and record it?

      I know it's not popular to have morals or take a stand these days, but here it goes. People who get off on naked children are beneath the scum of the earth. There should be little leniency for these "people." The "humans" who use children for their own sexual pleasure are not normal and should be removed from the population post haste.

      And anyone who disagrees is naive, inexperienced in life, or abnormal themselves and should seek professional help.

      It's not popular having morals? I find your position immoral. Your kind is what lets the real predators off. We're so busy diverting resources towards people looking at pictures that we're not actually focusing on the funding and production of it.

      It's simple, you go after with full force the people doing real harm. You put a stop to people aiding them in doing harm. Beyond that is silliness, which is what the GP is pointing out. It's silliness until it starts destroying the lives of productive members of society that have done no harm to anyone. But guess that's the price to be paid in any moral panic, whether it's drugs, commies, witches, jews or gays.

      I feel sorry for you, truly. But keep enjoying your two minutes of hate, I hope it makes you feel better. Sicko.

    15. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. However horrible a person might be according to you by their feelings and thoughts, that cannot be a good enough reason to punish them. You are perfectly free to hate those people, and the societal norms against them are possibly quite reasonable. But it is not the government's job to punish people for having certain feelings or thoughts. The government can step in once there is actual harm (or reason to expect harm), but punishment for anything less than that makes it very easy for incidents like the one described in the article where people can be far too easily falsely accused.

      Making the images should definitely be illegal. Selling the images should be illegal, too (creates an incentive to make more). Simply transferring them is questionable. Possession should perhaps be looked down upon, but it should not be illegal. There is far too weak a link between possessing the images (which could have been planted anyway) and actually producing them.

      (Note: I am assuming we are talking about actual children, not teenagers above the age of consent but below 18, which is a totally different issue.)

    16. Re:A new name for this? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who molest children, or partake in child porn, are the scum of the earth. I can't believe what I'm reading here. There are intelligent people who believe it shouldn't be a crime, or a big deal, to possess child porn, or molest children and record it?

      The problem is you are putting at least 4 groups of people in the same category "pedophile" :
      1) people who are aroused by pictures of (naked) children
      2) people who molest children
      3) people who record 2
      4) people who distribute 3

      Group 1 should probably not be criminalized because they are just people with psychological issues and there are no direct victims. Group 2 are criminals and might have psychological issues which may be cause for some leniency in a very few cases. The other 2 groups are the ones every sane person wants to string up by the balls from the highest tree. All these people can make our stomachs turn, but some deserve pity rather than jail.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    17. Re:A new name for this? by caluml · · Score: 1

      And as if on cue.... Kill Him!!

    18. Re:A new name for this? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Of course, the GP used "innocent" to mean "person who does not pose any threat or danger to society, in any way," and not, "person who did not break the law." It is rapidly becoming impossible to avoid breaking the law, with so many laws on the books. Most people probably do not know more than 10 actual laws, let alone all of the more than 10000 federal statutes on the books (and thousands more at the state level); how could they be expected to avoid breaking laws they do not even know exist?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    19. Re:A new name for this? by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And

      5) People who download porn from dubious sites and get some 17 year old Russia girl who could entirely pass for an adult. (Can you magically tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, or even a 16 year old and a 22 year old?)

      6) People who don't download anything knowingly, just follow a bad link trying to get some warez or, hell, have a malware infection like this guy.

      Seriously, the laws are idiotic.

      Possession laws in general are dubious to start with, but at least with, for example, drugs, people aren't trying to buy sugar and ending up with heroin, or having people just wander by and stick five kilos of cocaine under the seat of their car.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    20. Re:A new name for this? by JacobSteelsmith · · Score: 1

      But there are victims, even if they're not direct. And child porn is unique in that it's victims are victimized over and over.

      It's a very short leap between 1 and the remainder. I would bet that most if not all start at 1. These types should be weeded out before they do real harm.

    21. Re:A new name for this? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, see for example http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/03/rick-rolled-to-child-porn-youre-a-pedophile-says-fbi.ars from about a year ago or so. The FBI did exactly that and then raided and arrested people who clicked on the link. However, there was the slight saving grace in that no one outside the FBI knew about the link while the honeypot operation was running. To anyone who clicked on it it would have come across as a simply non-functioning webpage. So there's no reason for someone to use the link in question. However, someone in the FBI with clearance about the project could easily use this to frame someone.

    22. Re:A new name for this? by Asmor · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, I was reading the Massachusetts General Laws today (started out trying to figure out what the age of consent is here-- don't ask).

      There's a law on the books (chapter 272 section 18) which provides up to 3 months and $30 for fornfication.

      So everyone in Massachusetts who has pre-marital sex is at risk of being imprisoned.

      http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-18.htm

    23. Re:A new name for this? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I investigated age-of-consent issues in high school, when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 16. I found a plethora of laws that might apply, some of which are bizarre. While 16 is the enforced age of consent, there is still a law on the books that allows that statutory rape occurs when an 18-year-old (or older) has sex with a previously chaste person under 18 outside of marriage - the crime can only be committed on a victim once.

    24. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a very short leap between 1 and the remainder. I would bet that most if not all start at 1. These types should be weeded out before they do real harm.

      This viewpoint has always really pissed me off. Saying that pedophiles are dangerous because they might molest a child is like saying that men are dangerous because they might rape a woman. If someone is molesting children, it's (usually) not that they go completely batshit insane when they see a kid and have no control over anything they do, they're just a dick and think they can get away with it because a child won't be able to defend them self. That kind of person is going to be doing fucked up things regardless of whether or not they're a pedophile.

    25. Re:A new name for this? by Thiez · · Score: 2, Funny

      And, being a law-abiding citizen, you requested a 17 year old friend have sex with her once?

    26. Re:A new name for this? by Asmor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that oddity is actually what lead me to investigating things further in the first place.

      My legal-fu is weak, but according to the interpretation of this page, the law you mention is even weirder than that; it's not just any intercourse with a chaste 16-18 year old, it's specifically intercourse which is otherwise illegal.

      They mention adultery as an example, where you'd be violating this law by having sex with a 17-year old if you were married, but if you were unmarried (and not otherwise breaking the law) it would be legal.

      Of course, since fornication is illegal, that means that technically any sex with a 16 or 17-year old virgin is illegal.

    27. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the mistake of assuming the only results of a trial are "go free" or "jail forever". A lot of inmates aren't *wicked* wicked, but did moderate crimes and are serving proportionally short terms.

      And, from an entirely different direction: 2% of any large human population are sociopaths, so even if the justice system has perfect accuracy and every non-sociopath is a non-criminal, there would be as many monsters or potential monsters roaming free as there are behind bars, and *every* culture *is* that wicked.

    28. Re:A new name for this? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      About 10 minutes after this story broke a republican would be found with the same pictures on his computer and it would become the headline news while the Pelosi store gets burred to the bottom of the pile.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:A new name for this? by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the scandal would be enough to ruin their political career for life.

      Good. Politics shouldn't be something you can do for a career anyway.

    30. Re:A new name for this? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Now I know how to get rid of Madam Pelosi. Just load a few images of naked boys sucking other boys onto her office PCs. Even if she manages to salvage her political career, she'll never again by Speaker.

      Yup. It should work even better on Madame Palin, or Glenn Beck, or pretty much any other public personality you care to frame.

      By the time people realize what's going on and put down their torches and ropes, there won't be a single politician left standing in either party... except of course for John McCain, who doesn't know how to use a computer. That'll teach the whippersnappers a thing or two!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    31. Re:A new name for this? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Possession laws in general are dubious to start with, but at least with, for example, drugs, people [don't] just wander by and stick five kilos of cocaine under the seat of their car.

      Except, of course, when they do. "Planting" drugs on a suspect is a classic police tactic when they want to arrest/convict someone but don't have a legitimate reason to do so. Of course anyone with access to illegal drugs can do it, not just police officers...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    32. Re:A new name for this? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Well, define "innocent". Going 5 over the speed limit isn't exactly reckless. DUI is.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    33. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who download porn from dubious sites and get some 17 year old Russia girl who could entirely pass for an adult

      Exactly. I admit it: I have about a gigabyte of porn that I've downloaded from... wherever. I have no way of knowing how old any of the models are. FACIAL01.JPG might be a 20-year-old... or 16... or 18... I don't know. Am I supposed to stop looking at young people and only download porn featuring models who look old enough to never get carded buying cigarettes? In effect, this inability to be certain raises the age of consent for porn models to around 30, which is going overboard.

    34. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the scandal would be enough to ruin their political career for life.

      Unless your last name is Kennedy, Pelosi, Frank, ...

    35. Re:A new name for this? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      People need witches. People need easy targets to vent the full fury of the legal system upon. Pedophiles are perfect, because unlike witches, they actually exist.

      That's sort of a compromise for the materialistic, evidence-based society we live in today. Witches are a better scapegoat because anyone could be one. For a pedophile, you need actual evidence, so not *so* great for society venting whatever frustration it has.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    36. Re:A new name for this? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
      While I agree that there are differences between the four groups - I can't quite agree with your conclusion.

      1. Re distinction between 1 and 2 (people who look at pictures and people who have actual sexual contact). Pedophiles are (technically, by definition) people who are persistently erotically atracted to children. If a person has repeated or extensive sexual contact with a child/children they meet the definition of a pedophile. If a person persistantly looks at pictures of children for sexual gratification (i.e. not just clicked the link once for curiosity) then they are a pedophile. If a person's sexual fantasises are usually or exclusively about children then they are a pedophile. The law differentiates between the "molester" as you say and the person who views porn, with the first offence being much more serious than the second. (People who do neither and restrict themselves to fantasy are not committing a crime - despite what the Catholic Church says - it's the deed and not the thought). People who are attracted to 16 year olds are not pedophiles - the age of consent is a separate matter.

      2. Two and three (photographers and distributors) are not pedophiles - they are photographers and distrubutors of illegal pornography. They might be pedophiles, or they might just be run of the mill sociopathic criminals. But why are you leaving the chain as record - distribute and failing to add consume/buy?

      You are correct in saying the consumers and molesters have psychological issues - so do most criminals. And really it's a case by case thing. A person who buys a video of a baby being penetrated violently would be dealt with differently than someone who downloads a pictures of a smiling girl with her knickers showing.

      The law always considers cases on a case-by-case basis taking this stuff into account.

    37. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Lieberman for that matter. Or Specter. Or Sessions....

      This is an equal opportunity character assassination method, donchaknow also!

    38. Re:A new name for this? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're going to get into framing, you should at least have the decency to frame the entire lot of those crooks, from the most right-wing Republican to the most leftist Democrat. Clean the House, then the Senate. Repeat every 12 years until term limits and limits on lobbying are enacted.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    39. Re:A new name for this? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      There was actually an instance of this where a man, trying to steal his neighbor's wife, used his neighbor's computer to download CP and then reported his neighbor to the police.

      Fortunately, a bit of investigation and appropriate forensic evidence and the real story was figured out. :-P

    40. Re:A new name for this? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      CP possession can be fairly hard to make stick, particularly if the person is not a serious collector. If you're willing to fight, stories (5) and (6) can be sold decently well to juries -- whether they're true or not. Getting a possession conviction for CP (unlike for drugs) really requires some degree of proof of intent. which can be fairly difficult to dig out of a computer. Distribution is the much-preferred charge, both because the penalties are steeper and it can be easily proven (if it occured). Unfortunately, a lot of CP collectors get their material on P2P networks and make themselves distributors.

      Of course, the really serious charge is production, as it almost always goes hand-in-hand with sexual abuse.

    41. Re:A new name for this? by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      Had a co-worker do that to the boss he didn't like. (Dunno that it was child porn, regular porn would have been firing offense enough.) He put a bunch of porn files on the guy's computer and then turned him in. However, it did not occur to him to change the owner of the files to some userid other than his own. Oops.

      As an ironic aside, this guy later molested his own (step?) daughters and was on the run around the world for a couple of years before being caught and returned to face justice.

    42. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      FACIAL01.JPG might be a 20-year-old... or 16... or 18... I don't know.

      If her face wasn't ... covered ... you would have a slightly better chance of being able to tell her age ;)

    43. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a 'joe job'

    44. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly -- while all having harmed nobody, and thus being innocent.

    45. Re:A new name for this? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      1) people who are aroused by pictures of (naked) children

      Group 1 should probably not be criminalized because they are just people with psychological issues

      Even that is not necessarily true. It is perfectly normal (in fact, expected) for an adult human male to be sexually aroused by any clearly pubescent female - it's hard-wired, you cannot control that. You can only suppress any outward expression of such emotions. And, of course, most age of consent laws in the world define that age as well past the point of puberty.

      (Note that this isn't to imply that puberty alone is a good reference point for age of consent laws; there are many other factors at play here.)

    46. Re:A new name for this? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, do note that:

      1) people who are aroused by pictures of (naked) children
      2) people who molest children
      3) people who record 2
      4) people who distribute 3

      3 and 4 also include people (law enforcement?) who record the crime for the sake of prosecuting the criminals, and the fact that a crime has been recorded can be an aid to catching the perpetrators.

      In the Netherlands, there was a front page news item a few years ago about children uploading videos of their classmates being beaten up. The article I read quoted someone saying that the uploaders should be punished. My reaction was: That's backwards. It's not the videos that are the problem, it's the beating up. The videos help you identify and punish those who are beating people up. You should be grateful to the people who give you these videos, because they help you deal with the _real_ problem.

      Now, I understand the difference between recording a video and sharing it for the purpose of getting a criminal punished on the one hand, and recording a video and selling it for profit or sharing it for entertainment, on the other hand. Still, I think recording, sharing, or selling videos of crimes isn't as bad as actually committing the crime. I'd much rather that people who get aroused by sexual abuse of children get their kicks from watching videos than from actually doing it in real life - noting, of course, that the ideal is that these people get treated so that they don't need those kicks anymore in the first place.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    47. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please also add the distinction of adult consentual personal - [i]homegrown[/i] - drug use... There are street shootings and killings daily in Mexico between the suppliers of those "victimless activites", every gram of drug you import into the States brings more blood and violence south of the border.

    48. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, suppose you are (or are about to be) involved in contentious divorce proceedings. Want an easy way to ensure you get the kids? Call the police up and tell them (anonymously, say by impersonating his employer) you think your husband's been downloading child porn. You don't even need to have evidence to plant, the arrest in itself may well be enough to swing the case your way.

    49. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lets not forget the "sex offender" register. Although it was (supposidly) ment to register dangerous (to your children) peadophiles, currently even someone who takes a piss in the bushes and gets spotted (even by a full adult) can get on it.

      Its like throwing violent murderers in the same category as your sons or daughters who (inadvertedly?) took some candy from a store.

      As someone allready said, the peadophile/sex-offender hunt has grown to a which-hunt. A full-blown circus spectacle with clowns destroying lives of mostly harmless people (taking a piss in the bushes or exchanging a couple of nudie pictures with your (girl/boy)friend means they are a danger to the little ones ? Gimme a break !).

      And for what ? To give the dimwitted population something to focus on ? Haven't we learned *anything* from the commie-hunter Senator McCarthy or even judism-hating nazi-german ? It appears whe haven't.

      We don't need an all-out thermonuclear war, we are quite capable of destroying each other with things like the above.

    50. Re:A new name for this? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It wasn't in Massachusetts. But yeah, the laws are really weird, especially when they don't formally repeal things that would be ruled unconstitutional.

    51. Re:A new name for this? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      While they're not the big problem that everyone makes them out to be, they do exist and they can't be reformed. Simple as that.

      Lets not forget about that, and I'm talking about someone here who's dealt in the criminal justice side of things. Along with cops and the crown who've been in this for 30 years, they don't change. The problem is, politicians turn this into witch hunts. Bottom feeders exist. They're the ones who've progressed up the criminal profiling scale from simply snapping pictures of kids showing their underwear at *insert place* because they're innocent, and carefree. And they're taking pictures, to they're getting ready to go snag a kid, or already doing something to one.

      The reality is I don't have any illusions about what this is. Or the current state. It's the bandwagoneers that make it more difficult to do the job properly.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    52. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, a lot of CP collectors get their material on P2P networks and make themselves distributors.

      Even more unfortunately, same goes for story number six, download some warez with fake description from P2P and BAM, you're automatically charged with not just possession but distribution. And of course you're technically guilty of both, even if there was no intent whatsoever...

    53. Re:A new name for this? by Kentari · · Score: 1

      Possession laws in general are dubious to start with, but at least with, for example, drugs, people aren't trying to buy sugar and ending up with heroin, or having people just wander by and stick five kilos of cocaine under the seat of their car.

      Oh, but that does happen. All to often drugs are hidden in goods, luggage or vehicles known to go to a certain location. Pray it doesn't happen to you, cause when you get caught in for example: Morocco, you are in hell. That one got out alive, although in very bad shape. If it happens in Singapore, you probably end up dancing on air.

    54. Re:A new name for this? by noric · · Score: 1

      I think that's a great term. I opened up Wikipedia to start an article on it, and meant to quote you, however it seems one needs an account to create articles these days :P. You should put it in Wikipedia; you probably stumbled on something big. There's a huge money in software that could ruin a Senator's career. Just think... Frameware, a term first coined by Monoman in 2009, .... go write the article =D

    55. Re:A new name for this? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16, as specified by Chapter 265, Section 23 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, which states:

      "Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall... be punished..." MGL 265-23

      However, Chapter 272, Section 4 sets another age of consent at 18 when the "victim" is "of chaste life" and the perpetrator induces them.

      "Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished." MGL 272-4

      Usual disclaimer about Wikipedia applies: check its sources and make sure it's accurate, especially in matters of law.

      As far as the bit about chastity goes, does it ever define "chaste"? Depending on which definition you use, you could argue that someone was not "of chaste life" if they had previously masturbated and/or watched porn – which of course makes about 99.9% of normal human teenagers fail to qualify.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    56. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only extremely small minded people with no neocortex to call their own need witches. People like you are a far greater threat then pedofiles and even terrorists. I find the US laws on this even more disgusting then CP it's self which puts them above worm infested dog shit.

    57. Re:A new name for this? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yes. They are everywhere. You think they should all be jailed, or what?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    58. Re:A new name for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth was that modded insightful?

      The most likely instance of somebody "frameware"ing a politician would be for some other politician or some lobbyist to be behind it. So it's exactly the wrong kind of politician that gets hurt.

    59. Re:A new name for this? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Now here's a funnier thought. Just two days after I posted that, a handful of Senators are proposing a Constitutional amendment to institute term limits . Coincidence?

      Okay, which one of you smart alecks planted the kiddie porn on their machines? :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    60. Re:A new name for this? by metacell · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about, but it isn't it usually the case that the child taking the video is cooperating with the children doing the beating up? I.e, they should be prosecuted for accessory, which the law sometimes considers as serious as doing the actual beating.

  8. Legalise the posession of child porn already by ickleberry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having a certain amount of bits stored on hard drives/flash memory/toggle switches arranged in a certain way.

    Criminalising mere possession only drives the stuff up in value, if there was more of it freely available no pervert would feel the need to hand their credit card details over to some lads in Thailand so they can pick more 5-year-olds off the street.

    1. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Regular porn is available everywhere. You can't throw the proverbial stone in the virtual world without hitting 20 free porn sites, and if you. Still people pay for it.

    2. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by RIpRapRob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surely you must be trolling? If not: It's crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years just for buying something that was already stolen or for hiding someone who has already committed a crime.

    3. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      People download porn and pay for hookers so why would this stop them from abusing real children? Legalising child porn legitimises child abuse, imo, and makes it more likely that people will do something to children.

      Now maybe if the punishment for child abuse was something extreme, like death then yeah maybe. What's done is done so I could see leaving them to play with the pictures they have and if they take it beyond that then wipe them off the planet.

    4. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's see:
      1. Buying something that you know is stolen - the original owner should still be able to reclaim his property. Also, you are paying a thief for stealing, so he will steal more because he can live from it.
      2. Hiding someone who has committed a crime - you are wasting time of the police officers who are searching for the criminal, also the criminal may commit another crime while running from the police and this time you will be an accomplice.

      Now, downloading a picture of a crime. The picture is harmless, having it is also harmless (unless you have the only copy in which case you are holding evidence that could be used to put a criminal in jail). Pirating such picture does not pay money to the producer and so the producer will lose a lot of money (RIAA and MPAA both said that piracy hurts the industry).

    5. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by LainTouko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Our governments claim that it is essential to stop people downloading and possessing regular media from P2P services (outside of official channels) because it decreases the ability and motivation of media producers to produce new media.

      Our governments claim that it is essential to stop people downloading child porn off P2P services because it increases the ability and motivation of child abusers (or more commonly now, children) to produce new child porn.

      I think there's something fishy here.

    6. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      Or you could keep the DISTRIBUTION of child porn illegal, something that's a higher priority for law enforcement than people with some random pictures on their hard drives from some virus anyway.

    7. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by neoform · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having a certain amount of bits stored on hard drives/flash memory/toggle switches arranged in a certain way.

      The creation of those bits required the harming of a child, there's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those bits. Legalizing the ownership of abusive images will only result in MORE children being abused. If they get caugh/prosecuted more in the US, then they will simply outsource to abuse to some poorer country where child abuse isn't heavily prosecuted. All you've done is moved the abuse elsewhere, and made it easier for Americans to get their hands on some despicable material. Your suggestion is a very bad one.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    8. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by kromozone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depraved videos of people being brutally murdered, see "3guys1hammer" for example, are not illegal and they depict the most heinous of acts. I am sure a depraved sociopath or two has masturbated to such videos before as well. Yet, while these videos are legal and a certain segment of the population with extremely violent tendencies may experience sexual pleasure from them, having them legal has not increased the incidence of people making murder/rape videos on a for profit basis. The whole thing has devolved into pure insanity. People being thrown in jail for pictures of the Simpsons having sex, people being framed, the FBI posting links on sites purporting to be child porn, then storing the IP of anyone who visits that URL without verifying in any way that they were in fact referred from the site where the link was posted. So long as the underlying act is kept illegal, legalizing possession of data depicting such acts does nothing to boost crime rates. I would also imagine it would be even easier to locate and prosecute actual pedophiles if such images were legal.

    9. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      OK, the malware then starts sharing the files.

      Actually, IIRC, that's happened before.

    10. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is not - nor has there ever been - a lucrative market for child pornography. Even before the laws that now ban distribution and possession of the stuff were written, and it was available (usually under the counter) from mainstream porn vendors, it just didn't sell very much. Today, with the internet, it's almost exclusively distributed gratis. That's something that people who've been raised to think of everything in transactional economic terms can't seem to grasp: child porn doesn't operates on supply-and-demand terms. So the argument that possession of child porn creates an economic "demand" for it which incentivizes pornographers to produce more... misses the point. Child porn is produced almost exclusively by people who enjoy child porn themselves. They distribute it not for profit, but for the simple reason that they want to share. Whether there's an audience of a dozen out there, or a million, they're going to do the same thing. Now, there are other arguments for the criminalization of possession of child porn, and those may or may not have merit. But the argument that possession creates demand is a fallacy.

    11. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      Man, you and a ton of others needs to learn the difference between moral law and civil law and how the two correlate and interact. To say that legalizing possession of child pornography (certainly not the creation thereof) legitimizes child abuses is quite a baseless argument. You seem to completely ignore the primary debate on this. Here's the other side of the fence for you, easier access to child pornography can allow an outlet for those with pedophilia and make the urges easier to cope with on a social level. Though, I can't help but agree that the penalties for child abuse might need to be raised. Of course, with any jail time, they'll surely get their punishment should anyone else find out about their crime.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    12. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by haeger · · Score: 1

      Except for the "Sexting" images that the kids make themselves. You still go to jail if you have it in your possession, but was anyone harmed?
      Is a kid being harmed if you have that image and use it to wank off to? That's what the law sais.
      What if it's not a sexting image? What if you're doing it to a regular tv-show with kids in it? Are they being harmed?
      You'd be a sick puppy if you did it, but is there abuse going on?

      Don't get me wrong. People who posess these kind of images probably need some sort of professional help, but should they go to jail for harming a child?

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    13. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legalizing the ownership of abusive images will only result in MORE children being abused.

      How? Do you actually believe that there's some industry producing child porn? There isn't. It's almost 100% perverts releasing images into the wild of the net, where they get passed around like MP3s or lolcats. With the stuff so freely available, there' s no need for anyone to pay for it.
       
      Now, suppose we decriminalized possession, or even distribution. How do you imagine that an above-ground kiddie-porn industry would spring up and "monetize" that demand... when it's still illegal to produce the stuff? How would they operate? How would they evade law enforcement? How would they even collect the money you suppose that they'd be making, when banks and credit card processors would be obligated to cooperate with the authorities?

    14. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by selven · · Score: 1

      Legalizing the ownership of abusive images will only result in MORE children being abused.

      Cite evidence please. I offer the following to the contrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

    15. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by shentino · · Score: 1

      It's a game of cat and mouse.

      There are people who are griefers IRL (aka "assholes") that have nothing better to do than get someone else's life ruined. People frame and plant all the time.

      It's all about the lulz.

    16. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Legalising child porn legitimises child abuse, imo

      Yes and thanks to you bass-backwards thinking, two teenagers spent a night in a Pennsylvania jail because they shared "child porn" photos with one another. It's stupid that teens can't even take photos of their own God-created bodies.

      How about taking into account that images are just images (i.e. harmless), and focusing efforts on the criminal who raped a kid.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Yes and thanks to your bass-backwards thinking, two teenagers spent a night in a Pennsylvania jail because they shared "child porn" photos with one another. It's stupid that teens can't even take photos of their own God-created bodies.

      Your bass-backwards thinking has also made it illegal to even own a CARTOON of two kids having sex in Australia. What the hell? There's no victim there stupid shithead Aussie judge! (sigh). How about taking into account that images are just images (i.e. harmless), and focusing efforts on arresting the criminal who raped a kid.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not all that strange logic though, whetehr you agree with it or not. Yes, at the outset it looks like a contradiction...

      However; there is no legal way to download child porn (and I think it should continue to be illegal, if nothing else, to produce child porn). OK, so that means that if P2P is one of the major ways to download child porn, then P2P increases the ability (not sure about motivation) of pornographers. If there's a way to get it to the customer, that increases the ability....

      The first statement; there is a legal way to produce and distribute media. Whether you like the way it works or not, there's a completely legal way to purchase music, movies, etc. I am not defending the *IAA and not defending the way publishers work, etc... but it remains a fact that there is a legal way to get access to those materials. It could logically follow, then, that having a "cheap" illegal way to get access to the same material could reduce income/ability/motiviation to produce new content.

      Do either of those happen? I don't know. But you could, IMO, logically deduce both. They are not mutually exclusive.

    19. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus points to you and all who modded you up for understanding that in different situations different things can happen.

    20. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's something fishy here.

      You mean the qualifier you had to put on the first statement? Yes, that does seem a bit fishy.

      The business model of a record company is not the same as the business model of a child pornography ring.

    21. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legalizing the ownership of abusive images will only result in MORE children being abused.

      No you criminalize the funding of it. They only produce more when there's more money to be made. I imagine they can charge an arm and leg for it in our current state.

    22. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by kklein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The creation of those bits required the harming of a child, there's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those bits.

      But here's where that starts to bug me: What about crime scene photography? Rotten.com? War photography? Possession of pictures of crimes and brutality are not outlawed in any case except this one. Also, no one really argues that Rotten.com should be outlawed because it will result in more crimes/suicides/whatever being committed. Why? Because they're just pictures. We don't know why people are looking at them, and in many cases probably don't want to know.

      The other thing is that these bits are just that: bits. Endlessly copyable, ethereal, and fundamentally removed from the event they are cobbled together to represent. They do not hurt children. The bastards who put them in that order hurt children, and those people are the ones we need to spend our time and energy finding.

      It comes down to a real-crime vs. thoughtcrime problem for me. I care a great deal about stopping people from hurting children. But I don't care if other people whack off to the idea of hurting children. I don't. It's their business. The furor over CP is not about hurting children, it's about hunting down people with unpopular fantasies and treating them as though they hurt children. It doesn't make any sense.

      Furthermore, I think it's a "low-hanging fruit" cop-out by law enforcement. Finding CP producers is very hard detective work, and successes are few and far between. That has got to be frustrating and disheartening. However, if you can declare that anyone possessing endlessly and anonymously copyable images of child abuse as being virtually the same as the producer, that makes things a hell of a lot easier, just by increasing the sheer number of people you're looking for. It's the same, I feel, as the security theater we have at airports now. Finding terrorists is hard work, but any $6/hr idiot can pull a half-empty water bottle out of a backpack. Let's do that instead. People then feel like if they don't bend over and let their rights and freedoms be trampled, they are somehow in favor of child rape or blowing up airplanes. It's a witch hunt, plain and simple.

      Finally, I want to point out that your point of moving abuse offshore is actually more correct than you meant. Yes, that very well might happen, which would put CP on the same economic model as anything else. We in the developed world enjoy coffee and chocolate and cane sugar as basic commodities. Those are produced by slave labor. We just don't see it, so it allows us to feel good about ourselves. Those aren't the only products, though. Everything has slave labor tucked away in it somewhere. Moving our unhealthy obsessions out of sight is totally normal, and there isn't a single person who isn't guilty of exploiting it in developed countries. I'm sorry to be callous, but to that point, I can only respond with "...so?"

      Just because something is reprehensible doesn't mean it should be abolished. There are cost/benefit balances to examine, and I, along with many people who usually post anon about this, just think the cost is way too high to go after people with CP on their hard drives. It violates the rights of all of us, goes against the philosophies of free societies, dilutes law enforcement resources better spent on the producers, and probably won't have any effect anyway.

    23. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assumption that legalizing child "porn" would lead to more abuse of children could be very much wrong.

      As much of a weird and utterly-fucked up idea it is. Legalizing taking pictures of 15-16-17 year olds naked could ensure that any industry that develops around that market could be regulated.

      I would rather see these pornographic photos being taken of people who consent to being photographed, their parents probably signing a release too, and the photographing being taken in a regulated corporate environment.

      I can't help but it's odd that a 15 year old can legally masturbate, they can't just take pictures of it.

      *Posting as Anonymous Coward for a reason...*

    24. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed. In fact, almost all child porn is released to 'friends'. There are rings of child abusers, and they send pictures to each other. Not on the internet, or at least not openly on the internet.

      At some point, someone in that ring is, in fact, in it for a profit, and he'll 'pirate' that image and sell it to other rings.

      At some point after that, it will escape into the wild as some anonymous person puts it on the internet. Sometimes it will skip the middle step.

      Actual child porn producers do not want that image in the wild, because very quickly after it ends up in the wild, the FBI will discover it, and track them down, or at least track the kid down.

      What we need to do is decriminalize possession if the person cooperates with the authorities and helps them backtrack the image.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    25. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      "People download porn and pay for hookers"

      So? We keep repeating that correlation does not imply causation because it really does not. People also eat breakfast before paying for hookers, so why not demand that breakfast be made illegal? Child abusers breath air before abusing children -- so should we claim that breathing is an indication that someone will abuse children?

      "Legalising child porn legitimises child abuse,"

      Nobody is talking about legalizing child pornography in general; the OP was talkign about legalizing the possession of child pornography. What your post conveniently ignores is the reality of our time: someone can obtain child pornography without encouraging its creation in any way. Someone can wind up obtaining child pornography without realizing it. Some teenagers unwittingly make pornographic images of themselves available on the Internet, and sometimes without encouragement. We live in an age where the simple possession of child pornography is not an indication that someone is dangerous or supports dangerous people, and certainly not an indication that they are abusing children.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    26. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It isn't illegal to own a photograph of someone committing homicide. In fact, they print them in the newspaper.

      Yes, molesting children is and should be illegal. Owning a photograph should not be illegal, no matter how despicable the content is.

    27. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Well, really it's a matter of consent - participating in porn will permanently change your life. We have, for good or ill, decided that an 18-year-old is mostly an adult and mostly able to make adult decisions, and that a 17-year-old is not. We just haven't updated the rest of the laws to match consent for sex, for which we have bowed to reality and acknowledged that sleeping with 17-year-olds is sleazy but not really criminal when you're in your 30s. I don't think that photos of 15-16-17 should be generally legal, as such; just that there should be some distinction made between a commercial porn enterprise and sending photos to your boyfriend/girlfriend.

    28. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, if you want to go that way: don't publish the pictures until the 'victim' is 18 and gives permission. That should create an interesting situation...

    29. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But here's where that starts to bug me: What about crime scene photography? Rotten.com? War photography? Possession of pictures of crimes and brutality are not outlawed in any case except this one. Also, no one really argues that Rotten.com should be outlawed because it will result in more crimes/suicides/whatever being committed. Why? Because they're just pictures. We don't know why people are looking at them, and in many cases probably don't want to know.

      Of course, people don't usually commit those crimes to profit from the pictures, which may be the case with kiddie porn

    30. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Eh?

      Both are illegal activities which are now relatively safe and easy due to p2p.

      The fishy part is whether you did notice the error in your logic or not.

    31. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      They distribute [kiddy porn] not for profit, but for the simple reason that they want to share.

      You're no doubt right in some cases. I suspect, however, that the main reason they don't try to sell the kiddy porn is that selling it would leave a trail of financial transaction records that would make it much easier for law enforcement to catch them.

      People with foot fetishes are willing to pay money for pictures of sexy feet, and there exist other people who are willing to create those pictures and sell them to the foot fetishists.

      People who like naked lactating pregnant women are willing to pay money for pictures of them, and there exist other people who are willing to create those pictures and cater to that market.

      If child pornography was practical to sell without being thrown in jail, what makes you think things would be any different in that case?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    32. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having your body parts aligned in a certain way near a child.

      Wait, what?

    33. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need to do is decriminalize possession if the person cooperates with the authorities and helps them backtrack the image.

      The high penalties are there to provide law enforcement leverage. i.e. help us backtrack the pictures and we'll see about reducing the sentence you're looking at.

      note: the offender is seriously fucked, shorter sentence or not. Inmates universally hate pedos.

    34. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Its crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having a certain amount of bits stored on hard drives/flash memory/toggle switches arranged in a certain way.

      Non-public digital photographs of a murder, or electronic copies of classified documents, are also just bits arranged in a certain way...

      The "bits" aren't the problem, it's how you came about them, and what they indicate that is at issue. In fact you can legally generate all the images of child pornography you want, as long as it isn't real.

      You're welcome to cat /dev/urandom to file$n.bmp and see how much child porn you get out of it...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    35. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I think it's a "low-hanging fruit" cop-out ... It's a witch hunt, plain and simple.

      Excellent post, and a particularly insightful paragraph. Thank you.

    36. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      The creation of those bits required the harming of a child, there's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those bits.

      Sure enough. The problem is that there is no such distinction. The problem with the child porn debate is that most people who partake in the debate have never seen anything that could be classified as child porn. If you've spent long enough on 4chan, you must have seen 3 types of pictures that classify as child porn : jailbait, which is teenagers taking pictures of themselves, and which is never removed by moderators because it's harmless and who's to say how old the person in the picture really is (these days it's like we legally should ask people their ID before enjoying the sight of their boobs on picture), CP which is usually about the same thing except with prepubescent children, which does get removed by mods, and the much rarer shock child porn which looks more like people's idea of child porn, that is some sick fuck doing something sick with a child/baby.

      The point is, there's no distinction, and if you're found with pictures of a 15 year old with big boobs taking a picture of herself in the mirror, it'll be called child porn, and people will react as if you jacked off to picture of a guy taking a dump on a baby. In other words, the problem is with overly broad labels that are used against you to describe something you do on the most harmless end of the spectrum of what the label describes, while acting like you've did something at the worst end of the label's spectrum. That's exactly why Obama was labelled a socialist, because he actually is the FDR kind of socialist, but people used to it make him sound like the bastard child of Karl Marx and Stalin.

      I guess my real point is, LEGALIZE JAILBAIT.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    37. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government should put all seized images in a central repository open to the public. That way people wanting to view such images just go to this vast archive and get everything for free, not generating any more demand for creation of new CP. Distribution of any images not part of this repository would be illegal, of course.

    38. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by IgePanda · · Score: 1

      Its crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having a certain amount of bits stored on hard drives/flash memory/toggle switches arranged in a certain way.

      Even though I disagree with you, you kind of have a point. It seems the catch a pedo show gives people a slap on the wrist for going out of their way to try to hookup with someone who claims to be very underage, but at the same time they are throwing the book at the slightly more passive criminals who download material from others who committed a more serious crime.

      I don't think this porn should be legal in the slightest, but there is something seriously wrong when people who are going out of their way to corrupt a child are getting off easy in contrast to those who get a stiffy watching sicko stuff.

       

    39. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If child pornography was practical to sell without being thrown in jail, what makes you think things would be any different in that case?

      We don't need to ask hypotheticals; all we need to do is look at all of the varying degress of child porn made in the former soviet states; everything from soft-core 'modelling' to nudity and possibly even sexually explicit content is produced using children from desperate families and sold on specialty sites on the internet.

    40. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      Pirating such [picture, music, any media] does not pay money to the producer and so the producer will lose a lot of money (RIAA and MPAA both said that piracy hurts the industry).

      If I never had any intention of purchasing that CD - ever - how does my downloading it prevent the producer from making any money? The producer can still sell 5,000,000 copies of his latest album. He just won't sell 5,000,001 copies, but he never would have anyway because I wouldn't have made the purchase with or without my downloading of the 'pirated' version.

      Besides, why should we have to pay, repeatedly, for work that someone already performed, and got paid for?

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    41. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      The creation of those bits required the harming of a child, there's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those bits.

      The creation of those crime scene photographs, or war photographs, required the harming of human beings. There's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those photographs.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    42. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by neoform · · Score: 1

      But here's where that starts to bug me: What about crime scene photography? Rotten.com? War photography? Possession of pictures of crimes and brutality are not outlawed in any case except this one. Also, no one really argues that Rotten.com should be outlawed because it will result in more crimes/suicides/whatever being committed. Why? Because they're just pictures. We don't know why people are looking at them, and in many cases probably don't want to know.

      Rotten.com does not commit murder or genocide, this comparison is moot. Little kids don't just fall naked onto a guy's dick and a camera accidentally goes off. These kids being photographed are being done so for profit and gain, the people collecting these photos are often paying money to the abusers for them. No the photo collectors aren't abusing any kids, but a mob boss isn't killing anyone either, he's just ordering the hits; does that make him any less guilty?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    43. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by neoform · · Score: 1

      Few people kill with the intention of taking pictures and selling them on the internet.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    44. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by neoform · · Score: 1

      Jailbait is the not what we're talking about here. When people say CP, they really mean *kids*. There is a lot of porn involving CHILDREN (not in the 15 year old sense, try the 5-12 year old sense). I've been on 4chan plenty. People post stuff to get a rise out of other members, posting a 15 year old girl who took a picture of herself and posted it online didn't hurt anyone; a picture of a 40 year old having sex with a 10 year old certainly did.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    45. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Again, "The problem is that there is no such distinction", legally.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    46. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If child pornography was practical to sell without being thrown in jail, what makes you think things would be any different in that case?"

      TYou answered your own question. It would still be illegal to produce, so a financial paper trail would eliminate the profit motive to produce it.

    47. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Which results in people getting less jail time if they actually are involved in a child porn ring, as opposed to having the stuff put o their computer without their knowledge, or having downloading it from some generic porn site without the knowledge the people were underaged.

      At some point, rewarding people for 'talking' via the making deals starts rewarding the worse criminals because the other criminals have nothing to bargain with.

      Which is why I said it the way I did. People should not have any punishment for possession if they cooperate with the police, even if said cooperation goes nowhere, not if they have valuable information and turn it over, which is normally how 'deals' work.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    48. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rotten.com does not commit murder or genocide, this comparison is moot. Little kids don't just fall naked onto a guy's dick and a camera accidentally goes off. These kids being photographed are being done so for profit and gain, the people collecting these photos are often paying money to the abusers for them. No the photo collectors aren't abusing any kids, but a mob boss isn't killing anyone either, he's just ordering the hits; does that make him any less guilty?

      You truly have no idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of CP "consumers" neither pay for the material nor order for it to be made. Likewise, for the producers, the profit motive is practically non-existent because the potential penalties do not justify the meager profit. The comparison between some jerk downloading CP pictures off usenet and a mob boss ordering hits on people is beyond absurd and demonstrates the leap in logic people have to make in order to defend these ridiculous laws.

    49. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some teenagers unwittingly make pornographic images of themselves available on the Internet

      And some teenagers do it willingly.

    50. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by clone53421 · · Score: 2

      OK, so that means that if P2P is one of the major ways to download child porn, then P2P increases the ability (not sure about motivation) of pornographers.

      The ones who are in it for the money don't make any money off of P2P; they have other ways of distributing their illicit goods for compensation. Thus, P2P doesn't affect their ability or motivation. If anything, it would be a negative impact in the same way it is for the RIAA/MPAA.

      The ones who aren't in it for the money are generally sick fucks who abuse their own children. They'll continue to do so whether or not their stuff finds its way onto P2P networks. If anything, they'd want to keep their stuff off the P2P networks for fear of being identified.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    51. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. They're both about whoring out 16-year-old girls for profit.

      This thread is now about Miley Cyrus.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    52. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      If it's caused by malware there's no mens rea.

    53. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Problem is, when it's child porn, due process and presumption of innocence are thrown out the window.

      And, even if the courts do treat the suspect fairly, the suspect will always have the brand of having been charged with possession or distribution of child porn, and will be an unemployable outcast of society.

    54. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Criton · · Score: 1

      I agree and it's fantastically wasteful to jail someone just for having jpegs on their harddrive. When someone is sent to jail for a an infraction that harms no one such as having a few random bits on the HD or possessing a joint it costs the state $25,000 USD a year on average. This is for a standard security prison Max security is much higher. You could give 50 needy children new text books and school lunches for a year for that. Heck you could put someone though a state university for that. Prosecuting thought crimes is not only as morally wrong as child molestation it also is very very expensive.

    55. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not read the rest of his post? He was saying that your way of life (and our society) is almost certainly a result of child labour. I would doubt very much that you are trying to stop people buying coffee or clothes for that reason. Your comparison with someone looking at those pictures and a mob boss is nonsensical. No one was saying that the pictures are accidental, and I no one was saying that people who pay these people shouldn't be prosecuted.

    56. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by neoform · · Score: 1

      So why not complain about the lack of distinction instead of the entire idea? You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    57. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by neoform · · Score: 1

      You truly have no idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of CP "consumers" neither pay for the material nor order for it to be made.

      .... and how do you know that?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    58. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Way to miss his entire point. They're both relatively safe and easy due to p2p, and they supposedly have opposite effects on their parent industries. One half of that statement is logical, the other is not.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    59. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pictures of a 15 year old with big boobs

      CP ON WIKIPEDIA [NSFW!] , ZOMG take it down, TAKE IT DOWN!

    60. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      So why not complain about the lack of distinction instead of the entire idea?

      Um, he is.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    61. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me?

      My point was entirely that GP changed from logic[1] to bullshit[2] from paragraph to other, just because both use same SW.

      [1] getting something for free decreases market value
      [2] getting something for money increases incentive to produce it

    62. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Moar Wikipedia CP!! That's some sick shit right there! Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on this! The Sistine Chapel does though.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    63. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Wait, "getting something for money increases incentive to produce it" = bullshit? Please explain.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    64. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Because most of them are teenagers sharing pictures with their boy/girl friends.

      Depending on who you believe, the numbers are from 20 to 40%. Multiply that by the number of high schoolers in the US... I don't know how many real child-abusing pedophiles exist out there, but I highly doubt it's anywhere close to that many.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    65. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't photographs.

      The article for Gigantomastia contains an actual photograph of an actual 15-year-old with actual boobs which are actually big... and an actual caption which actually says that.

    66. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides the obvious retort of "how do you know if they do?", it's pretty simple to come to the conclusion that profit is rarely a motive. Do google searches for CP busts in the last 5 years. See how many have anything to do with purchasing online and how many are related to files being shared on P2P or whatever. Mix those with the increasing number of arrests for teenagers taking pictures of themselves and it's clear that the original intent of the CP laws (to kill the market demand) is outdated and ineffective.

    67. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Did the OP claim "getting something for money increases incentive to produce it" or the opposite?

      Think about it. Think what is bullshit and what is not.

    68. Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'm just trying to make sense of your post. Please make your point in a less cryptic and folded manner.

      OP was pointing out a valid fact:

      Getting CP for free increases incentive to produce it.
      Getting music for free decreases incentive to produce it.

      You can't have it both ways.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  9. Flying the false flag by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If everyone downloads kiddie porn, then that makes it really hard to pick out and prosecute the people who do it deliberately.
    This case was kinda stupid in that it went faster than humanly possible. I expect that newer versions will be a bit more subtle.

    Personally I think trojans like this are a good idea precisely because they make it difficult to prosecute someone for having a copy of the stuff -- possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy. The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it. The politicians get their public back-slapping for a job well done, meanwhile the children who are really being hurt by the creation of the stuff aren't any better off than they were before.

    Its a case of the politicians deliberately not thinking of the children at all, only their careers, but proclaiming that they are protecting children -- 100% hypocrisy.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's even funnier when you compare the stand on downloading kiddy porn and downloading movies/music/software for free.

      1. Downloading copyrighted material illegally (not paying the authors when they ask for the payment) hurts the whole $content industry and will lead to less $content being produced, because nobody wants to work for free.
      2. Downloading kiddy porn without paying for it helps the industry and will lead to more of it being produced = more children being abused.

      Does this mean that the only true artists are the kiddy porn producers who appreciate that their product is being used and produce it just for the fun of it?

      And yes, trojans like this are good. Now will somebody make one that also downloads music and software in addition to kiddy porn? Since most users don't find out about what various software does to their PCs until the PC starts acting up more than they can handle, it should DDoS the MAFIAA and child porn prosecutors. Except this time make it a worm, so it spreads without the user having to click on some link.

    2. Re:Flying the false flag by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Secretly downloading porn to someones computer to create a cover is hardly moral.

      Never said it was.

      But life is not black and white, and all of your examples are either whacko (like the US government would be mad that we download secret information from their enemies) or totally missing the point of thought crimes (planting weapons).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Flying the false flag by rwwyatt · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I must respectfully disagree with a number of your points.

      possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy.

      The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

      The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it.

      There are ways to catch the manufacturer, but what other freedoms will be lost in the balance. Shall we have to provide ID to buy a Camera?

    4. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You see nothing wrong with charging people with a crime, for viewing a picture? Or being in possession of one? It may not be thought crime, but it is persecution especially when you consider that we aren't just talking about actual child abuse either, where you would have an argument concerning actual crime taking place to produce the picture (which still doesn't justify throwing people in jail for possessing the picture), but CGI images have resulted in child porn prosecutions, as have drawings and comics.

      This is at its core, prosecution and persecution targeted toward people the public does not like.

    5. Re:Flying the false flag by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because it's easier to assuage the public outcry and win PoliticanPoints by attacking those who possess it than going after those who produce it (since a lot of it isn't in the States, for one thing) and/or saving the kids.

      There was a great article in the Economist recently about how there's no motivation for politicians to care at all about the suspect's side (felons don't vote, for one thing), so laws just become more and more unreasonable and the rights of pedophiles get eroded worse and worse.

      Ever since that one girl had to Register after having naked pics of herself on her cell phone when underage, then charged as an adult, I've had basically zero respect for these laws, even as the thought of CP makes me sick.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    6. Re:Flying the false flag by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Interesting

      possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy.

      The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

      Actually thought crime is often used to refer to something where all you're doing is sitting around not harming anyone (as opposed to victimless crimes).

      Here's a fun thing from Denmark (age of consent is 15).

      If I (32) have sex with a 17-year-old girl, that is perfectly legal.
      If anyone takes a photo of it, draws it, writes about it in detail or films it - it is child pornography. And as I'm am the only 'adult' in this, I will bear the full brunt of the law's punishment. Even if she were to set up hidden cameras without me knowing it, I'd still be charged with manufacturing. It's classified as child pornography and not pornography with a minor (under 18).

      But if no-one watches, it's perfectly legal.

      That is fucking scary.

    7. Re:Flying the false flag by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

      Uh yeah, what do you think a thought crime is - something that is not a crime?

      There are ways to catch the manufacturer, but what other freedoms will be lost in the balance. Shall we have to provide ID to buy a Camera?

      So, your argument is that because it is too hard to actually save any children from abuse, we should just fuck with people we think are gross?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Flying the false flag by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Ever since that one girl had to Register after having naked pics of herself on her cell phone when underage, then charged as an adult, I've had basically zero respect for these laws, even as the thought of CP makes me sick.

      It is a testament to how crazy society is that the result of all these bullshit kiddie porn sexting prosecutions has not been to fix the law, but rather to happily fuck over the children themselves.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they say drugs are banned because you are funding criminal groups. They will still put you into jail for growing marihuana or opium poppies or coca(if that is even possible) for your own consumption.
      I can only say that you must be new here.

    10. Re:Flying the false flag by shentino · · Score: 1

      One may as well make it illegal to...

      LOSE THE GAME!!!!

      Those of you who know what the hell I'm talking about, you will understand that criminalizing people over something they have no control over is ludicrous.

    11. Re:Flying the false flag by maxume · · Score: 1

      At worst it is irritatingly contradictory, not scary, as there is a clear path towards avoiding any question of having broken the law.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Flying the false flag by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      there is a clear path towards avoiding any question of having broken the law.

      Sure, don't have sex with people who are minors. Even if you are a minor yourself. And you're past the age of consent.

      God forbid that 15-year-old kids who have sex as they are legally entitled to actually have sex, because if someone depicts it they're not purveyors of child pornography.

      So no, it's not "irritatingly contradictory" it's fucking scary.

    13. Re:Flying the false flag by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Personally I think trojans like this are a good idea precisely because they make it difficult to prosecute someone for having a copy of the stuff

      Sure, so long as you're not the poor bastard who has to come up with $250k to stay out of jail (and probably still loses all his neighbor friends). I know I couldn't pull that kind of cash out of my ass - can you?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    14. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think YOU are missing the point, however. How can a crime be victimless? The deed was already done by somebody else. The accused only has an image of what occurred, and what occurred did not actually involve the accused. Throwing the accused away into PMITA prison for several years will not somehow fix whatever happened to the supposedly exploited child went through (and might I point out that what is considered a "child" by law is not necessarily the same thing as defined by biology... having boobs and bush already makes one not biologically a child). And let's carry it a step further... You correctly state that it is illegal to even view an image of child porn... But let's say for the sake of argument that somebody hacked into cnn.com and put up a bunch of kiddie porn on the front page. Congrats, that person just created a crapload of felons out there by no fault or action of their own. Let's seem them have to go to court and convince everybody that they had no intention to view the porn (is that even considered a valid defense?). So now explain to me how possession of "child porn" is nothing more than a "though crime"... I'd love to hear about how the subject of the "child porn" gets harmed more for every copy of the file out there...

      I would say that rights and freedoms were already the baby tossed out with the bathwater when possession of "child porn" became illegal.

    15. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nigga, same thing happens in the US. I had a friend he was screwing a 17 year old slut from around the corner.
      One day the guy decided that was time to find a new bitch and move on with his life. Well, the little poor teenager come to him and said:"look I got pics and videos of us fucking and they all show a date on it". He was like "and? Whatever bitch". Well she said "Whatever my ass! I can take those pics and videos to the police station and tell them you raped me, and you going to spend a long season in the can, so forget about that ho and stay with me". Well, they are actually still married and have 3 kids. Another nice love story in the USA...

    16. Re:Flying the false flag by maxume · · Score: 1

      You were complaining about the adult involved being responsible if the act were observed. There isn't an adult involved if it is a pair of 15 year-olds.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:Flying the false flag by baKanale · · Score: 1

      It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

      So if one were to, under cover of night, replace a billboard along a major road with child porn, would they have to arrest everyone who drove past it during rush hour the next morning?

    18. Re:Flying the false flag by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Both are scary. Having kids who are legally allowed to have sex face child pornography charges because one of them wrote about it explicitly in his/her diary is scary.

      Being allowed to do something completely legal (32-year-old fucking a 17-year-old) and have it not only become illegal without your knowledge (and even with you being misled) but have it become something that will ruin your life is scary.

      All-right, you're probably from somewhere with a higher AoC, so let's change the age difference a bit.

      The girl turns 18 that day, the guy being 1 day younger. They have sex, like they have for the last two years. Now, today the guy decides to surprise her by filming them both - but doesn't tell her. That's still child pornography by this crazy law. And since she's an adult (by one day) she's supposed to get punished even more. How much were you brain washed as a kid to think that this isn't scary?

      Imagine, for a moment, something similar was applied to other circumstances. You're allowed to have a cellphone. You're allowed to make calls from your cellphone. You're allowed to bring your cellphone with you to the airport. But, if you happen to be seated in one of the areas that are deemed 'top secret danger zones', and these zones are unmarked, you will be facing charges for being a terrorist, plotting to commit mass murder as well as treason.

      The fact of the matter is, Denmark has had 15 as the age of consent for more than 20 years, have refused to put in legislation restricting the age of whom AoC-minors can have sex with, but have then added a clause so fucked up that it's going to ruin your life.

    19. Re:Flying the false flag by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, be sure to post an update when the law you are complaining about starts to ruin your life.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    20. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that point, he'll either be in prison, or prohibited from using to the internet ("to protect the children" of course), so he won't be able to post.

    21. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

      Uh yeah, what do you think a thought crime is - something that is not a crime?

      I guess someone needs to brush up on their Orwell.

      So, your argument is that because it is too hard to actually save any children from abuse, we should just fuck with people we think are gross?

      Naturally. It costs the taxpayers less than trying to hunt for the real source, and does far more to help support our poor, struggling prison industry. Anything else would be unamerican.

    22. Re:Flying the false flag by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Sure, so long as you're not the poor bastard who has to come up with $250k to stay out of jail (and probably still loses all his neighbor friends). I know I couldn't pull that kind of cash out of my ass - can you?

      What's the difference between someone falsely accused because of this trojan and someone falsely accused like Commodore White?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:Flying the false flag by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      None, so far as I can tell. Get accused and nobody knows you any more; I'd say that the investigations should be confidential, but I sort of expect the word to get out anyway.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    24. Re:Flying the false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, be sure to post an update when the law on making blacks, jews, mexicans, muslims, asians (strike out everything that applies to you and your family) go to jail for looking at a member of other groups (whiltes and whatever applies to you) the wrong way starts ruining your life. The law will not apply to you, so why bother.

    25. Re:Flying the false flag by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      but rather to happily fuck over the children themselves

      And then, in the ultimate act of hypocrisy, telling them that it's being done for their own good.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    26. Re:Flying the false flag by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      None, so far as I can tell.

      Precisely. So accelerating the process only brings an end to the stupidity that much sooner.

      I'd say that the investigations should be confidential,

      Confidential investigations are the neighbor of secret courts.
      Making arrests and trials public is a primary check on law enforcement.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    27. Re:Flying the false flag by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

      Why? Because, ZOMG, he might enjoy it? You're inside his head, so you get to make it a crime based on what he's thinking. Totally not a thought crime, nope.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    28. Re:Flying the false flag by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Why, because anecdote is the singular of data?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    29. Re:Flying the false flag by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the cops should hush up that there is an investigation, just that they shouldn't say what they're investigating to anyone that doesn't need to know until they plan to arrest/indict. They also shouldn't allow the DA to rant about the case in a press conference and identify anyone specific until the trial is concluded. I'm sure something like a CP investigation will leak out more than other types, but right now, they aren't even trying.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    30. Re:Flying the false flag by Criton · · Score: 1

      The people who pass these laws realy are hypocrites. These same people would and often do bring harm to children if it would farther their career. They have caused needless wars where children are burned with white phosphorous and poisoned with depleted uranium. Yes I'm making a stab at the right wing conservative movement in the US.

  10. And this new "virus" I "got" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Downloads all the latest movie and software releases, and stores them on my computer! It's madness, I say, madness.

    1. Re:And this new "virus" I "got" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloads all the latest movie and software releases, and stores them on my computer! It's madness, I say, madness.

      This is piracy.

    2. Re:And this new "virus" I "got" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOOSH!!

      that's the sound of the joke you didn't get

  11. 40 sites per minute? by bill98122 · · Score: 1

    The real question is "Why do these same prosecutors allow so many child porn sites to exist?" Because it's easier to pursue innocent victims?

    1. Re:40 sites per minute? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because there is, to my understanding two kinds of "child porn".

      1) The "core" material that is clearly children, clearly porn and prosecuted as such pretty much everywhere.
      2) The "fringe" material that is teen but maybe not 18, suggestive poses, artistic or not so artistic nudes, CG art, stories, roleplay or whatever else that the US may consider child porn but at least parts of the world do not. They're an endless source of easy convictions that make it appear that they're tough on all the nasty bogeymen.

      For example, here in Norway there was a "child porn" conviction that I read about in the paper, where the defendant disputed that any children was involved, and it quoted part of the main actress' bio. I found this very strange so I googled for it and it was "Tiny Tove", who was a Danish porn star that starred in a lot of dubious movies in the 1970s but was 18+ in all of them. None the less, he still got convicted because she was playing a much younger role in the movies and that is illegal in Norway. In other words, it's not "child porn" in 95%+ of the world and you can download it from any adult site or p2p network. If you turn off safe search on google you don't even have to do that. But if I did that, I'd be watching child porn under Norwegian law. It's just so fucked up you wouldn't believe it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:40 sites per minute? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      You think thats fucked up? Some guy got done for child porn in Australia for simpsons porn!

    3. Re:40 sites per minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is scary. From what I understand it is illegal to be in possession of drawn child porn in Sweden which would mean that nearly everybody who has every watched hentai on their computer (most hentai have at least a token loli character) or similar would be guilty. Fortunately the law has never been used as far as I know but it is still scary. Posting AC because I've moderated in this thread.

    4. Re:40 sites per minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even cartoons that pretend to be children are considered child porn here in the U.S. No children involved.

    5. Re:40 sites per minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he still got convicted because she was playing a much younger role in the movies and that is illegal in Norway"

      So by that law the movie American Beauty and Lolita would be illegal since the 18+ actresses were playing underage girls? Crazy...

    6. Re:40 sites per minute? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      In my experience, category (2) is not any easier to find and is harder to successfully prosecute. The difference is that stories about it are much more common -- and with good reason. There should be coverage of cases that are pushing the boundaries of where laws can be applied. Also, media coverage is generally the result of someone fighting a charge, whereas most clear-cut cases of CP possession and distribution (some 90-95%) are plea-bargained and uncontested. When someone from category (1) goes to jail, there may be a short segment on the local news or a brief article in the local paper -- more visible coverage only occurs if the crime was more egregious. When someone from category (2) goes to jail -- or doesn't -- it shows up in more major news, Slashdot, etc.

  12. Guess that lets my cat off the hook by gmagill · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess that lets my cat of the hook...

    1. Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook by gmagill · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook by gmagill · · Score: 2, Funny
    3. Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Guess that lets my cat of the hook...

      Not. He was caught with kitty porn.

    4. Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that, not only are you talking to yourself, but you're using the Internet to do so? You should probably seek professional help...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook by gmagill · · Score: 1

      yeah, the beer is confusing me. But I'm flattered that you noticed.

    6. Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook by consonant · · Score: 1

      Dewd, at least RTFS. It's not kitty porn..

  13. THAT'S NOT MALWARE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 4chan /fit/ Pedobear senses are tingling. What. does. it. MEAN?!?!

  14. perhaps it downloaded... by weirdo557 · · Score: 0

    perhaps it just tried to cache 4chan

  15. The Perfect Frame by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think Fred might beat you to that promotion? Think your wife was a bit too friendly toward Bob at the party? Think Doctor Franzhaufer gave you an unfair grade? Don't like your new uppity neighbor?

    Download child pornography to their computers. Sure, they'll whine about their "rights" and their "innocence", but who's going to believe a creepy pervert? Even if the faggy liberal court lets him off on some technicality, his career will be ruined, his friends will leave him, and he'll probably end up shooting himself.

    You win, right? You showed him who's boss.

    --

    This country is losing all its marbles at once Among our other problems, we're engaging in a good old-fashioned witch hunt against child pornographers. No accusation is too specious, nor any policy too draconian. Never mind if due process rights are bulldozed, and people who've served out their sentences are branded for life and forced to live under overpasses. Never mind that the beachheld of practically all Internet censorship schemes has been combating child pornography. Never mind the culture of fear that can justify anything.

    At least we're getting those evil-doers, right?

    1. Re:The Perfect Frame by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      There is an antidote though: Child porn on (nearly) every computer!
      I mean, the law system basically already has that implemented: Everybody is guilty somewhere.
      So it will make no difference if they pick one of us at random, because he is one of the 99.99% with child porn on the computer. Or because he is one of the 99.99% with $OTHER_CATCH22_CRIMINAL_OFFENSE.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:The Perfect Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Lord, man, THINK of the CHILDREN. Or maybe you're a perv too?

    3. Re:The Perfect Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, there's an even better way to do it. Simply send child porn to their cell phone.

    4. Re:The Perfect Frame by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      And some pot with every chicken!

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    5. Re:The Perfect Frame by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      That's just what they are guilty of...

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    6. Re:The Perfect Frame by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      So it will make no difference if they pick one of us at random, because he is one of the 99.99% with child porn on the computer. Or because he is one of the 99.99% with $OTHER_CATCH22_CRIMINAL_OFFENSE.

      While I see your point, I have to disagree. Being sent to prison as a "convicted pedophile" for N years is significantly worse than being sent to prison for N years for just about any other crime.

      Don't forget that the people who in the prison with you have the same prejudices as the general population, and much less subtle ways of expressing their disapproval.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:The Perfect Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Download child pornography to their computers. Sure, they'll whine about their "rights" and their "innocence", but who's going to believe a creepy pervert? Even if the faggy liberal court lets him off on some technicality, his career will be ruined, his friends will leave him, and he'll probably end up shooting himself.

      Don't risk it yourself, create a program that gets some content from sites in the leaked Australian filter blacklist in a human like manner and then deletes itself.

  16. Pedophilia has a NEW GO-TO Excuse by Derpnooner · · Score: 0

    John Stossel and his crew better be getting into shape for the upcoming child-porn craze that will be hitting the streets. Pedophiles make Nazi-Zombies seem "nice," and "tolerable."

    --
    In Soviet Russia, road forks you!
  17. ikee virus? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    At least it wasn't 100000 Rick Rolls.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  18. Re:Rources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of it is resources. Another part is placement. It's easy enough to point at a child porn site and say, "We should get rid of that." But what if it's in another country? What if that country has less-strict laws about what you can and can't put on the net? What if the country has a small, taxed police force concerned with other things? It can take a lot of effort to try to communicate with other law enforcement groups (especially across national and cultural borders).

    Also, a lot of police don't have the time to go looking for this stuff. Many reports of computers containing kiddie porn come from people who know the suspect, rather than from investigation. Angry exs, co-workers, etc will report this sort of thing, which would otherwise go unnoticed.

  19. Re:Rources by bill98122 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is not resources. It is a matter of will. If a US government agency can kidnap a person off an Italian street and ship them off to another country to be tortured, then the US government can shut down child porn site _no matter where_ it is located.

  20. Now all we have to do, ... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ...is create a bunch of honeypot websites for politicians and fatcats.

    And then trigger the appropriate middle-of-the-night "clubbing cops" raids on the targets.

    But don't get too greedy. It must stay believable to the general public. (Including the media. Including "FOX & 'tards".)

    P.S.: I think, we, the people, should have our own intelligence service. With the ability to filter out things that were aquired with proper methods. With a huge knowledge base. With native "agents" in every country. In every company and government office. And with trust relationship management. Make it a game. And let millions of people play it. Let's see who 0wns who then ^^ (Yes I know... nice dream though.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Now all we have to do, ... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      P.S.: I think, we, the people, should have our own intelligence service. With the ability to filter out things that were aquired with proper methods. With a huge knowledge base. With native "agents" in every country. In every company and government office. And with trust relationship management. Make it a game. And let millions of people play it. Let's see who 0wns who then ^^ (Yes I know... nice dream though.)

      I believe we call that wikipedia.

  21. Complicates prosecution by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Now if anybody is caught with illegal stuff, they can just claim a virus did it. There's not way to really prove otherwise unless the person is filmed actually typing/clicking for it. Otherwise, anything you can do on a PC a virus can also do.

    1. Re:Complicates prosecution by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Well in the case of Fiola, many different factors pointed towards his innocence. The first thing the forensic investigator noticed was that it was severely infected with malware. The computer wasn't being patched regularly because the new laptop wasn't added to the list of official computers that the MS server was supposed to patch. The firewall had not been turned on. Many of the porn had been downloaded to the machine when there was no browser or user activity, etc.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Complicates prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. There should be very compelling evidence in order to get a conviction for such a serious crime (serious in the public's eye at least)

  22. Re:Rources by jonbryce · · Score: 1

    The US has an extradition treaty with the EU, and in this case, they knew who they were looking for. If all you have is an IP address and it is a country you don't have an extradition treaty with, it is a bit more difficult.

  23. Re:Rources by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Informative

    To be fair the police don't really have to do it on their own. The Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk/ is pretty much dedicated to wiping the stuff off the net.

    Perhaps the government can do something similar. In fact, use prosecuted pedos to hunt the stuff down while in prison. If it resides in another country then just get ISPs blocking it. There is still proxies but you'll never get rid it completely but if you make it nearly impossible get then that's a good start.

  24. standards of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    Many prosecutors say blaming a computer virus for child porn is a new version of an old ploy.

    "We call it the SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It," says James Anderson, a federal prosecutor in Wyoming.

    This sounds like some prosecutors either don't understand the prevalance of malware in PCs, or they don't take the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of justice very seriously. I think the prosecutors need additional confirming evidence beyond finding a stash of bad stuff on someone's PC, so that innocent people don't find themselves in the same bind as this man did.

    Incidentally, it doesn't surprise me that the Attorney General's office involved was that being run by Martha Coakley, now a candidate for Ted Kennedy's old US Senate seat. She is useless, known to look the other way when well-connected politicians and executives are accused of corruption and/or conflicts of interest.

  25. prosecutors by belmolis · · Score: 1

    What gets me are the confident assertions that people cannot unintentionally download child pornography by prosecutors who have no idea what they are talking about. It's disturbing both that people pay attention to them and that they are more interested in getting convictions than in consulting real experts.

  26. In other news ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute -- an inhuman feat

    In other news, slashdotters lined up in droves asking "where can I get the adult | lesbian | furries version of this script?"

    1. Re:In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any slashdotter worth his salt has already wrote a script to do just that (unless he hit 70 by the time Internet appeared).

  27. I assume this virus is for getting revenge by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, you gotta be a real ass to do something like this to someone.

    It's this sort of thing that will give governments an excuse to try and control the net even more and give companies a reason to close up their hardware and in the end most people end up with less freedom.

    The net was nice before every tard was on it waiting to be exploited.

    1. Re:I assume this virus is for getting revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was that exactly? This story reminds me of the story about the guy who got owned by Netbus and child porn, in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netbus

  28. Grain of salt. by SkOink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whenever I hear about something like this, I'm always a little bit skeptical. What would a malware writer stand to gain by writing some malware that "accessed 40 child porn sites per minute" and installing it on some guy's computer? It's pretty absurd when you think about it.

    Does anybody really believe that there's some spergy criminal mastermind out there who spends his nights optimizing his malware's CPSPM rate? One would assume that anybody with enough knowledge to even write the software is probably already connected to the people who produce that stuff, or else he wouldn't know where to get it in the first place (and so how could he write malware to do it for him?)

    --
    ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    1. Re:Grain of salt. by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might be the case that the malware was designed to turn the computers into hosts for redistributing the material so that those hosting it wouldn't need to host their site on anything that could be traced back to them.

    2. Re:Grain of salt. by Gerafix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously? It's the ultimate revenge plot in the west. Even if you're just accused of having child porn, regardless if it's true or not, your life is ruined from that moment on. All for what amounts to what, maybe a couple hours of programming? Talk about return on investment, and probably no way to trace the program back to the 'hacker' means almost no liability. It's the perfect dish to serve cold.

    3. Re:Grain of salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can think of two possibilities:

      Framing. This is where the target gets the malware which downloads child porn to the computer. Pretty effective attack, if you ask me. It's obvious that it worked, too.

      As a proxy. Somebody wants to get child porn and so they use this computer as a proxy to get what they actually want -- the computer downloads a bunch of porn and tells the writer what was downloaded through some covert channel. Since child porn is such a public crime, it will be completely obvious when the intermediate computer's owner is caught, so there is no chance of getting trapped in a honeypot and actually getting the writer. By the time anybody realizes what is going on (11 months down the road), the actual "bad guy" has moved on to somebody else.

    4. Re:Grain of salt. by jisatsusha · · Score: 1

      Revenge, most likely.

    5. Re:Grain of salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, he's trying to get child porn. Maybe the malware writer has a stable job, family, etc. He doesn't want to risk getting caught, so he gets his victim to download child porn for him. The malware writer can also store his collection on the victim's computer.

      So whenever he wants to see his collection, he just logs in and views it.

    6. Re:Grain of salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be simply a case of the compromised box being used as an ftp site.

      The malware simply transfers whatever files its targeted to find to your box. Others who go to pay sites or private group chats get a link to the the ftp for download. It is actually a pretty common and widespread hack. And don't think that you will find the files by simply looking at the file extensions. Typically the file names are obfuscated on upload and named correctly as necessary on the fly. Further the files often get buried in your windows system sub directories amongst the cryptic crap that microsoft and other legitimate vendors stick there.

    7. Re:Grain of salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To use the victim's computer as a proxy or host (protecting the identity of the actual user)?

      As a malicious prank or revenge attack?

      Be as skeptical as you like, but this just exposes an enormous hole in CP prosecutions and people shouldn't have to prove their innocence - they're entitled to an assumption of it until the prosecution proves their case. If there is doubt that the defendant even knew about the content being downloaded, the case is a joke.

      Sadly "think of the children" hysteria is often justified using arguments such as yours.

    8. Re:Grain of salt. by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      Last time I visited one of "those" sites, (in the interest of pure research of course) it was full of ads. Even if they get a few fractions of a penny per ad, if you infect enough computers to start banging on your sites you can drive up the ad revenue.

    9. Re:Grain of salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you can't think of a reason why someone might do it doesn't mean a reason doesn't exist to do it. Maybe the script downloaded the stuff from foreign servers that were really slow and this was a fast way to access it. Maybe the person infecting his machine wanted to avoid his IP address being in the logs of the server. Maybe it was being used along with Apache as a server to redistribute it. Maybe .... you could do this for a while. Point is that someone did it. Be it was done to frame the guy (most likely) or as a proxy-like fast access server to sites this guy visited frequently or something else. It isn't that hard to believe. Even if 1% paedophiles are technical users that means this stuff is LIKELY to come up from time to time.

    10. Re:Grain of salt. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What would a malware writer stand to gain by writing some malware that "accessed 40 child porn sites per minute" and installing it on some guy's computer?

      Remote, untraceable hosting for his illegal files? It's pretty obvious when you think about it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Grain of salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hunting for a details of a security exploit I found and google found a reference to it on a chat board that had lots of nearly legal pictures. The pics of the nude kids might be considered artistic but aren't legal in many parts of the world because of the context being mixed in with other X rated adult photos. Looking at that site from a fortune 500 company will get you fired if the bosses find out so it a great way to keep the IT professionals from following the discussion. One of the banner ads downloaded some malware that then pokes around one of the chan boards slowly pulling photos down and keeping them in the cache without displaying them. It also downloads the ads and from the server logs it will looks like a human is alternating between photos of porn involving guy, girls and then its off to pics of young new kids and then back to the hard core stuff. I also expect that the board they are downloading from just happens to be a honey pot as well.

    12. Re:Grain of salt. by IgePanda · · Score: 1

      Whenever I hear about something like this, I'm always a little bit skeptical. What would a malware writer stand to gain by writing some malware that "accessed 40 child porn sites per minute" and installing it on some guy's computer? It's pretty absurd when you think about it.

      Does anybody really believe that there's some spergy criminal mastermind out there who spends his nights optimizing his malware's CPSPM rate? ...

      5-8 years ago it was rather the norm to have dial up at home, and better connections at work. So you have that. Also this is illegal material which you wouldn't want your own IP address associated with, so there's that. There is also the possibility that some of these sites are actually law enforcement honey pots.

      So to answer your question, if it plausible that someone would take the time to develop malware to do this, I'd have to say the answer is yes. Given the popularity and relative ease it once was to exploit and pwn a *nix box for pirate FTP, it's not that far a leap to pwn a Win box to fetch illegal content.

    13. Re:Grain of salt. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Don't forget possibility #3:

      Extortion. Infect 10,000 computers with your kiddy-porn-installer-script, then start sending emails to each victim in turn, demonstrating to him that there is kiddy-porn installed on his machine, and that unless you receive $1,000 you will send an anonymous tip to the police...

      I think the financial incentive there could be significant.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    14. Re:Grain of salt. by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Years ago, while working at an ISP, I heard a geek bragging to another geek that they could do this very thing, to get back at someone they didn't like. My first thought was, "How does this guy know where to download it from?" I wouldn't even begin to know. I've never run across anything remotely similiar to it in all my web surfing. It struck me that there was probably stuff about this show off that I didn't to know about at all.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    15. Re:Grain of salt. by Caraig · · Score: 1

      It's possible this was a public way to do a proof-of-concept. Showing it's possible to invisibly implicate someone, and, if not erase ALL evidence it was a frame job, then at least conceal who did the framing.

      Of course, making it a proof-of-concept relies upon knowledgable defense teams and justices who are even willing to accept the possibility... but it seems the cat, as they say, is out of the bag. Now people with child pornography found on their computers have a legitimate claim to say that it's not theirs, they didn't do it and they don't know how it got there.

      Which may in and of itself be a proof-of-concept... of the 'The Virus Did It!' defense.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    16. Re:Grain of salt. by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      I've heard of this concept before - it usually comes every time there's a discussion on slashdot about how the average user won't maintain their computer's security. The logic is to frighten them (via the threat of being prosecuted for possession of CP) into using AV, etc. It's entirely possible (if unlikely) someone may have done that, though Occam's Razor suggests this is revenge/framing, plain and simple.
      It would be interesting, though, if somehow a large no. of politicians got their systems infected with this virus, particularly in places where possession itself is a felony...

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    17. Re:Grain of salt. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      TOR.

      If you're even a bit of a nerd, you will try one of the anonymous networks, just for the hell of it and seeing how it works and what it is all about.

      And if you even scrap the very surface, you will find enough CP to get lifetime sentence for a medium sized city.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    18. Re:Grain of salt. by nEJC76 · · Score: 1

      or giving the real customer(s) of the site(s) a safe proxy to browse thru

    19. Re:Grain of salt. by Inda · · Score: 1

      Get a DC client. Even heavily modded "rooms", with a high share requirement attract people with CP files. I know, I modded one for years. I would ban 5 people a day.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    20. Re:Grain of salt. by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      Actually that does sound like the most plausible theory.

    21. Re:Grain of salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of fucked up people out there. I seem to recall the figure of 1 billion people now have internet access, to think that there isn't 1 person in the lot who is capable and has to desire to do this (even if for no good reason) is rather naive. That sort of person would be rare, but it is quite within the realms of possibility that there is at least one person who might do this just because they can.

  29. Glad this has happened to a politician by zuperduperman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it's sad whenever someone is falsely accused and I have sympathy for him and his wife, I can't help but feel - it's wonderful that this has happened to a politician. Because this could happen to absolutely anybody and politicians will not relent in their fear mongering and ridiculous laws in this area until they become victims themselves.

    While I strongly suspect if they weren't a) wealthy and b) in positions of power the governor would now be rotting in a cell, the fact of the case being overturned will help sanity prevail everywhere.

    1. Re:Glad this has happened to a politician by FunPika · · Score: 1

      Where does it say that he was a politician? Sounds like he was just an investigator for the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents based on the article/Google.

      --
      After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
  30. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the accused was just a really dedicated pedophile and downloaded a program from his buddies that allowed him to circumvent all the tedious typing and clicking. Turn your laptop on, do your other legitimate business of the day, and then enjoy the benefits of your application at your leisure. Unless I missed it, I didn't see where they mentioned finding duplicates of this program replicating itself across a network, or evidence of a security breach on that computer which coincided with the installation of that program.

    I'm not saying he did it, but shouldn't we consider the possibility that he was just a technically literate pedophile? I open up Opera, click on all of my "Speed Dial" favorites and then go get a snack. When I come back I start browsing all my favorite blogs and online news sites and such. What if he's just one step ahead of people like me?

  31. So now what by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So now the guy's sold his car, taken out a second mortgage, lost his job, 11 months of his life and most of his friends. He's a pariah with a mountain of debt.

    Meanwhile, the prosecutor's off looking for the next big case without so much as an uncomfortable public statement or even an "I'm sorry". Business as usual.

    It's a touch kinder and gentler than the days of the (Un)Holy Inquisition where if you drowned you were innocent and if you didn't they'd burn you, but it's no different in principle. The process of being tried does very nearly as much damage as being found guilty would. The accusation destroys your life one way or the other. Those who cause all the damage face no consequences whatsoever.

    1. Re:So now what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to derail your witch burning for a second, but it's something I gotta wonder. Even back then how the hell could people really believe if you drowned you were innocent, but if you came back up for air you were a witch. Back in those days if someone tried to do that to me, the first thing I'd do is demand proof that this ritual works and demand the clergy to go first.

      If THEY come back up for air, either they'll have to admit their strategy had flaws, or I'll have people to talk to on the stake!

      Yeah, just flag this off-topic. Sorry. :)

    2. Re:So now what by selven · · Score: 1

      You: I demand justice! I demand a fair trial!
      Executioner: (stab)

    3. Re:So now what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Back in those days if someone tried to do that to me, the first thing I'd do is demand proof that this ritual works and demand the clergy to go first.

      So the guy in chains with a dozen halberds pointed at him is making demands now, is he? Good luck with that!

      Cleric: "Surely only a witch could be so brazen as to demand the drowning of good men of the cloth. Thou art a witch and shall burn!"

    4. Re:So now what by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      No, witches didn't come back up for air. They didn't need to breath.

      You'd think, at some point, the logic would kick and they'd realize that no one, in fact, ever managed to not drown, and hence a) none of those people were witches, in which case the court system is broken, b) witches choose to drown instead of revealing themselves, in which case there's not any point to this, or c) witches can fake their own death, which makes this even more completely pointless.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:So now what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think it was some kind of logical exercise. Attacking a "witch" is an emotional thing driving largely by the urge to remove non-conformists from the community. Success is not proving a witch, but removing the individual.

    6. Re:So now what by sjames · · Score: 1

      Naturally, daring to question the wisdom and authority of the church and it's priests was proof positive you were a minion of Satan. To actually subject their holy selves to a such a test on the word Satan's minion would be an affront to God!

      Sorta like only criminals object to the courts or fear the police and blah blah blah.

    7. Re:So now what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think, at some point, the logic would kick and they'd realize that no one, in fact, ever managed to not drown, and hence a) none of those people were witches, in which case the court system is broken, b) witches choose to drown instead of revealing themselves, in which case there's not any point to this, or c) witches can fake their own death, which makes this even more completely pointless.

      Seen any proof that people with child porn on their computers actually pose a threat, or do you just take it for granted, because you've been told. Sounds like the same thing...

    8. Re:So now what by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It's a touch kinder and gentler than the days of the (Un)Holy Inquisition where if you drowned you were innocent and if you didn't they'd burn you

      Not really. At least when you drown you've only got 5 minutes, and being burned probably about 10. This guy (and anyone else in this situation) has to live with it until he hangs himself in a motel room, overdoses on heroin, drinks bleach, or slits his own wrists.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  32. Blurring the lines by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Computer malware could screw badly your REAL life. It should be a real example to show to people that aren't concerned about security, uses insecure practices/browsers/operating systems/whatever.

    Probably is the most convincing scenario until a computer virus manage to infect and kill real people.

    1. Re:Blurring the lines by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 1

      This may sound cold, but we'd probably be better off if this happened to more people. If everyone went around getting CP-downloading malware by mistake, I think they'd eventually give up on prosecuting people for it.

    2. Re:Blurring the lines by default+luser · · Score: 1

      This may sound cold, but we'd probably be better off if this happened to more people. If everyone went around getting CP-downloading malware by mistake, I think they'd eventually give up on prosecuting people for it.

      Yeah, because we totally stopped prosecuting people for molestation without evidence because kids lie about it all the time. I mean, it's not like children have ever been coerced into trumping-up child molestation accusations, and they certainly don't lie about molestation to get attention and revenge.

      Many kids (not all) don't know how to properly weigh the consequences of their actions, and so they can be easily manipulated into doing just about anything. All it takes is one kid's testimony (zero hard evidence) to ruin your life forever (who cares if you're innocent or guilty, you'll still spend years jumping through all the legal hoops and dealing with the mob hysterics who hide in the shadows and sick authorities on the accused via "anonymous tips.")

      If you think that more incidences of CP-downloading malware will somehow clarify the silly situation and stop frivolous prosecutions, you're a fool. The reason we have such knee-jerk laws in this country is because the mob loves a good burning at the stake. And since they can't do that anymore, they do the next best thing and rally around a law like a bunch of bloodthirsty jackals. If you are simply accused (not convicted), these people will sit in the shadows while dragging your name through the mud and trying you in the court of opinion. And if you have the balls to question the laws, they will fight you tooth and nail, and claim you love child molesters and child porn.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  33. so what happens when a public pc goes to a link li by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    so what happens when a public pc goes to a link like that?

    A virus downloads it to a public pc?

    A pc that is not setup to even be used by any one aka one used to display stuff get some on it?

    useing a laptop at a place with free wifi all the ip will show is that some from there when to the site and there are a lot places that have open wifi or just have 1 code to get on the network.

  34. This should be interesting in Sweden... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    ... and the possibly upcoming law now, making it illegal to WATCH child porn. No, not consume it or otherwise support pedophile circles, merely watch it.

    It's exactly these things that make me against that law. Sure, you'll probably easily explain it if it really did happen to you, but what if the search warrant was about something else? "Oh, look, he had child porn on his computer too, besides all this movie piracy." Where both can be a result of low computer security and a hijacked WiFi connection, neither of which being illegal to have. It's so sad when we sidestep common sense with laws like this.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:This should be interesting in Sweden... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      How are watching and consuming child pornography not the same thing?

  35. Frameware? More like Plausible Deniability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, someone got framed and is cleared of all charges. Which is good.

    But, leaving the fun application of ruining peoples lifes forever using a simple piece of software aside: Personally, if I'd be a terribly evil fan of cp (which I'm not, dear FBI), I'd be searching the Internet for this exact piece of malware RIGHT NOW. Someone finds cp on your harddrive? Simple, "Yeh well, search my computer" and give your lawyer the "hint" that your PC might be infested with "malware" - get out of jail free card!

    This exact case presents quite a good precedence for using this excuse.

  36. please mod parent post UP by arielCo · · Score: 1

    The usual argument for criminalizing posession of data regardless of how you got it hasn't been refuted near enough. (too bad AC posts get overlooked by mods - as if they weren't worth reading unless someone got a karma point)

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:please mod parent post UP by Asmor · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, ACs are right down there with pedophiles, wiggas and the Finnish as far as pariahs go.

  37. An inhuman feat... by Nux'd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...so of course he's innocent.

    What if he intentionally contracted this 'malware'? It seems to do a good job of diverting the blame.

    1. Re:An inhuman feat... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's difficult for malware to believably mimic the artifacts that users create when they view downloaded content.

  38. Re:mod points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd like to think that you spent all of your fifteen mod points over the course of the last thirty minutes, and then accidentally undid them all with this ridiculous post.

  39. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to change your MAC address before you connect. macchanger on linux, I assume there's similar functionality for other OSes. MACs encode the brand of wifi card (and usually of your laptop if it came with) so it can be reasonably easy to visually scan the room for the offender if there aren't 9001 MacBook Pros in it.

    Of course, I'm against actually doing this as then the wifi owner gets yelled at and shuts it down, denying me free internet.

    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  40. Which sites? by phorm · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this malware was in fact targetted specifically at KP. It might have just been an open door that the creator or others (think: those that don't want to use their own computers could pay to hijack somebody else's).

    In most cases, if something is illegal, there's a shady market for it somewhere.

  41. Re:Rources by kill-1 · · Score: 1

    In Germany, there has been a big debate about online child porn recently. One organization showed that by simply sending email to the hosting providers many sites were deleted within 12 hours.

    See http://ak-zensur.de/2009/05/loeschen-funktioniert.html (in German)

  42. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not, that would be consistent with giving you mod rights.

  43. This is what happens....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ........when you let the government decide that certain types of data are illegal to even possess.

  44. Re:Rources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it resides in another country then just get ISPs blocking it

    Please no, I've had enough Great Firewall of <Insert-Country-Here> bullshit already.

  45. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Matt_R · · Score: 5, Funny

    MACs encode the brand of wifi card (and usually of your laptop if it came with) so it can be reasonably easy to visually scan the room for the offender if there aren't 9001 MacBook Pros in it.

    Like this? http://www.abluestar.com/utilities/rndimages/img/acer.jpg

  46. Why did you write that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    women that age surely don't have an intact hyman or bleed when having intercourse at that age. Why did you write that?

    ...a bunch of 30-year-old chibby midget girls with growth problems... for the kink of letting the camera see their vagina hymen rip.

  47. Re:Rources by Spad · · Score: 1

    An extradition treaty doesn't give you permission to grab people off the streets without formal approval of the government in question (and some actual evidence; unless it's with the UK in which case the evidence part is optional).

  48. you are a pedo oldfag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    copulate with a beartrap and die

  49. Slashdot is a special place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a good chuckle! I was not expecting to scroll through the comments and find the weight of the Slashdot community supporting child porn. My faith in humanity is... restored?

  50. Re:Shameful, how? by Zencyde · · Score: 1

    Your idea of harm and the surrounding concepts seem to leave a significant amount to be desired. While for one there is direct harm caused, is it justifiable to cause the indirect harm associated with having a death penalty? Not supporting kiddy diddling or anything. I just hate something about the way you put words and thoughts together.

    --
    What day is it? Could you please tell me?
  51. Innocence allowed as a defence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In America? Say it ain't so!

    That was my response when I read the headline.

  52. Thought crime? by RIpRapRob · · Score: 1

    possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime.

    Well, tell that to the kids (and the parents) that have to live with the images of them (or their kids) being abused, is traded on the Internet.

    Imagine your having a girlfriend, and her being raped. Sharing pictures of that after the fact - just a thought crime?

    1. Re:Thought crime? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Imagine your having a girlfriend, and her being raped. Sharing pictures of that after the fact - just a thought crime?

      Well, for one thing, viewing and distribution of pictures of a typical rape is not a crime in the US. Ergo, not a thought crime.

      But, for the sake of argument, lets say that you really meant "it injures them" rather than being a full-blown crime - if they don't know it's happening, it doesn't hurt them. For all you know, the last time you got drunk and passed out someone sodomized you with a beer bottle and the pictures of that are all over the net. Feeling injured?

      Ok, that's not quite fair, most people who are raped know they were raped and they probably know if they were recorded. So, in that case, maybe they do feel injured but how does making it illegal make them any less injured? It doesn't actually stop every one from passing around the pictures, it just reduces the number of people who will do it, So, rape pics, the only thing you know for certain is that they are out there. Whether they are passed around to a million people or just two, the original victim will never know. Therefore she is just as injured whether or not it is made illegal. So, what's the benefit of making it illegal?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Thought crime? by RIpRapRob · · Score: 1

      Well, for one thing, viewing and distribution of pictures of a typical rape is not a crime in the US. Ergo, not a thought crime.

      You have such a thing as a "thought crime" in US law? If not, then by your logic, nothing is a 'thought crime'. Could you please make up your mind if you want to discuss current US law, or how you want the law to be?

      Ok, that's not quite fair, most people who are raped know they were raped and they probably know if they were recorded. So, in that case, maybe they do feel injured but how does making it illegal make them any less injured?.

      How does this argument differ from the punishment of the crime of rape itself? How does making the crime of [insert any crime that injures someone] illegal make the victim feel any less injured?

      Whether they are passed around to a million people or just two, the original victim will never know.

      Well, I have to call a [citation needed] on that one.

    3. Re:Thought crime? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You have such a thing as a "thought crime" in US law? If not, then by your logic, nothing is a 'thought crime'. Could you please make up your mind if you want to discuss current US law, or how you want the law to be?

      Distributing kiddie porn is a CRIME in the USA.
      Distributing rape porn is NOT a crime in the USA.
      What is so difficult to understand here?

      How does this argument differ from the punishment of the crime of rape itself? How does making the crime of [insert any crime that injures someone] illegal make the victim feel any less injured?

      You seem unable to distinguish between a crime and the recording of a crime. Raping someone causes injury, therefore it is reasonable to make rape illegal in order to reduce the injury. But someone you don't know showing a recording of that rape to someone else whom you also do not know does not cause injury. Capiche?

      Whether they are passed around to a million people or just two, the original victim will never know.

      Well, I have to call a [citation needed] on that one.

      Are you serious? It is by definition - right now a million people could have read your post or only one person may have read it. You have NO WAY to tell. The same goes for the copying of any information when the act of copying - not creating, just copying - does not involve you.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  53. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As threats to society, people like you are far worse than pedophiles. People like you are why families get their lives derailed from something as innocent as a picture of their child in the bath. People like you are why a couple of teenagers sending nude pictures to each other gets them both charged with production and possession of child porn. People like you are why even after pedophiles have 'served their debt to society', their life is turned into a living hell by moralistic jerks, without a care for the fact that such abuse just increases recidivism rates. People like you are why even after being unambiguously acquitted of child porn charges, people continue to have the stigma of 'child-raping monster' on them. People like you are why a grown man has to seriously consider whether or not he should help a crying child, for fear of it being seen as him trying to abduct them. People like you are why parents are endlessly paranoid about some freak snatching their child off the street and raping and murdering them, oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by friends and family. People like you are why the Internet continues to be censored in many places under the guise of 'protecting the children'. People like you are responsible for gladly handing over the rights of yourself and others to maintain the security theater that is the war on pedophilia.

    You may not feel shame over your complete inability to rationally consider the situation, your lack of care for the harm you cause to society as a whole, your lack of care for the harm you cause to even the children you claim to be defending, and the fact that you're driven by nothing but hate and a desire to have a group to persecute and torture for your twisted amusement, but you sure as fuck should.

  54. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by mathx314 · · Score: 1

    Holy shit. I'm a fairly large Mac fanboy and that picture is terrifying to me.

  55. Re:Shameful, how? by selven · · Score: 1

    Except 99%+ of people who are sex offenders in a way relating to minors didn't actually do anything that any of us would consider objectionable (eg. a 17 year old having sex with an 18 year old, a 16 year old uploading nude photos of herself, making or spreading photoshop child porn whose creation doesn't harm anyone, accidentally clicking the wrong link and not knowing what a browser cache is and how to clear it, etc)

  56. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    There is a story behind that picture to explain all the macs, though I forget what it is.

  57. If the roles were reversed... by bruns · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, how much do you want to bet, that if the prosecution had found it, that they would have 'accidentally' forgot to tell the defense? Knee jerk reaction for a conviction is modus operandi for the police, regardless of if the person is guilty or not.

    I love how the game law enforcement plays requires people to defend their innocence rather then the prosecution proving guilt.

    --
    Brielle
  58. Re:Rources by antonyb · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're right - there is an extradition treaty between Italy & the US - but this wasn't extradition, it was kidnap pure & simple. 23 agents from the CIA office in Milan have been convicted in absentia.

    See e.g. the BBC.

    Hearts & minds.

    ant.

  59. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    Holey Maloney... Is that a photoshop? Anyway... Starting from the Acer, two right one down might also be a different computer. The apple logo isn't as prominent as on the others. There are also some red computers (For example, from the Acer, three right, one up), who have an Apple logo and as far as I know there never were red Apple machines.

  60. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like this?

    Man I feel sorry for that girl! As if it isn't bad enough having to use a Vista laptop without all your fellow students rubbing your nose in it.

  61. Holy. Fucking. Shit. by kheldan · · Score: 0

    Great. As if fucking up your computer isn't bad enough, now these bastards can ruin your life as well. Just great.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  62. Re:Rources by Silver+Surfer+1 · · Score: 1

    So it matters not that the US nabbed the guy with the full cooperation and help of the Italian government?

  63. Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are also some red computers (For example, from the Acer, three right, one up), who have an Apple logo and as far as I know there never were red Apple machines.

    That's a shell. You can see the reflection off the plastic and the logo underneath.

  64. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

    o_O Yeah I was kinda alarmed by all those little glowing fruit symbols too.

  65. thinking 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you've done here is basic thinking. Take the logic of an analogous situation, and apply it to a new situation, and see how it shakes out. You've managed to put your finger on a single point where the rhetoric surrounding pedophilia makes no sense.

    But the fact is pedophilia is girded by nonsense because nobody feels they're required to think. If someone says pedophiles have a 1 billion dollar child pornography business, everybody nods their heads. If they say its 50 billion, same thing. Nobody in civil society is asking questions. Everybody knows everything they need to know because the only relevant knowledge is moral knowledge. Once you've affirmed the right moral position, empirical facts are mostly irrelevant, except insofar as they aid the entrapment, tracking, surveillance, conviction, and imprisonment of pedophiles. Pedophilia is a concept where the laws of good reasoning no longer apply. You don't have to be nice. You don't have to be fair. You don't have to be right. Just as long as you're on the RIGHT side.

    When Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision to strike down a law that would have permitted the execution of child rape, he defended a law that also permitted the execution of men who meet cops in entrapment schemes, or download child pornography. All anybody needs to hear is child rape, and all other considerations fly out the window. And all sexual contact between adults and children is rape. Even just looking at them naked is rape. Rape rape rape. Don't even ask whether it is rape. It is. So execute them. For downloading a picture.

    We live in a police state already with unthinking drones who fail to apply the basic logic they use in everyday life to a highly politicized subject. This subject is being used, conspiracy or no, to develop systems of surveillance and control of civilian populations. Thankfully some people are waking up to the consequences of absolutist, fundamentalist anti-pedophile rhetoric. But most are not. And even those that do ask questions stop at one. Why ask two questions, or three when you can watch a re-run of Family Guy? As the police state gathers power into itself, no critical counter power is growing.

    Take the recently implemented Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) which adapts and updates the 80 year old List 99 that held names of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children. Instead of a black list, we now have both a black and white list. AT LEAST a quarter of UK residents will have to be authorized by the ISA to work with children. Those with any record of inappropriate behavior with children, or downloading pics, whether it has been proven in court or not, will be barred from working with children. Employers have a legal responsibility to report all incidents, whether they go to trial or not. The head of the ISA has opined that even companies and self-employed people that do not work with children will probably want to get registered to gain commercial advantage over their rivals. Imagine a future in which a young man of 19 is caught in possession of a picture of a 13 year old consensually screwing a 13 year old and is made unemployable for life because 85% of employers require by law or through commercial competition, an ISA authorization for all employees, and the remaining 15% aren't hiring. This isn't a fantasy.

    Even though the category of vulnerable adults was added as a group requiring state protection, the news media calls this the "anti-Paedophile registry." The truth is we all know who is being targeted. Could you imagine Israel starting an anti-Palestinian registry? Or America starting an anti-Nigger registry? Or Saudi Arabia starting an Anti-Homosexual registry? Or Germany starting an anti-Jew registry? Prove you're not a Jew. If you've done anything Jew-like we'll know you're really a Jew. It's for the sake of the banking industry, so you won't mind.

    =-=-=-

    Now for the question your post poses: Why do the arguments we apply to file sharing in general not appl

    1. Re:thinking 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great piece, sir. A very interesting read although too long.

      To support what you say in the second paragraph (about people and institutions believing anything that is said about child porn and child abuse without thinking if it even makes sense), consider this:

      In 2006 all agencies involved in fighting against child porn were saying that it was a 20 billion dollars per year industry (for 2004, up from 6 billion in 1999). Two journalist independently thought the number was too high so they tried to find the original source. But each agency said that they quoted it because other agencies were quoting it, forming a loop: basically the number was made up and no agency would acknowledge that they were the original source. Yet, no one in those agencies stopped to think if the number even made sense.

      The stories written by the two journalists that uncovered this are an awesome read:

      http://www.radosh.net/archive/001481.html

      http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114485422875624000.html

  66. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    MACs encode the brand of wifi card

    Specifically, the top half of the MAC is issued to a chipmaker, who then issues unique serial numbers. If Apple switched brands partway through a run, that top half would change.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  67. Wow relate this to a link posted on slashdot today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/06/23/calgary-huggett-child-porn-sentencing-hearing.html

    wow relate this to a link posted on slashdot today. this guy only got 9 months for having stacks of dvds with child porn.

  68. Re:Shameful, how? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except, of course, that it is difficult to even define who is or is not a predator, pedophile, or criminal. Here is a perfect example for you: in my home state, New York, the law states that it is illegal to have sex with someone who is under the age of 17, and if you do, it is a misdemeanor if they are older than 15 if you are older than 18 but younger than 21, a felony if they are 15 or younger and you are 18 or older, a misdemeanor if they are 13 or older and you are younger than 18, and a felony if they are younger than 11 regardless of your age.

    Man, that is complicated. If someone was convicted of felony statutory rape in New York, I would want to know which of the above was the actual crime before I even considered any punishment, let alone the death penalty. I do not even know what happens if the victim was 12 and the perpetrator was under 18; that is defined in a different section of the law. There is also the fantastic reality that if you have a 17 year old lover in New York, that is legal, but you cannot legally produce any erotic photographs or videos of your lover -- that would be a felony, again under a completely separate section of the law (and before you say, "well, people should not have 17 year old lovers," bear in mind that what I said applies to an 18 year old -- or do you think that is a death-penalty deserving crime as well?).

    Before you jump to conclusions about sex offenders, perhaps you should first ask, "who is being classified as a sex offender?" In many cases, it is and absurd classification to carry, and worse yet, it is a classification that never gets removed from their record.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  69. He should sell the movie rights. by GrubLord · · Score: 0

    A cross between Enemy of the State and No Country for Old Men. The main character spends the first 30 minutes just mowing the lawn, at which point FBI agents arrive and kick him in the teeth because apparently his antivirus software expired, and his computer is downloading child-porn. Cue an epic chase across America, as all the dude's friends turn on him or take shots at him, each of his civil rights are ignored, and he is eventually shot trying to get across the border.

  70. Re:Rources by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    It is not resources. It is a matter of will. If a US government agency can kidnap a person off an Italian street and ship them off to another country to be tortured, then the US government can shut down child porn site _no matter where_ it is located.

    Sure, if it's one CP site. What if there are hundreds? All you really need is some hosting and some desperate parents and you can set up your own illegal picture site.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  71. Maybe this WAS the intent. by GrubLord · · Score: 0

    Perhaps some shadowy vigilante is trying to highlight the problems with this guilty-until-proven-innocent system, by infecting high-profile targets and causing as much of a media circus as possible. Presumably, if enough politicians got thrown in jail for no reason, some momentum might build up towards curtailing the excesses of this law-enforcement-gone-mad, and America's children wouldn't have to worry about losing their fathers due to an internet virus, or getting tossed in the slammer themselves for 'sexting' underwear-pics of themselves to their boyfriends.

  72. Re:Rources by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

    How does an extradition treaty allow the US government to kidnap an Italian citizen from Italian streets? This is outrageous and has been repeated in several other locations. If any extradition treaty is to remain, these US agents have to be extradited to Italy.

  73. I assume this virus is for getting child porn by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    The person who directed that virus to download child pornography probably just wanted to cover his ass and download some child pornography without getting caught by the feds. Not the brightest move, but someone was bound to try it.

    Now that the cat is out of the bag, someone else will probably realize that by toning it down a bit (e.g. visit the sites at a more human rate), they could frame their enemies/rivals. This is sounding more and more like the plot of a south park episode.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  74. Don't have time to go looking? by GrubLord · · Score: 0

    Why the heck would anyone have to go looking for anything? This virus is visiting 40 sites a second... that's a lot of bloody URLs. Pull apart the virus, get its list of URLs, start cleanin' up the net. Easy. :P

  75. Re:Rources by Nithendil · · Score: 1

    Clearly you have never been to Russia where these websites are likely owned by the mob and wouldn't take kindly to US government. Sure, we can send in the big guns, but do you think Russia would be o.k. with that?

  76. OJ trial by Britz · · Score: 1

    I was a US exchange student in Napa, CA during the trial. When the verdict came they actually shut down the school and got everyone in classrooms with tvs, so they could watch it. I always thought that the interest in celebrities (which I partly share) is more of a guilty little secret, rather than something to cherish. So I kinda walked out in disgust. No one could understand that. At least in my school I was the only kid outside at that time.

    People were furious, and again I didn't get it. At least once they didn't "fry the black guy", which I thought speaks for the traditionally racist judicial system.

    1. Re:OJ trial by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      People were furious because it seemed transparently obvious that the man was guilty. His race had nothing to do with it to most white people. (Most black people were focused on Furman's use of The N Word. While I don't share black America's paranoia about The Man, I've only been pulled over once for driving while white, so...)

  77. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    How would you know it's a Vista laptop... Could be running Linux, or Windows XP... or a hackingtosh.... Yeah, I know, we geeks still can dream of such a girl... Probably she doesn't exist.

  78. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that virtually any MAC-spoofing software (e.g. madmacs) can change the mac address of a "bad guy" into "you". A mac-address can be faked so easily that it is absolutely worthless as evidence.

  79. Distrubuted, untracable network by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you're selling the stuff online, you use the cloud as your web hosting.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  80. Re:Shameful, how? by selven · · Score: 1

    I did read about the people you're talking about. While raping and attempting to murder an 8-year-old is pretty horrible, I don't see why a society that doesn't practice the death penalty should make an exception for them - they're clearly mentally unfit and need help, not the needle/chair/bullet. And, of course, persecuting child-related sex offenders gets innocent people a lot more than it does hardcore crazies.

  81. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by AnotherUsername · · Score: 1

    From what I know, the picture was from the Missouri School of Journalism. Apparently, if the students bought a Mac, they got a free Ipod Nano. Personally, the thought of spending between $1500 and $2000 extra(because I am sure that many of the students already had a PC laptop) simply to get a $150 is idiotic, but hey, who am I to judge?

    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
  82. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

    School of Journalism....

    judge away my friend. judge away...

  83. The dog ate my homework by Fished · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    "It's an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse," says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework."

    When I was in 5th grade or so, a kid in my class brought in her homework (or the remains of her homework) complete with teethmarks. So, yes, it does actually happen. :)

    I think the moral of this story, though, is that the hidden costs of running a vulnerable computing environment might be far higher than most of us even thought. I mean... how do you balance the extra $200 or so for a Mac (if it's even a real cost, which I'd dispute) against the possibility of $250,000 in legal bills, losing your job, and, more importantly, losing your freedom? And it's not just kiddie porn... industrial espionage, RIAA lawsuits, "real" espionage...

    Yes, I know that Macs are not immune, in theory. Nor is Linux, in theory. But in practice the odds of someone actually cracking my Mac or my Linux box--I have both--and using it as a zombie for any sort of nefarious purpose are exponentially lower than they are on Windows. Not to mention all the other benefits... like say the fact that I fired up my Thinkpad for the first time in a long time today and the once-working wireless adapter wouldn't work. Never have that sort of problem on a Mac! And on Linux, it might be a pain to get it to work but once it worked it would keep working.

    There's a reason I don't run Windows, and this sort of thing is the reason.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:The dog ate my homework by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      "It's an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse," says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework."

      When I was in 5th grade or so, a kid in my class brought in her homework (or the remains of her homework) complete with teethmarks. So, yes, it does actually happen. :)

      I know of a cat that ate a relative's of mine's homework. He brought in what was left of it and explained what happened. The teacher though it was hilarious. This cat likes to repeatedly tear small chunks off of pieces of paper, using his mouth.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    2. Re:The dog ate my homework by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      When I was in 5th grade or so, a kid in my class brought in her homework (or the remains of her homework) complete with teethmarks. So, yes, it does actually happen. :)

      Pfff... that's also a perfectly good way to conceal the fact that the "homework" was random scribbles that you copied from the encyclopedia or maths textbook because you forgot to actually do the homework. You don't even need a dog, in fact... children have teeth, too.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  84. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Provided you're not just playing Devil's Advocate, people like you are just bloodthirsty psychos eager for a situation where you can murder someone and sate your bloodlust while still keeping it socially acceptable. You're in love with a hero scenario where you're fighting some great evil, therefore excusing your own flaws.

  85. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ObsessiveMathsFreak has a point: people need scapegoats. This is unrelated to the fact that child abusers are bad.

    Also, it is shameful because it relies on a perversion of a different kind: perversion of people's clear thinking.

    To speak against the hysteria around child porn is not the same as speaking against anti-child-porn. I think you know this yet willfully ignored it to make your own point.

  86. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus, we know for a fact that there are some wonderful prosecutors out there, so concerned with childrens welfare that, lets say two ten year olds (going by the New York laws that were just pointed out) had consensual sex with each other, they wouldn't hesitate to prosecute them. Usually, what they'll do in such a situation is prosecute the male, if there is one. Sometimes, they would go ahead and prosecute both. As adults too, if they can get away with it.

  87. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of those people don't actually have high morals. Generally, they're pretty crappy people in most respects and think they can make up for it by being overzealous in their hatred of some perverse great evil.

  88. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    Only n00bs need macchanger to change the MAC address.

    # ip link set eth0 addr de:ad:13:37:ba:be

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  89. So what is their excuse? by Skapare · · Score: 1

    So what is the excuse of Massachusetts for destroying the lives of people and not making them whole after it becomes clear they are completely innocent ... including restoring his employment and all backpay? Do they even have an excuse? The recovery cap SHOULD (in the moral sense ... I don't know what their laws actually say) not apply to ACTUAL costs, the backpay, and restoring employment in good standing. It should only apply to the added on awards like "pain and suffering". And they should also pay their health costs (and probably will have to eventually, anyway, after things get worse because they won't pay them now).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:So what is their excuse? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      In Norway you wouldn't just get compensation from the state as part of your acquittal or when the case got dropped, you'd also get paid by the state for the work you weren't able to perform. And firing someone before they're found guilty would be stupid in on many levels.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:So what is their excuse? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      We're supposed to have "presumed innocent until proven guilty" here in the USA. That would mean things like not being fired from your job. But Mr. Fiola was fired. He should at least get his job back. But since he was fired inappropriately, he should also get all the back pay. And that's in addition to being "made whole" by covering all his legal and health costs.

      And the department he works for ... should be required to switch everything to Linux.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    3. Re:So what is their excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the department he works for ... should be required to switch everything to Linux.

      Let's not be silly.

      They may also make use of OpenBSD for secure systems.

  90. kazaa ring... by parazite.org · · Score: 0

    ...let's see when the police infiltrate the next international organized hardcore pedophile kazaa ring

  91. Call me crazy but by stastuffis · · Score: 1

    Such a virus could serve three purposes in my mind:

    1) Disseminate and house child pornography anonymously
    2) Bored person playing a cruel prank
    3) An attempt to legitimize the "infected computer" defense. No way I knew about it. My computer is infected.

  92. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right... Just like there's little difference between those who want to pummel that guy who just cut them off dangerously in traffic with a lead pipe and those who go ahead and run him off the road and come out of a red haze five minutes later wiping the other guys brains off their shirt. Are you trying to say that there's such a small leap between thought and action that everyone who has ever entertained homicide in their mind should be in jail (about what, 99% of the population), or that instead, those in jail for murder should be released because what they actually did was only a tiny bit worse than just thinking about it?

  93. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    there's no reason to take nude pictures of your kids running around or taking a bath. That kind of voyeurism is sick and extreme.

    It isnt' done out of voyeurism, you sick fuck. Parents do it because they want pictures of their kids. The fact that kids are sometimes nude is just a natural, normal part of life.

  94. Politics are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every problem is made worse by politics, not just because of those in the game but ALSO because the public is so easily suckered by techniques that wouldn't work on hardly any individual. "None of us are as stupid as ALL of us" is what I'm saying here.

    An adult wanting to do stuff to kids is SICK IN THE HEAD. Its that simple. What is hard is determining intent, some may look by mistake or are curious (but only the 1st time) these can be put into a mental treatment system and it will not harm them; if not "clear" them all together. This would be more likely if we put the effort into the understanding situation instead of just blindly punishing the result (or potential results as is the case here.) Being able to do brain scans looking at photos might be a possible test...

    Now, for cultural BS-- that is a side issue. Where are the lines drawn etc. I had a friend who was married at 12 and had 6 kids by high school last I heard -- probably had more before she finished. In my state, her marriage was legit at 16 with parental consent. She couldn't do much about it, it was a traditionally arranged marriage by the parents at her birth; she didn't know him. One could bash their culture... or impose this one upon them -- but where does one draw the line?

    Naturally speaking, humans are "adults" when they can reproduce but we make rules based on our culture and have no real connection to the biology of the situation. So we fight our own nature; some can and some can not overcome it -- and just like nature, its analog. There is no exact decider for the same year for everybody or what physical traits makes 1 or another decide possible mates. We had a few kids in school that could pass for 10 years older and a few look EXACTLY the same (older then, younger now.)

    We've had a sicko in our extended family- he unfortunately got away completely (he had political connections) but his behavior was clearly some sort of power trip - control over his kids but not his wife; he was acting stuff out on them eventually ended sexually with physical abuse starting on his wife. It stopped before it got worse for her and the kids; but it would have gotten worse. In a way, it was good-- because if he didn't express it somehow he could have just flipped 1 day and killed everybody or something like that. Bad warning signs, yes; however, any warning is better than none. BTW, he's lost his 2nd wife and kids repeating the pattern and we've not heard any details since that court case (which wanted the 1st fam to help with it.)

  95. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by StayFrosty · · Score: 2, Funny

    # ifconfig eth0 hw ether de:ad:13:37:ba:be

    --
    "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
  96. Is sex REALLY harmful for kids/teens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, it may sound like I'm talking crazy stuff, but read this. Things that modern people would regard as "omg child raep!" were normal back in the ancient world. And did it make those people fucked up in the head? I mean, any more fucked up in the head than living in the uptight, reactionary, thou-shall-not cultures that replaced them? Or maybe we regard something as evil simply because it's a fuckin' huge taboo not to.

    1. Re:Is sex REALLY harmful for kids/teens? by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 1

      I am sorry but that is an incredibly felatious argument.

    2. Re:Is sex REALLY harmful for kids/teens? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there...

  97. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But its a mac, they do art stuff right?

  98. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

    You could just return the mac...
    or turn around and resell it.

  99. What to say in Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I saw notzing!'

  100. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    YOU know that, and I know that, but would a prosecutor looking to advance his career know, or frankly give a shit, and what are the odds that 12 folks too stupid to get out of jury duty would know that? My mom is real civic minded and went when they called her for jury duty. She hung the jury 11-1. Why? Because with no evidence they were gonna send this guy away for arson because "he is Italian and Italians are in the mob and do that kind of stuff. Haven't you seen Goodfellas?"

    So just because someone with a little brains and tech knowledge would know that doesn't mean you won't get dragged into court over it. Don't forget the MPAA accused a laser printer of file sharing, but that doesn't keep them from using that "evidence" in court.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  101. Re:Shameful, how? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
    How the hell did this rant get modded insightful? "People like you ... people like you" People like who? Huh?

    People have a special contempt for pedophiles because their victims are children and the motivation for the crime is mere sexual desire - the sort of urge most of us supress every day. It's an adult versus a child. So it's natural that people will be outraged by that - just like a mugger will get a bigger sentence if they mug and old woman than a young man.

    No, it's not particularly rational, but rationality isn't the whole game. Unless you've had an empathy bypass, it's something that's understood on an instinctual level.

    BTW I feel sorry for pedophiles as well - it must be sad to be hardwired that way. And of course they should be treated fairly, given a chance to be rehabilitated and not subjected to a witch hunt. But they are the predators.

    Sorry if I missed the point of your post - maybe it was burried in the spew.

  102. Re:Rources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can kidnap a Canadian citizen passing through the international part of a U.S. airport and send him to Syria for torture . . . .

  103. Re:Shameful, how? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

    You missed his point beca... OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!

    (and not in the slightly pedophile way of thinking of the children)

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  104. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by breser · · Score: 2, Informative
  105. Re:Shameful, how? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Boy, sometimes it's easy to tell that the majority of people here are men. I don't know American age-of-consent laws and I don't really care, but how hard is it really? Don't worry about all those scenarios - they don't all apply to you. You'll be ok if you (a) don't have sex with children or look at pictures of them and (b) find out how old a girl is before sex - if she's younger that 16 - she's too young for you if you're out of high school yourself and - if she's younger that 18 - don't put the pictures up on the net.

  106. Re:Shameful, how? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 0, Troll

    Buying pornography isn't "just thinking about it". Fantasising is just thinking about it.

  107. "Malware" by Metal_Demon · · Score: 1

    Where can I get a copy of this supposed "malware"? ;)

    --
    Trust Your Technolust
  108. Re:Shameful, how? by ushering05401 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let's recap. Someone finishes their post with this:

    It's a kind of blood sport. It's a form of entertainment. It's completely shameful.

    You respond with this:

    If ever the state needs a volunteer, I'll step up. I can do the needle, I can knot a rope, I can throw an electrical switch, I can pull a trigger, or I can swing an axe.

    You get modded down and respond with this:

    I can't help wondering what kind of lowlife modded me down. He probably lurks around the bathrooms at his local park, waiting to get a peek at the little boys and girls.

    Your possession of the motor skills required to manipulate a needle, tie knots, swing an axe, or pull a trigger on command is not the problem. Your diction/presentation within the context of this conversation is the problem. To put this another way, you are presenting an argument using techniques commonly employed by fuck-tards.

    If you are able to re-read your down mod'd posts without picking up on the fuck-tard aspects of those posts, then you might consider simply ignoring the moderation system altogether. Either way, this is /., so unless you take up sock-puppetry your fuck-tardish posts have simply joined the proud tradition of -1 fuck-tardary on this site, and it will all be forgotten by morning.

    Best of luck navigating the world.

  109. Re:Shameful, how? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    For New York, that's actually a fairly straightforward law.

  110. Re:Shameful, how? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    And, of course, persecuting child-related sex offenders gets innocent people a lot more than it does hardcore crazies.

    An interesting point. Statistically, in the U.S., for every 7 death row inmates who have been executed, one has been exonerated (usually due to improved DNA testing proving conclusively that somebody else did it). That's a staggering number. One might reasonably interpret this to mean that as many as one in eight people convicted is convicted falsely. Food for thought.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  111. Age of consent website by garylian · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Age of consent website by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the web is a wonderful thing. Too bad it was early 1993... I suppose I could have found someone with AOL and asked around.

  112. American obsessions by alantus · · Score: 1

    I don't know why, but one of the biggest obsessions in the US culture is underage porn / underage sex.
    And I call it underage porn, and not child porn, because most of the time the subject of the pictures are not children, but teenagers (15 - 17 years old) who know what they are doing.

    Even when a 15 year old girl takes a nude picture of herself, or her boyfriend takes a pic of her, it is considered a crime in the US, I find that kind of strange.

    Some other obsessions I've found so far in this species is:
    - political correctness
    - the "N" word (won't even dare to write it here)
    - immigration
    - coffee

    1. Re:American obsessions by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's not an American obsession. U.S. laws with respect to child porn are in fact fairly liberal - while they prohibit creation, distribution and possession of real child porn, there's no current restriction on "simulated" one. There was PROTECT Act, but that was recently ruled unconstitutional (on 1st Amendment grounds), and even that only applied to fictitious visual works (e.g. lolicon).

      Compare to Canada, for example: all kinds of "simulated" CP are illegal to distribute. This includes manga, of course, but also any fictional stories involving (also fictional) characters that are claimed to be below age of consent. This was in fact upheld by the Supreme Court - the only restriction on the law that they've introduced is that it is legal to produce and possess fictional CP if one is doing it solely for one's own private use (i.e. distribution remains illegal, for both sender and receiver).

      Many other countries fully criminalize fictional CP with no limits these days - I know about UK and Australia for sure as there were some stories in the news about people being prosecuted for that sort of thing. IIRC this is actually getting pretty popular in Europe.

      So there. In reality the obsession is of the entire Western world (and some satellite states), not just one particular country.

  113. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    MACs encode the brand of wifi card (and usually of your laptop if it came with) so it can be reasonably easy to visually scan the room for the offender if there aren't 9001 MacBook Pros in it.

    Like this? http://www.abluestar.com/utilities/rndimages/img/acer.jpg

    Think different!

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  114. Re:Shameful, how? by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point is that 'people like you' think about the horrible cases of actual children being raped by adults (abhorrent, of course), but as a result support criminalizing a whole range of behaviors that have nothing to do with the above (plenty of examples in this discussion, so I won't bore you by listing them).

    The distinction here (of which I see no awareness in your post btw) is that people who can be legally liable under the slew of anti-pedophile laws currently on the books are an insanely wider proportion of population that the sum total of the kind of truly dangerous people you talk about.

    Many people here on slashdot are really really pissed at what they perceive as irrational overkill in that direction that strangles everybody's freedoms without having much impact on the real predators - hence the emotional tone that strikes a chord with a lot of us here.

  115. Re:Shameful, how? by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

    there's no reason to take nude pictures of your kids running around or taking a bath. That kind of voyeurism is sick and extreme.

    It isnt' done out of voyeurism, you sick fuck. Parents do it because they want pictures of their kids. The fact that kids are sometimes nude is just a natural, normal part of life.

    I wonder if AC's rebuff to arekusu was posted AC out of fear for being labelled sick and extreme by a society that doesn't see any nudity as appropriate?
     
    I don't have any nude photos of my kids, but I'll pose a question. Lots of people in the 1940s and 1950s had naked photographs taken on bearskin rugs by professional photographers - so why are their children being prosecuted for dropping off rolls of film containing a shot or two of their grandchildren playing under the sprinklers? If the test is whether some weirdo somewhere could jack off to it, I'm sure there are people out there who get their jollies imagining all sorts of things about pictures of three year olds with lollypops - and if we invoke the Quantum Fetish Theory, we probably shouldn't have any photographs of anyone under 18 at all. There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere, but I don't know if anyone can say for sure just where that should be without appearing foolish or perverted to someone else.

  116. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

    I was going to mention it, but you beet me to it. Now does anybody know of a tool to do that under windows?

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  117. Re:Shameful, how? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ``People have a special contempt for pedophiles because their victims are children and the motivation for the crime is mere sexual desire - the sort of urge most of us supress every day. It's an adult versus a child.''

    That's fair and well, but that isn't the whole story. I don't think you'll find many people arguing that actual sexual abuse of children isn't a horrible crime that should be punished. The problem is that, under the guise of protecting the children (which we all agree is a Good Thing), many people are labeled as child molesters even though they don't actually sexually abuse children. This is a problem, because it ruins the lives of innocent people - the exact thing the system should prevent.

    The debate, now, is about whether the collateral damage (innocent people getting their lives ruined thanks to "protect the children" laws) is a fair price to pay for the protection it affords to our children. Some people seem to take the position that any price is a fair price to pay to protect the children. This is an irrational position, but people find it hard to argue against, for fear of being seen as soft on child abuse. The truth is that there are some measures that are worth it, and some measures where the cure is worse than the disease.

    Personally, I feel that only actual abuse (suitably defined) of actual children (suitably defined) should be a crime. Anything beyond that just makes it far too likely that people will be prosecuted even though they mean no harm to children.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  118. Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note to pedophiles: Blame the infected machine.

    Here's what to do:

    Get a throwaway computer with lots of diskspace. You're going to use this for storage of your stash.

    Install an unpatched windows on it and go online.

    Search for "free porn" or similar. Visit all the sites returned and be sure to click 'OK' to any and all installation requests from all those nice offers with "free antivirus" and similar.

    Now you've got a severely infected machine. Turn it off because you'll never boot this windows again.

    Get a Live CD with some Linux distribution on it. Must be able to read and write NTFS if the computer uses that.

    Now boot the live CD in the computer and start surfing for CP... Compile your stash and enjoy. Be sure to remove the Live CD after each use.

    If the police should come knocking, blame the severely infected machine.

    Remember - your actions are always safe as you're working in the Linux domain (no intentional infection active) and for that plausible deniability just remove the Live CD and throw it in with all the other 'misc' CD's we all seem to accumulate.

    1. Re:Nice... by Skapare · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to do? Make the police and prosecution actually have to PROVE that someone actually LOOKED AT the CP, over and over?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  119. Don't be silly! by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    Don't be silly! Doctor Franzhaufer uses Linux...

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  120. Acai Berry Detox by desireable · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Associated Press tells the story of Michael Fiola, a former Massachusetts government employee who was arrested in 2007 after child porn was found on his state-issued laptop computer. He was eventually cleared of all charges after some digging by the defense found that the laptop was infected with malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute — an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half. Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped — 11 months after it was filed.' The article also discusses the technical aspects of how it could happen and about similar cases in the United Kingdom in 2003. Acai Berry Detox

  121. He's not the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see several people talking about how "gross" that guy is and maybe he "intentionally put the bot on his computer" and I thought that maybe I should put my 2 cents into this discussion since the same thing happened to me several years ago. I was charged with Possession of Child Pornography and I didn't do it. I didn't even know stuff like that existed, much less that it was on my computer.

    I was a guy that always had fun hanging out with my friends and since I was one of the first ones to finish college and get a 'real' job, I was also the first one out of all of my friends to afford nice toys. Like a Flat-screen TV, every video game system, workout equipment, and a nice, fast computer. Friends came and went all the time. People may say I'm too trustworthy and I guess I wasn't thinking, but most of my friends had keys to my apartment along with my roommates. I'm sure you can figure out where this is going.

    One day I get back from what was a 5 day party/drinking-binge with one of my friends who was going to college in another city a few hours away, and I notice that my apartment is messier than usual. I didn't think much about it at first but then I notice that my PC is gone. So I call my roommate and asked him if he borrowed it for a LAN party or something? (yea, that's how ridiculously lax I was with my friends) and he said no. Then on my PC desk, I noticed a detective's business card and a search warrant describing what they came to search for (they came sometime that morning and guess what they were looking for?) and what they took (PC stuff like HD's etc) and that they wanted to talk to me. I kind of did that whole out-of-body experience thing that people talk about where you don't really think this is happening to you and you get all numb and it almost feels like you're "watching yourself".

    I can microscopically explain every detail of the whole ordeal, because even though I try, I will never forget it. But to make a long story short - I was eventually arrested and charged. My name was on the news in my local community and on the radio as well. The law enforcement went to my work and questioned my boss about how much "access to children" I had. (I never worked with kids so therefore I had "no access to children") but nonetheless I lost my job. There were even some people (old ladies who didn't personally know me) who wrote to the local paper asking the editor "why do they even give people charged with crimes like that out on bail?". I remember thinking "This can't be happening" and that someone's gonna come out and say it was all a joke like in the movie 'The Game' with Michael Douglas. I just couldn't believe it. I mean... I WAS INNOCENT and people were already condemning me for something I didn't even know existed.

    At first I thought that the prosecutor would realize it was a mistake and apologize or something, but my lawyer sort of brought me to "reality" when he basically told me that I was DEFINITELY going to go to prison and that I was DEFINITELY going to have to register as a sex offender at least for several years after prison and possibly for the rest of my life. He was just trying to reduce the prison sentence and see what else he could do. He told me that since I was being charged with this crime there was no way in the world that I would "get off" despite not having any criminal record.

    When the realization set in that my life was pretty much over... it got really bad. I felt as though my entire life up to this point was done and everything I ever worked for was over. I basically boarded myself up in the spare room at my parents home. It really felt as though the villagers were outside my Mom's house with pitchforks and torches just waiting to lynch me. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't eat. I lost 30% of my body weight in a matter of a couple weeks. I thought about suicide constantly... and every time I did I would begin crying. I would begin crying not because I was scared, but because I knew I wasn't thinking about suicide in a "passing thought

  122. But how can we... by portalcake625 · · Score: 0

    set it to save everything it gets to %USERPROFILE%\My Stuff\Stuff\Boring Stuff\Stuff\Images\JPEGS\stuff.dir\ ? If the malware authors were to add that option, it'd sell like hotcakes!

  123. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "you beet me to it

    That'll happen if you sit around vegitating.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  124. Standard of proof by masonc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the courts need to raise the standard for proof of this crime. Just because there is CP on a computer should not be considered enough to prove the owner of the computer put it there. Computers, especially home computers running Windows, are inherently insecure and able to operate autonomously, subject to outside control without the owners knowledge. I can't think of any other possession we are less in control of, which is probably why there is no real analogous precedent for the courts to relate to.
    The courts need to require that the prosecutor can show the owner DID download the material with knowledge, not just that it was there. The requirement for proof should be something like correlating an online conversation to a request for the material or carrying it on a DVD, purchasing it with the offenders card, something that shows it could not have been automated.
    There is the potential for severe miscarriages of justice with the lax standard for proof presently employed which will inevitably lead to abuse and misuse of power. Once prosecutors have a slamdunk way to leverage a confession that will use and abuse it. All they have to do in ANY case is to look for a piece of CP on the defendant's computer, even if that has nothing to do with the case. No-one wants to go to jail for that and will confess to any other crime, even if they are not guilty. Look at the present case against prosecutors for manufacturing evidence if you don't believe they would do this. "there is no freestanding right not to be framed."

    --
    CM www.cometenergysystems.com Blog: http://caribbeanrenewable.blogspot.com/
  125. And we all know girls don't lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And we all know girls don't lie about their age, don't we.

    After all, if a club or bar has an 18 age limit, a teenage girl won't lie about her age so she can get in at 16, will she.

  126. It's the size of the disparity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't that it only happens in the US but that the US has extreme laws about erogenous zones being so very bad (Janet Jackson's boob incident) but rating a movie where someone blows their brains out as a 15.

  127. Re:Shameful, how? by qc_dk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because those laws might not be impacting me directly, but that's not a reason not to fight injustice. Segregation, apartheid and anti-semitism does not affect me, it is still wrong and must be fought and argued against.

    The problem is that as soon as anything of a sexual nature is involved it is treated in such an emotional way. The main reasons for the laws are the way they are are because of emotional knee jerk reactions not because of a reasoned strategy to curb actual harm. Our feelings should never be a reason to enact laws. I personally can't stand pop music. I find that whole cult around britney spears and the rest disgusting. Should we have a law that would put people(and children) in jail for many years and permanently label them as perverts, because they had possessed pop music or a poster with a pop star on it?

    If you lock a child in a room and emotionally scar it for life, so it will have trouble functioning in society, holding a job, creating a family etc. Then you are a child abuser and should be thrown in jail. So we should also throw the judges, the lawmakers, the police, and the voters in jail, who decided or aided and abetted that the appropriate response to a child sending some nude photos of her/him-self to their significant other is to put them in jail and brand them as sex offenders.

  128. Re:Shameful, how? by selven · · Score: 2

    And that's just executions. Due to the inherent irreversibility of the punishment, people tend to apply higher standards of proof to it. In prisons, there are more people who are innocent (far more if you count people in jail for things that really shouldn't be criminal).

  129. Re:Shameful, how? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    It's not an easy matter to decide what should/could be sacrificed, but there's one simple point where "protecting the children" should absolutely and definitely stop cold in its tracks. It's when it's ruining the lives of the children in question.

    An underage posing nude in front of a camera should never be accused of production of child porn.

    A child should never be taken away from the parents, unless they were directly abusive. Taking photos does not count.

    To be deemed a pedophile, you should be at least 2 years older than your "victim".

    Goddamnit, any day now we will see a law against underage masturbation deeming it child self-abuse.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  130. Reason #4: civil disobedience by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Someone is sick and tired of the bullshit. They write a virus that does exactly that, and spreads to millions of computers. As result, 25% of citizens of the US is in possession of child porn without even knowing it. After the initial wave of arrests the police finds out they are trying to stop a tidal wave with a bucket, and becomes completely powerless.

    Except the virus wasn't quite as efficient as intended...

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  131. hmmm... by grinningking · · Score: 1

    Amazing what people do with their free time. Why would anyone want to target a 'former government employee'? Was it given to him by someone or did he download it unintentionally? Begs the question what kind of sites he's been looking at...

  132. Re:Shameful, how? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My point was that it is very easy to be convicted of a "sexual offense" without actually doing something wrong, and that in some states that even includes "sex with a minor." The GP said he would be proud to murder sex offenders, and that he is not ashamed to call for their executions. My point was that the "sex offender" label is frequently misapplied, and that even if you look up the crime someone committed, the statutes have become so complex that it could be difficult to determine what the actual circumstances are.

    It has nothing to do with being a man or a woman. It has to do with being a citizen in a society where "sex offender" means a mark for life, where people violently hate "sex offenders," and where teenagers who did nothing wrong can be convicted of "sex offenses." No, the laws do not apply to me, but I still have to live in a society where people are convicted under those laws.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  133. Let's play the devil's advocate by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to be judge, jury or executioner on what happened on this guys computer.

    Although, look it from another perspective.

    A pedophile could install a virus or malware on his/her PC, doing these actions in order to prove his innocence through blanket defense.

    A knife has two sides that can cut; how is the state going to protect against such behavior?

    I would think a providers web/proxy access log would be a lot more accurate instead of finding a virus/trojan on someones PC; which could be installed on purpose by the pedophile.

    With an access.log, time can be compared to "legal visits"; where the times of visiting legal sites would either match +/- the timeframe where the photos are downloaded would be proof the perpetrator was behind the PC when it happened; visiting child pornography. If the state has to provide evidence and virusses are in the wild downloading illegal porn; then they will have to be prepared for both cases....

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  134. Thought crime by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Ah but they probably also want to punish people who get pleasure ( especially sexual) from watching 9/11 videos.

    Thought crime and all that.

    FWIW, adultery is still a crime in some US states. Maybe they should also imprison people who get pleasure from looking at photos of other people's wives.

    If people don't think adultery is damaging, I suggest they do a statistical survey of people whose spouses have cheated on them. While some people aren't the jealous sort, a significant number are. And from an evolutionary POV it's quite understandable why they feel that way. It can be significantly affect the survival of their genes.

    --
    1. Re:Thought crime by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Ah but they probably also want to punish people who get pleasure ( especially sexual) from watching 9/11 videos.

      By that logic, child porn should be legal, so long as you don't enjoy it?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Thought crime by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > By that logic, child porn should be legal, so long as you don't enjoy it?

      I suspect the FBI have copies of child porn in their possession.

      But I dunno, I don't understand all this "law stuff". It's too complicated for me.

      They certainly don't punish people who watched kidnappers beheading people, or terrorists killing people. And they certainly don't punish people who watch rape scenes in the movies.

      Those are all crimes. So what's the logic of _only_ going after those people who have child porn (and in some cases virtual child porn)?

      I'm curious, what are the odds of someone being a victim of child rape, compared to being murdered, badly beaten up or raped as an adult? If the latter risks are higher, and watching/seeing something really makes people more likely to commit it, then maybe the priorities should be changed?

      --
    3. Re:Thought crime by computational+super · · Score: 1
      so long as you don't enjoy it?

      In fact, I recently attended a presentation given by an FBI special agent whose primary job involved investigating CP. He said that was pretty much exactly the case. I can't remember his exact words, but they were pretty close to: "so what makes a picture illegal? It has to be 'lascivious'. What makes a picture 'lascivious'? Is a picture of my child in a tub 'lascivious'? Well, no, but if somebody downloads that picture for his own gratification, it becomes 'lascivious'". (He pronounced it "lashivus", by the way, but I knew what he meant).

      In other words, the standard is, "You know. Whatever the hell."

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    4. Re:Thought crime by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      child porn should be legal, so long as you don't enjoy it

      Yes. If you have a picture of your child bathing, that's okay, because a huge number of parents do have those sort of pictures. But if you have a collection of those sort of pictures, you probably enjoy them, so you're a criminal.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:Thought crime by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      You're the first person who actually responded with a "yes". It seems that most of the responses recognize that this is the way the law currently works, but don't necessarily agree that it should be that way.

      It seems you either missed the point of my analogy, or don't want to comment. But let's go with this:

      if you have a collection of those sort of pictures, you probably enjoy them, so you're a criminal.

      So you've done two things here, and each of them shocks me.

      First, you've made the enjoyment itself a crime. That is, you've made a thought -- or, more accurate, an emotion, and a state of sexual arousal -- a crime.

      The subject of this thread is appropriate: Thoughtcrime. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech -- don't you think we at least deserve freedom of thought?

      And second, you've thrown out "innocent until proven guilty", and replaced it with "probably". It's really not hard to come up with cases where someone would have a collection of these sorts of pictures -- an FBI agent tracking pedophiles, parents swapping photos out of family albums, someone conducting a scientific study on early childhood development... The list goes on.

      I think you should seriously re-examine your own beliefs here.

      That is: Think about this.

      I am not arguing for child abuse. I agree that actual child molesters, especially child rapists, should be punished, and generally kept away from children.

      But do you really believe that someone should be put in prison for decades, simply for having a disgusting thought? Or having a photograph? Not even a real photograph, but a digital representation of one?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    6. Re:Thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the first person who actually responded with a "yes". It seems that most of the responses recognize that this is the way the law currently works, but don't necessarily agree that it should be that way.

      It was sarcasm. I don't think it should be that way. I agree with everything you've said in this post. I phrased my comment deliberately, though, to make it obvious how ridiculous it was... perhaps I've fallen victim to Poe's Law.

      First, you've made the enjoyment itself a crime. That is, you've made a thought -- or, more accurate, an emotion, and a state of sexual arousal -- a crime.

      And second, you've thrown out "innocent until proven guilty", and replaced it with "probably".

      Not I – I'm pointing out that this has already been done. Very deliberately pointing it out – and hopefully you're not the only one who got it.

      Posting anonymously because apparently I talk too much, and Slashdot wants me to slow down. Reply to my prior post rather than this one if you want me to notice your reply.

    7. Re:Thought crime by metacell · · Score: 1

      They certainly don't punish people who watched kidnappers beheading people, or terrorists killing people.

      The difference being that terrorists don't kill people in order to produce those videos. It's not the demand for the videos that drive the killings. However, the demand for child pornography drives the child porn industry.
      You could argue that pirated child pornography should be legal, since it doesn't put any money in the producers' pockets, but that would make it easy for anyone who had bought child pornography to get away by simply claiming it was pirated.

      And they certainly don't punish people who watch rape scenes in the movies.

      The difference being that the porn actors don't actually get raped, they're just acting.

      If actual rapes were committed for the purpose of producing and selling videos of them, then yes, I think they too should be made illegal.

  135. Re:Rources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you will find the IWF is too busy blocking album covers and wikipedia articles to find any actual CP. That and being the government's outsourced censorship department.

  136. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Personally, I feel that only actual abuse (suitably defined) of actual children (suitably defined) should be a crime. Anything beyond that just makes it far too likely that people will be prosecuted even though they mean no harm to children."

    The problem is, there are sick people out there who are willing to conduct actual abuse of actual children for the sake of distributing materials to others in exchange for money, especially in very poor parts of the world or where laws or policing of such activities is lax. Some pictures might not be an issue -- pictures can be taken of children that are indeed harmless, and exceptions must exist for those. But some pictures as clearly are an issue. It comes down to what the children are being compelled to do. For the latter type, for "viewers only", I see a difference in the penalties that should be applied and the type of psychological help the person should be obliged by law to receive if they are discovered. While the people viewing and distributing those materials might not be conducting the actual abuse of actual children they are feeding the problem and I have no problem with regarding them as criminals complicit in the act -- they know what they are viewing and how it was made.

  137. In the UK by mad+zambian · · Score: 2, Informative

    this defence would not work. In the UK the law is such that the authorities do not care where the porn came from. The fact that it is on your machine means that you are in possession of it, and therefore guilty.
    End of story. No excuses. No counter arguments allowed.
    Go directly to Jail, do not pass go.
    Justice? Pfft. Missing, presumed dead, and has been for a while now.

    --
    Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
  138. Re:Shameful, how? by sorak · · Score: 1

    "It's completely shameful."

    Whatever. I feel no shame in demanding the executions of such bizarros as Phillip Garrido, or Dennis Bradford, or any number of other freaks. In fact, I am PROUD that I'm willing to put a predator to death. If ever the state needs a volunteer, I'll step up. I can do the needle, I can knot a rope, I can throw an electrical switch, I can pull a trigger, or I can swing an axe.

    Put the dogs down, and they'll never harm another human being.

    I think you just proved GP's point. He was referring to how easily people assume guilt, and you still seem oblivious to the whole "burden of evidence" concept.

  139. Unique MAC addressses by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

    I agree that the serial numbers portions of the MAC address are supposed to be unique. However, (back in the day) I've seen an instance of 4 Compaq SFF desktops with identical MAC addresses cause havoc on a Novell network. So don't bet your bacon on a unique MAC address.

    1. Re:Unique MAC addressses by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Back in the day I've seen two wireless clients connecting to the same wireless network with identical MAC addresses. (Okay, the second one was me, and I deliberately copied the MAC of the other one.)

      The experiment was sort of a toss-up: sometimes I'd get a lot of reset connections, but that happened when I wasn't MAC-spoofing, too, so I figure it might have just been a poor connection. The signal was pretty weak.

      If you're wondering how I got the MAC address of the first client on the network... well, they left their router open and with the default username & password for the HTTP web control config page.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  140. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    If you can't do it in device properties in the Device Manager:

    Win2k/XP: http://www.nthelp.com/NT6/change_mac_w2k.htm

    May not be possible in all cases in Vista/7...but you can give it a try:

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itpronetworking/thread/697bf48c-a226-4315-8875-2bbeddf16db2

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  141. clubseventeen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while there might have been seventeen years olds on there there many many years ago
    I'm very sure that everything you'll find on clubseventeen are 18+

  142. Re:Shameful, how? by snadrus · · Score: 2

    If you're in America with a laptop & someone manages to get the right data onto it, you're penalized for life. It doesn't matter your gender or anything else, you're vilified and will never be able to get a job or house.

    Additionally, it's male sided so much that if Women help other people's kids or innocent pictures surface of mothers with their children during bath, then no crime.

    Men want equal rights. All the while, they are continually cast as villains. Watch TV mystery shows to see what % is the married white guy the criminal. It an American culture problem.

    --
    Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
  143. Re:Shameful, how? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Heard of DNA? The DNA evidence in both cases I mentioned is already established. The only other evidence that can be almost equally as damning, is a video.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  144. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

    It's part of the GUI.

    Go to the properties of the NIC in Device Manager. Click on the "Advanced" tab. Hit the drop down and find "Hardware Address" Type what you want in the box without spaces or colons. Click OK.

    There you go.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  145. Re:Shameful, how? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    What if the girl lies about her age to you?
    What if she has fake ID?

    People have been locked up for shagging girls that look 20, say they're 18, and are in fact 15.

  146. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's probably a rule 34 of legislation that says a whole bunch of 13-15year olds are going to hate your for making this post a few years from now.
    Think of all the times someone said "There's gonna be a law for (ridiculous thing) any day now." ... then you see it in the news later in life.

  147. Sad but true by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    'Innocent until proven guilty' does not apply if you are accused of anything sexual involving kids. In that case it is 'Guilty until proven innocent. Then assumed guilty anyway.'

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  148. Re:Rources by makomk · · Score: 1

    No, they aren't. The IWF only gets UK-hosted stuff taken offline. If the child porn is hosted in another country (like for example the US), they don't inform the authorities in that country - they just add it to their block list. Then they use the number of sites on that lists to talk up how important their work is and how critical is is that they're allowed to censor everyone's internet access with zero oversight.

    Oh, and if you're in the UK and come across a child porn site, the IWF is (AIUI) the only place you can legally report it to. It's also the organisation the UK police work with. Wonderful, ain't it?

  149. Re:Shameful, how? by sorak · · Score: 1

    The article is about someone who was falsely accused. Nobody ever said pedophiles do not exist, and the two cases you presented are relevant only to those two people. They do not affect the guilt or innocence of others, and they do not make circumstantial evidence any stronger.

  150. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by treeves · · Score: 1

    Time to squash this thread before it gets out of hand.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  151. Re:Shameful, how? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    You deliberately chose some spotlight cases where the perpetrators most definitely were sick fucks who deserved what they got.

    However, that's what grandparent meant by "unlike witches, they actually exist". It's a witch hunt: you catch the innocent along with the guilty.

    That doesn't justify the disgusting treatment of high-school lovers and consenting relationships, which seems to be more and more common these days – much more common than the stories about the Phillip Garridos and their like. As a 25-year-old in the state where I live, I could legally get with a 17-year-old and the religious folks could just scream and bitch all they want – I'm not doing anything illegal. But if it's a 16-year-old, even if she's totally consenting, by golly I'm a sick pervert and ought to be locked up.

    Oh, and that 17-year-old girlfriend who I of course don't have (I'm on slashdot, afterall)? Fornicating is fine, but take one little picture and I'm a child pornographer.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  152. And there we go. by chaboud · · Score: 1

    This, folks, is why treating ownership of information as an illegal act is inherently flawed. Exploiting/molesting children? Yeah, that's a crime. Funding that exploitation? That could be a slippery slope, but, at its core, sure, it's a crime. Possessing the products of that exploitation? If you make it a crime, you'll run into this.

    It is completely unreasonable to make the possession of a particular type of information illegal if you fairly consider the implications. This type of law is both dangerous and fruitless. It's friggin' data. Even if it were put down on paper, photocopiers would make it almost infinitely reproducible. When it's electronic, it can be replicated at an absurd rate.

    It's like criminalizing glass pipes because they could be used to smoke pot (whichever way you sit on smoking pot, just let this go for a sec). If you do this, you start down a road of harassing people for having wood pipes, then toy pipes, then things that look like pipes, then lumps in their pockets. If you wanted to stop the use of pot, go after the source.

    We can't get to the people producing this sort of media and committing these crimes, so we try to get to the people who have it in some sort of scorched-earth approach to the problem? This can only end badly.

  153. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    I like the tools anyway... they have built-in lists of manufacturers, with the ability to use either a real manufacturer code and a random device code or just randomize the entire MAC.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  154. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You really just have no idea do you?

    Well I was in the porn trade for a while, running the servers of pay sites. There is a LOT of money to be made there. It was very interesting, after years of having to explain every dime in IT, it was refreshing to make a pitch for a new server costing X and just get X plus a bonus of Y if it was done yesterday. And that was 100% legit porn. The reason I quit is because there was always that push/lure/risk of going in the wrong direction. Call to ask wether I was interested in setting up a new server room in Russia, money no object, no-no don't bother with an offer, just say how much you want.

    Eheh.

    There is a lot of money in the sex trade and a lot of money in child porn. Google "teenmodel". Oh, there is free stuff and then the "collectors" pay for "bonus features".

    No money in child porn... that is like saying "well in holland everyone can grow their own pot, so there is no money in the drugs trade in holland".

    Only a person completely out of touch with reality would make such a claim.

  155. Re:Shameful, how? by lessthan · · Score: 1

    They aren't concerned that they will end up in that situation. They are concerned that these laws are overly broad and that the laws will be used unjustly. It is also a "They came for the Jews and I said nothing" situation. Yesterday, it was illegal to possess CP, today it is illegal to possess fictional images of CP. Will tomorrow's law include of-age tentacle rape?

    --
    Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
  156. Downloading it doesn't imply intent. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    I write search spiders as a hobby. Part of their job is downloading lots of random files. So if it indexes a child porn site will I get arrested? Just having the content on your computer or having downloaded content doesn't mean there was any intention.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  157. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really is shameful as only the small minded who have no self respect need witches. People like them are a greater threat then Al Queda and are the type of people who eventually destroy a society far more effectively and insidiously then any terrorist or conqueror ever could. These same types of people brought about the last darkage.

  158. I once had child porn on my PC by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    I was browsing the net a couple of years ago and all of a sudden I got tons of pop up windows full of really vile images( i was running a pop up manager but they were obviously using some new-fangled method to deliver their product). After closing them all I then got the final pop up which was an ad for Evidence Eliminator (or some similar product) with the full spiel about how you can go to gaol for possession of images in your browser's cache and other really scary stuff. So when I hear about someone busted for CP claiming that a virus did it I may be suspicious about their excuse but as I have been on the receiving end I do not dismiss their claims outright as just another stupid excuse. If you are wondering how I made my HDD legal again. I smashed it to pieces that night (it was due to be upgraded anyway - evidence eliminated!)

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    1. Re:I once had child porn on my PC by vikstar · · Score: 1

      I'm totally amazed you can even use a computer.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    2. Re:I once had child porn on my PC by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Your ability to chime in with stupid, useless, and patently false comments is immortalised here. The fact you were modded up just shows that you paid for the Vaseline.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    3. Re:I once had child porn on my PC by vikstar · · Score: 1

      lol, epic fail. I wasn't modded, I start on a score of 2 because of my karma.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    4. Re:I once had child porn on my PC by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just try to play nice.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    5. Re:I once had child porn on my PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey... you're the "uninformedLuddite" who managed to infect his PC with a virus a couple of years ago. If you want my honest advice, find someone who knows what they're doing and have them do a thorough virus scan of your current PC, followed by some helpful pointers on how not to get infected in the future.

  159. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These laws do not protect children and in fact place them in farther danger. To the microminds who need a witch to hunt it costs 31,000 USD a year to keep someone in prison. At this cost I'd rather only deal with real cases of abuse where real kids are being beaten and raped. It is shameful if having a few pics gets you more punishment then running a sweat shop full of kids. Worried about the treatment of kids then stop your damn witch hunts and stop buying nike shoes made by Chinese kids.

  160. Re:Shameful, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you trolling or just severely brain damaged? Really go do the world a favor and copulate with a toaster plugged into 220V while taking a bath.

  161. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not really a coward, just too lazy to try and remember or find the password!

    HOWEVER! Why would you even publicize the fact that Malware can do this? Why encourage these creeps to entertain the thought of child porn!!!!

  162. The most objectionable truth by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

    This can now be used as an excuse if someone is caught.

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
  163. Re:Shameful, how? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Sure, and here's my own anecdotal evidence to back it up.

    My parents were relatively prudish, and even they had pictures of us children taking baths or using the toilet, you just couldn't see any of our "naughty" parts.

    Our next door neighbours for a while were a family from the Czech Republic, and when they had a daughter they had us over to dinner and showed round the table the picture of the newborn, naked, in the sauna right after she was born. No embarrassment at all. Another time, though, when I walked into their living room unaware that the mom was changing the baby, she seemed a little embarrassed and I retreated as quickly as I politely could.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  164. Re:Shameful, how? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    sexual desire - the sort of urge most of us supress every day

    Actually, I thought it was pretty well known that normal people watch porn on a fairly regular basis.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  165. Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    FWIW - You made me laugh. :)

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.