Slashdot Mirror
FTC Takes Out Porn- and Botnet-Spewing ISP
coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission today got a judge to effectively kill off the Internet service provider 3FN, which the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing, and all manner of malicious web content. The ISP's computer servers and other assets have been seized and will be sold by a court and the operation has been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC."
My heart overflows for this poor oppressed Botnet operator.
Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.
see title
which the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing and all manner of malicious Web content
One of these things is not like the other
"FTC Takes Out Porn, Internet traffic slows to a trickle."
Only to sell them later this year when IPv4 runs out. I'll make a killing.
Not the TITTIES!
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Just checked the spam folder in my e-mail client--it's empty. I can't even remember the last time that happened.
This ain't rocket surgery.
I've always wondered how to get in on auctions like this. Anyone know how to find the pertinent information?
TFA also mentions child pornography, which is fairly universally forbidden.
If your gonna be critical of the government, don't give them any other reason to attack you. It helps bolster your case of "I did nothing wrong" and "they're just trying to take me down"
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
However, CP is easily planted and things forbidding it are generally destructive of free speech and harm more children.
If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it. Since it is though, it has created a large economy dedicated to the production of it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
spam, porn, botnets, phishing
....
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
Found 'em.
Child porn will generally get you in trouble in just about every western jurisdiction. This is not news. This was not just a singular administrative action born in the middle of the night. This started over a year ago and was the culmination of a legal proceeding where they apparently proved that this entity was actively recruiting nefarious clients to host child porn and other illegal activities.
This one smacks more of sensationalist summary writing than of government censorship or unconstitutional takings.
" been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC" - Why is it any arrest results in fines that some fed agency collects....and eventually keeps? It seems Law enforcement is now more a money generation then a cost center..
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it.
Huh? That argument flies with the War on Drugs because most drug addicts are consenting adults. How does it fly with something that requires sexual behavior on the part of those too young to consent to such activities?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If so, it still seems eager to take my business:
http://www.webhostingstuff.com/company/3FNNET.html
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
wait a moment...
If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it.
Isn't that the arguement for legalizing drugs?
Are you making some ironic comparison of the two that's wooshing over my head, or are you actually suggesting that the solution to child porn is to leaglize and regulate it?
Yes, Obama has proven the value of his presidency and left the critics red-faced with this one.
Because think about it. If there is already free porn of it, why make even more of it for what is a fetish for a small amount of people. If it was free and unregulated it would fill the internet making it hard for people to turn a profit producing it on their own which would lead to any economic benefit being reduced or eliminated.
If you have an audience who wants something and there is no where else to get it (because it is illegal and actively destroyed) you can set a rather high price on it and run a business doing it. On the other hand, if there is so much free CP floating around because it isn't actively destroyed the few people with that fetish go to that and don't even bother to purchase CP destroying the economy of it.
There are lots of really, really strange fetishes out there but none are so financially successful as CP because of the presence of regulation. In order to fill the small number of people who like CP, more CP has to be produced because it isn't out there anymore which leads to more children being abused.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You do realize "teabaggers" isn't quite the insult you think it is - right? You are implying you are the teabaggie, thus the recipient of the teabagging.
Way to troll on several things at once: 7.5
But I'll bite...
This single 'win' probably shut down .0001% of all spam traffic. In response, the price of hiring a botnet just went up .0001%. Yay. What a 'win'.
{yawn}
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
As someone who works for a government agency and, in fact, calculates those kinds of fines, I can probably answer that for you. Regulated entities have to agree to abide by certain rules with the agency that regulates them. Breaking these rules does not rise to the level, generally, of criminal acts so that kind of punishment is out. Besides, how do you throw a corporation in jail. The punishment for breaking these rules is usually a fine, which can be challenged before a judge (usually an administrative law judge). Also, part of that fine will be to recoup the costs of the investigation.
Up there getting "Flamebait" mods for equating this to government silencing dissenters (using the tried-and-true slippery slope fallacy).
If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it. Since it is though, it has created a large economy dedicated to the production of it.
Ridiculous and untrue.
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+my+life+in
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Because think about it.
That’s a dangerous way to start off an argument about something you know little about.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
If it was free and unregulated it would fill the internet making it hard for people to turn a profit producing it on their own which would lead to any economic benefit being reduced or eliminated.
Right. Just like how "regular" porn is unprofitable because the internet is already full of it.
because it is illegal and actively destroyed
Right. Because CP doesn't exist in digital form with multiple copies floating around the world, and is therefore easily destroyed when it's found.
if there is so much free CP floating around because it isn't actively destroyed the few people with that fetish go to that and don't even bother to purchase CP destroying the economy of it.
Right. Which is why nobody is producing "regular" porn anymore, since there's more than enough of it available to satisfy everyone already.
I find it hard to believe than an *identifieable* ISP that is making money with legally dodgy stuff (spam) and legal but offputting stuff (bestiality, etc.) would jeopardize its revenue by hosting for-real child porn. That's just stupid.
Could someone who's not blocked from reading the article tell me - Was this *real* child porn? Or was it "under-18 in skimpy clothes" sites? Lots of politicians like to throw around an "entry-level child porn" label when they really mean "about as much skin as you can see at the beach". I'm just wondering what the FTC definition is.
the only ground i would give on this issue is that some sanity should be employed as to what is considered "child porn"
1 father of a child has pictures of a non sexual nature OF SAID CHILD on his computer NOT PORN
2 parent of a child has pictures that include said child and possible other children (while not sexual) NOT PORN
3 Non parent has a bunch of pictures of children (with a number of them barely dressed) PORN
4 a set of pictures of a child in various poses (and clothing) being sold PORN
5 naked pics of a child PORN
6 obviously sexual pictures of a child PORN (with bonus charges)
the trick is Intent of the Collection
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
My heart overflows for this poor oppressed Botnet operator.
Damn government! Always interfering with the free market!
Now, GOOD for the FTC, but where are the upstream / downstrem providers in this equasion? These guys where not operating from random DSL lines, SOMEONE sold them connectivity and KNEW what they were up to...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Because this has worked so well for the multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industr... oh wait. Nope. Your logic fails. Yes, there may be a shred of truth to your logic, but the only thing you state as likely that would actually come true is that there would be far more of it. Something we don't need.
I am not in any way against legal porn, and actually think it's a bit too regulated as it is.
Right. Just like how "regular" porn is unprofitable because the internet is already full of it.
The difference is, everyone uses regular porn.
Right. Because CP doesn't exist in digital form with multiple copies floating around the world, and is therefore easily destroyed when it's found.
It is effectively destroyed when they raid servers, HDD, etc. Yeah, there might be a few copies floating around but they aren't generally hosted on the internet for fear of them being taken down.
Right. Which is why nobody is producing "regular" porn anymore, since there's more than enough of it available to satisfy everyone already.
The difference is the amount of CP produced because of the economy is disproportionate to the number of people who consume it which is directly caused by the fact it is illegal.
People are producing regular porn now because there is a -large- market for it that it hasn't hit its peak yet. CP is a -tiny- market, artificially exaggerated in economic worth due to it being illegal.
It would be like if BeOS was made illegal, there aren't many users or people who really want a copy of BeOS, but since it is illegal and has a dedicated fanbase however small, people would pay large amounts of money to continue to use BeOS if they were big enough fans.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Interestingly enough, your question begs the question.
The only reason that they are considered "too young to consent to such activities" is because the law says they are are too young to consent.
Another flaw in your post is that most drug addicts get started as minors.
Computers will be sold with no prior formatting of the hard drives I guess? Bad idea...
Non parent has a bunch of pictures of children (with a number of them barely dressed)
a set of pictures of a child in various poses (and clothing) being sold
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=children+stock+images
If you’re feeling really risque, add the search term “swimsuit”!!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
There is a difference between criticism and unadulterated horseshit. Folks like Breitbart, Ailes, etc are not part of a genuine opposition movement. It's like calling the tomato chuckers at an old European execution legitimate commentators.
I might not agree with every word of Barry's message (I'm way to far to the left for that shit) but I've gotta say your characterization of his response is bunk. I, for one, believe it is the prerogative of the POTUS to respond publically to public criticisms and statements regarding his administration, so long as his criticism does not stifle the public discourse, or the freedom of expression of the American public. This goes doubly when the criticisms are of a demonstrably fallacious and/or factually bankrupt nautre.
Or are you saying that Hopey intimidates you into silence? Because, I'd REALLY have to call bullshit on that one.
...the original complaint lists "pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest" in one section, and every other mention of "pornography" is listed as "child pornography".
Even excluding the child pornography, reading the complaint, the pornography aspects of his business are not legitimate porn sites. He runs porn sites whose primary purpose is to catch search engine hits and direct them to sites containing malware, viruses, and fake anti-virus products (ransom anti-virus software, effectively). This is not a guy who runs a few woefully unethical businesses and then runs a legitimate pornography business on the side. Please don't confuse this for the shutdown of a pornography website, even the porn sites are just tools to infect unsuspecting visitors with hostile software.
Pretending this particular case is the law coming in and preventing you from looking at pornography is roughly akin to suggesting that Adolf Hitler was considered an enemy of the Allied powers because they didn't like his painting.
STOP. JUST STOP with the example of yelling fire in a theatre.
You don't know what you're talking about. Really.
It's a *GREAT* example...actually yelling fire in a crowded theatre is certainly indisputably sociopathic. But the court case was about anything but that issue.
The *ACTUAL* ruling came in 1919, in Schenk v US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater -- in which the supreme court in their massively screwed up logic ruled that it was illegal to distribute leaflets opposing the draft--comparing it as a seditious act of comparable danger to yelling fire in a theatre in which they said "free speech is not absolute"
Not only was free speech not absolute (that part should be obvious)--because you can't yell fire in a theatre, you also can't distribute leaflets opposing government policy. Because those two are clearly of comparable significance and burden on free expression.
Please don't use the fire example--the case deserves public scrutiny until overturned.
Just because free speech isn't absolute doesn't give you the right to repress it when you find it convenient.
Oh, and stop referring to bloggers in a way that makes them sound like inconsequential political entities. The most motivated and effectual political activists on the planet communicate through such mediums these days, and to minimize their impact is willfully obtuse at best.
Because think about it. If there is already free porn of it, why make even more of it for what is a fetish for a small amount of people. If it was free and unregulated it would fill the internet making it hard for people to turn a profit producing it on their own which would lead to any economic benefit being reduced or eliminated.
Yeah, sure. Look at how that has killed the mainstream porn industry. Not.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
http://www.google.com/search?q=porn+industry+suffering
What struck me in that statement is the "give BACK" part. You can't "give back" unless something has been given TO you. So, why did the FTC GIVE this outfit $1.08 MILLION in the first place? Or is the author not a native english speaker?
"We always said that once the Internet took off, we'd be OK," he added. "It never crossed our minds that we'd be competing with people who just give it away for free."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/10/business/fi-ct-porn10/2
Who ran legitimate businesses. Sucks that they have lost their websites. Hope they had backups.
So you're okay with the woman who went to jail for trying to get a picture of her kids first bath developed?
Do you assume all nudity is sexual elsewhere too?
I don't know how you got modded insightful when really I can't see the logic let alone the insight in your post. There's lots of free regular porn on the Internet. Has that resulted in less, or more regular porn being created? Have all of the production studios gone out of business? No. CP as you put it, still requires the exploitation of children for its creation. I'm guessing you're ok with that on some level (based on your comments), but most civilized people are not. Additionally, I think it's more than a fetish. It's a sickness. For those involved it becomes more than watching and eventually encourages those with this sickness to act out their fantacies on some poor child. That sucks, and that's why it not only should remain illegal, but those caught with it should be removed from society in a permanent fashion.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
CP isn't profit motivated. The risk/reward ratio isn't high enough.
And by your argument Playboy, Adam and Eve, Vivid, and various other producers of porn should be out of business because of Youporn and Redtube. But they aren't. The industry continues to grow even though free porn is rather prolific on the internet.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. There are so many examples of bloated, broken, fiscally irresponsible government programs that your argument is DOA. Welfare comes to mind immediately. If you'd like to sign your paycheck over to the feds because you think they're doing such a great job you go right ahead. I'll keep mine and use it to take care of my family.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
What a difference 20+ minutes makes ... it was green when I originally linked it.
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
> You're protecting the freedom of the poor bastard who downloaded it by mistake and didn't nuke his hard drive from orbit.
If my reading of US Federal law is correct (and IANAL), all you have to do if you come upon CP is to delete it immediately and show no one (this is the protection against accidental viewing). Alternately, you can show it to no one except the cops.
These two courses of action are protected. Anything else is a bad idea.
It seems Law enforcement is now more a money generation then a cost center..
You are correct. Our public SERVANTS seem to think they are the public's MASTERS.
The public service would need less money if they took less "fact finding missions" and paid for their own cars, houses, holidays (sorry, fact finding missions).
I hope they clean those servers before they sell them.
first they came for the spammers
and I did not speak up because I hated spammers
then they came for the phishing sites
and I did not speak up because I hated phishing sites
then they came for the botnets
and I did not speak up because I hated botnets
then they came for my porn
and I did not speak up because my neighbors would look at me funny
the only people who can get away with child porn is doctors claiming it is medical news, health teachers, saying it is for their next class as we are studdying the human body. and artists who can say its the next Mona Lisa
They use the phrase "all manner of malicious web content" to describe porn among other things. Since when is porn considered malicious web content. It's a legal job for willing volunteers and it's also a local job that isn't heavily out sourced to foreign countries (though foreign countries make their own porn too). I think the author should have thought about that statement and perhaps gave the preview button some thought before they posted.
One of my gmail addresses was getting 95 spams per 24 hour period. I forgot to log in via the webportal over the weekend, and was simply downloading via Mailwasher and Thunderbird, so the spam folder filled rapidly.
By the time I checked it, there were some 350 spams in there from Friday night to Monday afternoon. That number had been holding steady for the last week, but today?
Just five. The interesting thing is that I was only seeing about 20 or 30 a day up until 2 weeks ago, then everything surged bigtime.
My guess is the operators saw the shutdown coming and stepped up their operations to boost infection rates prior to packing up shop and moving elsewhere.
[End Of Line]
+1, spot on
Because that has worked so well against regular porn, which is clearly a dying industry due to its plentiful freeness. Oh wait, the opposite of that.
The argument I'd have against that is the problem has to get worse before it gets better. Personally I don't know what opinion to form on this subject.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seriously?! I've got a ton of images of my niece and nephew in my library. Some of them in swimsuits playing in the pool, or running through the sprinkler on a hot summer day.
You might want to revise your definition of pornography.
You may not directly be a parent (i take it you don't have children of your own) but i would bet you have been given the responsibility at times. Part of the "hook" is that you are related to the children pictured (and you are not selling these pictures on the open market).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Additionally, I think it's more than a fetish. It's a sickness. For those involved it becomes more than watching and eventually encourages those with this sickness to act out their fantacies on some poor child.
Playing violent video games (such as Grand Theft Auto) is more than entertainment. It’s a sickness. For those involved it becomes more than watching and eventually encourages those with this sickness to act out their fantasies on some poor pedestrian.~
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Oh, so it’s not as simple as you previously pretended it was?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
It is amazing how the correlation!=causation crowd becomes complete hypocrites the moment CP is mentioned.
Hey!! By that logic, we should also legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroine, and other drugs!