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."

Comments

Break out the champagne!

[peterb]

My heart overflows for this poor oppressed Botnet operator.

Re:Break out the champagne!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should apply bound checking, otherwise someone could exploit it.

Re:Break out the champagne!

[Anonymous Coward]

My heart overflows for this poor oppressed Botnet operator.

But not for the FTC -- FTS:

"... the operation has been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC."

How could these FTC guys possibly consume and pay for that much porn?

HaH -- captcha = rollback

Re:Break out the champagne!

[g3k0]

You should apply bound checking, otherwise someone could exploit it.

Lol! Only on slashdot.

Re:Break out the champagne!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nationalcynical.com/images/computerbettermaintained.jpg
look at the poor guy, now he needs to get up.

Re:Break out the champagne!

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries for them, they will soon publish a PDF book payable by PayPal called "Fun And Profit With Spewing Spam, Porn, Botnets, Phishing, And All Manner Of Malicious Web Content." It will be a mashing success with the highly efficient organic marketing. Just open the book and the included distributed WOM engine executes, spreading the good word to everyone within your address book. Next, it scans your network for new potential byers and goes off to tell them about the great product available. Ad infinitum. And beyond.

How is the porn part relevant?

[rbanzai]

Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[daveime]

Because it gets the religious types in a frenzy, and all those anonymous letters and leaflet campaigns carry a lot of weight around the FTC.

Botnets, spams and malware aren't good headlines, PORN (36 point Verdana Bold Italic) is !

Because Americans are a bunch of sexually-repressed prudes in public, but just as perverted and fucked up behind closed doors as the rest of us ?

Take your pick.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[canajin56]

It's to outrage free speech advocates, of course. I'm surprised the summary even mentioned the other part, and didn't try to spin the entire thing as the FTC declaring war on porn and free speech.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[sopssa]

Because porn is bad and it will melt your eyes. In fact we should ban sex too. No more sex in marriage either.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[gyrogeerloose]

Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.

RTFA--they were hosting child pornography sites. That's a whole different animal from the usual porn.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[rgo]

Maybe the judge is an Apple fanboy.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA - "pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest"

Not necessarily the most legal porn. Sorry if I'm a sexually-repressed prude for not thinking kiddie porn and bestiality is OK.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Slipped_Disk]

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Shakrai]

Because Americans are a bunch of sexually-repressed prudes in public

Yeah, that's the impression I get from watching American mass media. We are all prudes....

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[The Wild Norseman]

No more sex in marriage either.

Way ahead of ya, pal.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

No more sex in marriage either.

I do believe you've made the elementary error of assuming there's sex in marriage.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[jandrese]

I'm guessing it was a combo of child porn and porn popup advertising hosts.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Locke2005]

Free porn: good. Porn spam: very bad (my daughter has an email address too.)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why counldn't that have been mentioned in the news snippet? 'c' 'h' 'i' 'l' 'd' a whopping 5 bytes more, and the aura of trolling for comments would have been blown away.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Flozzin]

I can't think of anything else that would effect the geek community less than banning sex.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[by (1706743)]

From TFA:

...harmful electronic content including...pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest.

The "children" part seems relevant...

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Tanuki64]

One word: Americans.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[oldspewey]

This was one of those comments that made me laugh, then immediately made me cry.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[mrsteveman1]

I can't think of anything else that would effect the geek community less than banning sex.

A giant shield to block the sun? There could be one deployed right now, i'd never know about it.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[mrsteveman1]

RTFA--they were hosting child pornography sites. That's a whole different animal from the usual porn.

Which animal is in your usual porn?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[CorporateSuit]

Or perhaps some sensationalist, anti-religious zealot like yourself can't figure out that BOTNETS don't typically distribute your garden-variety porn. There are normal nets for that sort of thing.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[eviloverlordx]

You're not married, are you?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[kalirion]

Because it gets the religious types in a frenzy, and all those anonymous letters and leaflet campaigns carry a lot of weight around the FTC.

Of course. You know that 1 complaint = 1 billion people, right?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[bhartman34]

I can't mod you up, but +1 on that.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>RTFA - "pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest"

None of which should be outlawed (freedom of expression). However the people that produced that stuff should be arrested for child abuse. Too bad the FTC's not going after those criminals, so they'll just keep making more of it.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

Because the “news snippet” is actually just the first 2 paragraphs of the article, copied verbatim, and the nature of the porn wasn’t mentioned until the 3rd paragraph:

The Federal Trade Commission today got a judge to effectively kill off the Internet Service Provider 3FN who 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.

According to the FTC in June 2009, it charged that 3FN, which does business as Triple Fiber Network, APS Telecom, APX Telecom, APS Communications, APS Communication and Pricewert LLC, actively recruited and colluded with criminals to distribute harmful electronic content including spyware, viruses, trojan horses, phishing schemes, botnet command-and-control servers, and pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest. The FTC alleged that the defendant advertised its services in the darkest corners of the Internet, including a chat room for spammers.

This is Slashdot... what did you expect?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Pharmboy]

Of course. You know that 1 complaint = 1 billion people, right?

I hear they got 20 calls about that incident, which means that 20 billion people were offended by this.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

I was watching a German TV show the other day, when suddenly a young woman came strolling across the screen topless. Oooops. That's not allowed on U.S. broadcast television (although I wish it was). I'd say we're prudish, or at least the FCC is.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.

Because typically, the pr0n is not even real pr0n, just a hook for botnet infection. "Install this ActiveX control to see b00bz!"

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[fulldecent]

>> 20 billion people were offended by this

Wow, that's one fifth the number of people that have been served by McDonalds!

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Jhon]

Freedom of expression is not absolute. You cannot incite to violence, panic or break laws.

Try yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[amicusNYCL]

You think child porn is protected by freedom of expression?

Tell me, whose freedom are you thinking should be protected? The adult or the child? Is it OK if the adult's freedoms infringe on those of the child?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[bensode]

New moderation method ... +1 Relates

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

The freedom of the person who’s looking at a picture and thinking something naughty.

The people who actually produced the stuff... the adults who abused kids to make porn... well, you apparently didn’t read his comment very well, because he already said you should go after them.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[jimicus]

Try yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.

Why is that always the example that gets trotted out? Did somebody actually do it?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Akido37]

You think child porn is protected by freedom of expression?

Tell me, whose freedom are you thinking should be protected? The adult or the child? Is it OK if the adult's freedoms infringe on those of the child?

You're protecting the freedom of the poor bastard who downloaded it by mistake and didn't nuke his hard drive from orbit.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[COMON$]

Going on 6 years over here and I still have way more sex than my single friends :) And yes, my wife IS hot AND real ;)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Xtifr]

Banning sex would make it impossible to effect anyone! (Except through cloning). It would, however, not affect the geeks as much as the rest of the world (unless masturbation were included in the ban). :)

This post brought to you by "Grammer Nazis 4 Gooder Englush". :)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, it's usually a specific variety of primate.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[WrongSizeGlass]

RTFA--they were hosting child pornography sites. That's a whole different animal from the usual porn.

Which animal is in your usual porn?

ManBearPig, Manimal or a Whoreasaurus?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[LordNimon]

Did somebody actually do it?

Yes.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[capnkr]

Oh, you'd *know* about it - it would of course get posted here and @other techblogs.

You just wouldn't be able to personally *see* it, from down there in your parents basem..., um, H@x0rs L@!r...

;) :D

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[digitig]

I can beat that -- the mainstream French channel FR3 used to have a station ident in which three pretty female dancers suddenly took their tops off and stood there exposed, giggling. The jingle (if I recall correctly, the girls sang or mimed it) was: "FR3, c'est trois fois mieux" ("FR3, it's 3 times better"). In the UK we might get a young woman wandering around topless in a drama (after the 9pm watershed), but we'd not allow it in a station ident. Pity. I used to enjoy the FR3 one.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd say that a vast majority of the public are OK when exposed to mild porn. Unfortunately, there's some truth to the idea that mild indulgence leads some obsessive-compulsives to keep pushing for more public displays and lower moral standards. This is one of the few cases where an unclear legal definition helps keep honest people, honest and bad people either far away from kids or driven like moths to a flame where they can be quickly identified and dealt with. It's too bad that a lot of the worst offenders are in government. We're on our way to a Clockwork Orange world.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[IdolizingStewie]

It is a slight misquote of an example used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the majority decision in Schenck vs the United States. The proper quote is falsely yelling "fire" in a theater.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Jeng]

Ok, so no to child porn and bestiality, but I can take it that you are into incest since you didn't include it in your second list?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Voyager529]

Going on 6 years over here and I still have way more sex than my single friends :) And yes, my wife IS hot AND real ;)

Pics on an ISP other than 3FN or it didn't happen.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Shakrai]

That's not allowed on U.S. broadcast television (although I wish it was)

So what? I was referring to the overall content of our TV shows and commercials. There's definitely a sexual subtext to most mainstream productions these days. Besides, if you want your tits on TV just get HBO. I've seen more sex on The Wire and The Sopranos than I have in most pornos....

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of its use as an example in the courts related to freedom of speech...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[cbiltcliffe]

And yes, my wife IS hot AND real ;)

...and robotic.... :)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[johnvanveen]

Why is that always the example that gets trotted out? Did somebody actually do it?

Here you go. It's the Rembrance of the Dead (a yearly two minute silence in honour of the victims of WO II) in the Netherlands, May 4th 2010. A crazy drunk guy started yelling, resulting in 30 people getting injured. More info.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[digitig]

Which animal is in your usual porn?

H. sapiens?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[ZaphDingbat]

First amendment literature usually uses it as an example of unprotected (inciting) speech.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[daveime]

BOTNETS can be used to distribute porn, but they are much more likely to be used for anoymous proxies, spam networks, credit card fraud etc.

Saying botnets = porn is just as insipid as saying PostOffice = porn. It's just the magic P-word to get the people / media into their frenzy. Because everyone knows "ALL porn is kiddy porn, even if you don't actually specify that".

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[gangien]

maybe because it's a pretty good example of the point being made?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your prick.

FTFY

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[LWATCDR]

It is called freedom of speech not freedom of expression.
So you can talk about all you want. But no your wrong it should be and is illegal. The Supreme Court is okay it being illegal as is most of society.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[daveime]

Kind of scary that he won't fuck his dog, but he will fuck his sister (and hit her too, he missed out violence form the list). Priorities ?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

From what I understand about group dynamics, shouting, "FIRE" in a crowded theater even if there is a fire will result in similar outcomes.

(People telling you "SSSSH this is the scene where Cody Rhodes gets the WarMachine armor!" in hushed tones.)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[LWATCDR]

And yet there is all sorts of political speech that is illegal in Germany. For instance you can not say heil Hitler on tv even in a sitcom like Hogan's Heros where they where making fun of the Nazis.
Different cultures have different standards. I can understand why Germany has it's rules even if they are bit over the top to me. After all a flag has never killed anybody.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we should sanitize the world because you want to give your daughter unsupervised access to it.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[knappe duivel]

Which animal is in your usual porn?

Probably an ass

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the FTC's job to go after those criminals. They are doing exactly what they were created and paid to do.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[gangien]

of course this gets modded up. it's easy to dismiss something when you can just blindly point your fingers at 'wacko religious people'.

In any case, 1 acronym for you: RTFA

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Freedom of expression is not absolute

Yes it is. My mouth, my body, my right to say whatever I want with it.
.

>>>Try yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.

I have. It was at a Rocky Horror Picture show along with dozens of other people, and the owner didn't care because it was all part of the fun. Try a better example that doesn't involve private property.

The other reason that's a lousy example is because it was the argument Woodrow Wilson used to imprison Alice Paul, suffragettes, and other people protesting World War 1 (Sound familiar? Almost like George Duh Bush). No leader or government should have that power to silence the people, even in time of war.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't take into account the fact that the pictures were taken without the child's consent (because the child can't consent).

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/internet-porn-misty-series-traumatizes-child-victim-pedophiles/story?id=9773590

Now, do I think that law enforcement's resources should be dedicated to stopping the countless individual consumers and re-distributors of this material? No, for practical reasons. Do I think that the act of redistributing the material should be illegal? Yes.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Tanktalus]

Because fucking a dog is just nas... hey, why are you looking at me like that?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, it's usually a specific variety of primate.

Lemurs?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[pyrbrand]

You can't sell, consume, promote, or otherwise utilize child pornography without inherently promoting its production. By doing so you are absolutely complicit in harming the child.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is a place where the "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold much sway (well, for me at least).

Child Porn has been (almost) universally condemned. Doesn't matter which side of which fence you are on, it's wrong to do those kinds of things to someone that does not consent, and a child cannot consent.

Oh, there's a grey area with older teens or younger-looking adults - Personally, I think the age of consent (for sex and for video/pictures) should be lowered to 14/16 or so (you know - the historical "move out and start your own life" age), but (for example) a video or picture of an adult having sex with an 8 year old is evidence of a rape, period, end of story. It cannot be tolerated, it will not be tolerated - in production, absolutely.

What people don't fully understand is that using something creates more of it. It's true about P2P music and movies, it's true about child porn, it's true about normal porn.

Let's take three scenarios of varying severity.

-CP is produced. Someone purchases it, thereby supporting the person they got it from directly.

-CP is produced. Someone purchases it and shares it online via file sharing. Other people download it from them, making the person that produced it happier as others find out to come to "jasonXXX8yrold" for more files. All people that downloaded it are supporting the production, because they are encouraging the distribution of the file.

-CP is produced. The producer places it online in a cloud-style system, and then monitors to see how many times it's been downloaded. Nobody pays for it, ever. But the producer gets a "good feeling" from being popular, so he continues to produce it.

Basically, CP is an abomination that should be hunted down and destroyed with every legal and just method - with one caveat.

That caveat? Someone real has to get hurt. Sketches of people don't hurt other people.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

That doesn't take into account the fact that the pictures were taken without the child's consent (because the child can't consent).

Yes, actually, it does.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[rcamans]

Actually, as I understand it, many porn sites are malware sites, infecting PCs.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[gyrogeerloose]

Which animal is in your usual porn?

Genus Homo, species Sapiens Sapiens.

Yours?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

..... in order to silence people who were protesting World War 1. And suffragettes protesting for the right to vote - they ended up in jail for the mere act of saying their opinions. That's a crime against individual rights.

Also it was an illogical argument. Protesting the War Draft on public property, and yelling fire in a private theater, are NOT the same thing. Nobody is harmed if I stand on a street corner holding a sign which reads, "Stop the Draft".

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ..... Their power all the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.. you can strike out that last part. Unnecessary in most cases.

(BTW, so far, porn has only melted my left eye..)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

In A People's History of the United States, HOWARD ZINN noted that Schenck's statements were more akin to a person standing outside a burning theatre and shouting "Fire!" in order to warn people not to go inside. In other words Europe was the theatre, and World War I was the fire, thus warning the American population to not become involved.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free porn: good. Porn spam: very bad (my daughter has an email address too.)

what is it? does she mind taking my cock up her ass? i'd love to slit her vagina in two and then shit in it

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

-CP is produced. Someone purchases it and shares it online via file sharing. Other people download it from them, making the person that produced it happier as others find out to come to "jasonXXX8yrold" for more files. All people that downloaded it are supporting the production, because they are encouraging the distribution of the file.

You obviously do not know how this sort of thing works. The people who produce it do not want it widely distributed... as soon as it’s found by law enforcement, it’s a piece of potential evidence to find them and catch them. Hell, anonymous people on the internet tracked down a woman who stomped on a kitten with spike heels... do not underestimate the power of benign things.

-CP is produced. Someone purchases it, thereby supporting the person they got it from directly.

Those sort of things are carefully designed trades. They don’t deal with people they don’t trust, and they don’t trust people unless those people also abuse kids. There’s too much risk of being caught in a sting... and the imprudent ones who do stupid stuff like you described do get caught... which is why you think that they’re all like that, I suppose. It’s only the really clever ones who get away with it... and you don’t even know most of them exist.

-CP is produced. The producer places it online in a cloud-style system, and then monitors to see how many times it's been downloaded. Nobody pays for it, ever. But the producer gets a "good feeling" from being popular, so he continues to produce it.

They do not do it for the notoriety. That is absurd. They do it because they like abusing kids. The ones who do film it do so mostly just to share amongst themselves. If anything, when their materials do leak it just means they should be even more careful in the future because they don’t want law enforcement getting wind of them.

http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+my+life+in

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Homo erectus... or straight erectus.

(Captcha was "freaks")

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

You can’t sell, consume, promote, or otherwise utilize a movie without inherently promoting its production. That’s why the MPAA encourages piracy of movies.~

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Xiterion]

This has a pretty good explanation of the origin of the phrase.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[theaveng]

It is called freedom of speech not freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as more State Constitutions than I can list here, AND the supreme court which declared flag burning to be non-speech but still protected. So yes photographs (and art in general) is protected.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[theaveng]

You think child porn is protected by freedom of expression?

Yes. Just as I think looking at photos of a grisly murder is ALSO protected by freedom of expression. I didn't commit the crime - I'm only looking at light captured on paper, so I've done nothing wrong. (BUT the person who committed the crime should be arrested and jailed for a long, long time.)

This is also why I don't think possession of marijuana should be a crime. If you are driving while smoking, then yes you should be arrested, but if you're just sitting at home enjoying the psychedelic colors of Star Trek 1, then you've done nothing wrong. Mere possession is not a crime.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

For the record, though, I mostly agree with you.

Oh, there's a grey area with older teens or younger-looking adults - Personally, I think the age of consent (for sex and for video/pictures) should be lowered to 14/16 or so (you know - the historical "move out and start your own life" age), but (for example) a video or picture of an adult having sex with an 8 year old is evidence of a rape, period, end of story. It cannot be tolerated, it will not be tolerated - in production, absolutely.

Agreed.

Basically, CP is an abomination that should be hunted down and destroyed with every legal and just method - with one caveat.

Agreed, with one caveat: hunt down the people who are making it. Unless the people who consume it can somehow help you find the people who are making it, going after them is just about as effective as it has been in the farce known as the war on drugs.

Someone real has to get hurt. Sketches of people don't hurt other people.

Agreed. Put the blame on the people who deserve it, though: the producers.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[theaveng]

I think you misunderstood. He was saying a US channel was showing nudity illegally. If caught they'd be fined severely by Prudish FCC.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[nnet]

What DOES incest pron look like?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[blueZ3]

So, don't look at porn with remaining good eye then?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Jhon]

Yes it is. My mouth, my body, my right to say whatever I want with it.

Good luck with that.

Take your mouth, your body and your "right" to say whatever you want with it and stand outside the Whitehouse and claim you are going to kill the President.

Extreme example, but it easily shows how wrong you are.

I have. It was at a Rocky Horror Picture show

Did you duck when the point I was making was coming at you? Or was it just over your head because I had higher expectations of you?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[brouski]

Two things:

1. It's James Rhodes.

2. Watch less wrestling.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[russotto]

It is a slight misquote of an example used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the majority decision in Schenck vs the United States. The proper quote is falsely yelling "fire" in a theater.

And the case concerned a prohibition distributing leaflets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional. A prohibition that was upheld. Fortunately, Schenck is no longer good law.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[PopeRatzo]

but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown?

That's a good point. I have no doubt that the FTC would say that it was the ickiest kind of porn, that involves children or cartoon characters, but I'm uncomfortable by how easily they group porn with "malicious web content" as if it's going to insidiously infect your computer and force you to look at it..

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Locke2005]

Right... like you have time to read every email all your children receive before they do. I barely have enough time to do that with my wife's email!

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Ichijo]

Free porn: good. Porn spam: very bad (my daughter has an email address too.)

Getting rid of the spam will also get rid of the porn spam. Therefore, the "porn" part is irrelevant.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand about group dynamics, shouting, "FIRE" in a crowded theater even if there is a fire will result in similar outcomes.

(People telling you "SSSSH this is the scene where Cody Rhodes gets the WarMachine armor!" in hushed tones.)

Ummm it's Jim Rhodes.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it gets the religious types in a frenzy, and all those anonymous letters and leaflet campaigns carry a lot of weight around the FTC.

This begs the question of who is more ignorant? You or the people who voted your ignorant comment as insightful?

RFTA at least before spewing your ranting liberal nonsense. How about we make a rule that if Comedy Central is where you get your news and your moral fiber you are not allowed to post here?

You are by FAR, the weakest link. Goooo Die.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[PopeRatzo]

You cannot incite to violence, panic

Don't tell this guy

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[BlueStrat]

The other reason that's a lousy example is because it was the argument Woodrow Wilson used to imprison Alice Paul, suffragettes, and other people protesting World War 1 (Sound familiar? Almost like George Duh Bush). No leader or government should have that power to silence the people, even in time of war.

Too bad the current US President seems to be channeling Woodrow Wilson. The demonization of middle-age & senior citizens, often with children & grandchildren with them, that have protested this governments' irresponsibility (Tea Party), and the characterization of them as violent & dangerous, is the first step towards repeating, or even exceeding, Wilson-esque suppression of dissent. Particularly when coupled with the government wishing to be able to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial or due process on their whim.

Things in the US and the world are going to get real scary very, very fast. I expect within less than 5 years, maybe less than 2 years, state budgets will start defaulting on things like union pensions, etc and then the violent protests & riots will start, lead by unions. This has already happened in Greece and is starting to occur in the EU as well, as the economic avalanche rolls on.

This will prompt already-worried countries like China to start dumping our Treasury Notes and other international-borrowing financial instruments and refuse to extend the US credit unless the interest rate is raised far above present. This will drive the amount the US pays on the interest on the national debt through the roof.

This will cause the US Federal Government to default, and all the entitlements & programs will all but cease to exist. Then, the rest of the people will start to revolt and the fun will REALLY begin, as the US & EU collapses into a Progressive world government after a period of worldwide violence and death.

Have a nice day! :)

Strat

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[digitig]

I didn't realise that it was on US TV, true. But I think my point about the cultural differences holds. On US TV it seems even partial nudity is forbidden, in the UK it's occasionally tolerated, and in France it's pretty much expected.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

I wish I had points to mod you up. there should NEVER be a law preventing somebody from sharing of receiving information, regardless of what it is. though I agree that the aforementioned content shouldn't be there in the first place, and that the people who were making it have broken a law, I cannot willingly say that I support any law preventing people from talking/distributing something, ever. Japan looks the other way at illustrated graphics with rape context? and guess what: suddenly the rate of violent crimes goes down. if nobody's getting hurt, why is it illegal?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[HiThere]

Sort of depends on the definitions used. I'm against cruelty, unless the target is a masochist, but...

Child porn has been used to imprison a 15 year old who sent pictures of self to their 16 year old partner. (I'm vague, because of uncertainty, but I think the 15 year old was a boy. And it's possible that he was arrested for possessing nude pictures of his 16 year old girl-friend [that she sent from her cellphone].)

Since then I've been a bit skeptical of child-porn stories.

Also, a man having sex with a small dog is clearly wrong. But with a horse...if it objected, the man would never walk again. And women appear to have been "making it" with animals since the stone ages without anyone suffering. (Well, bar a few who didn't choose to do so, but there the wrong is in the coercion.)

And incest? Do you *believe* everything you read? How do you know whether they are related or not?

P.S.: Child porn has been stretched to cover cartoons. Explain to me why I should disapprove of those cartoons? I remember seeing similar comic books when I was in high school around 1960, so I'm certain it's nothing new.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

what the hell for? do you also think that it should be against the law to send pictures of your grandmother over the internet? but what if somebody takes offence to them? or in a more related case, taking pictures of a burning home? people unwillingly and without consent were harmed, and you're saying it should be illegal to distribute these photos? censorship. it's a word very few people understand. uncensored does not mean "we get to cover up the obviously illegal things"

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[OakDragon]

(Sound familiar? Almost like George Duh Bush)

No, it doesn't sound familiar, but perhaps you can explain.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[geekoid]

Those amendments do not guarantee 'freedom of expression' There is no such freedom. There are some guaranteed freedoms that can be used for expression.

Those are different things.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[rbanzai]

Sorry, I didn't see that one sentence in the article. Considering that "porn" was the first word in the headline to describe the content the botnet was spewing I expected to see more related info in the article than just a single sentence.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[amicusNYCL]

Mere possession is not a crime.

The law tends to disagree with you there. Both in terms of drugs and child pornography. Or alcohol if you're under 21, or burglary tools, or a firearm if you're a convicted felon, etc etc etc.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[geekoid]

Your sig.

Seriously dude, it was the republican majority the pushed through the bill. They made it very clear they wiodl override a veto. In exchange dfor not doing that, they chaged the worsding so it would be open to everyone and not jst a few rich people.

There are plenty of issues with Clinton, the housing bubble is not one of them.
Why it became apparent what was going to happen, the Republican majority ignored it. That was back on '02-'03.

There was a lot of debate about that issue. It was the first time in my memory where the republican made it very clear to their own party. Step in line with this, or loose all political clout.
The Democrat minority didn't want it for the very reasons that ended up happening. The bubble burst and it brought down the economy.

It is well documented and you ahve to be serving an agenda as well as have you hands over your ears while going "LALALALA" to not see that.

This isn't a political endorsement, but a statements of facts. It's all in the records.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[geekoid]

Spam is too wide, going after porn spam means you can target your resources.

A spam joke probably isn't worth going after. Society, in general, doesn't mind jokes. Porn. Society generally doesn't like it flaunted around.* So where do you think they should spend the money?

*This is not a judgment of porn, just a broad generalization of society

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Stan92057]

How is child porn an expression? An expression of what? Same for murder photos,how is that an expression? How does one express themselves at someone Else's demise and rape,because child porn is rape and control. How many people have said that they were ok with getting raped as a child? I don't know of 1.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I don't watch wrestling or read comics.

I just sit in the crossfire of people who do.

It's not that I think these things are beneath me, but if I want my dose of weekly homoeroticism, I hit up manhunt.com.

I like how in the discussion about human life, the only thing the slash dot crowd cares about is getting a comic reference right, not you know, making sure people don't get trampled on. I understand on Black Friday you're probably not at WalMart at 3AM, but, imagine it was Comicon and natalie portman's hot grits were showing? I don't know where to go with this one.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but the point is that if 10% of the people get trampled on the way out of the burning theatre, that's better than 100% of the people dying in the fire.... if there IS no fire, 10% of the people died for no reason.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Jedi Alec]

"You like that little girl? Who's your daddy?!"

Fill in the rest yourself... ;-)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[LWATCDR]

And the same court ruled that porn is not protected.
And in no way does the 9th and 10th provides any protection of expression.
Then tenth is
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
And the ninth is
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In no time does it make any statement about the freedom of expression.

The idea of freedom of expression is in it's self silly.
Suppose I want to express my self by burning tires in my back yard?
Or conning people out of money. Hey it is performance art!
The first amendment SPECIFICALLY specifies speech and the press instead of expression because expression is just too broad.
I mean I know it is hard to believe but some idiot would think that they had the right to distribute and or own kiddie porn! I know it is hard to believe that anybody would be so silly but thankfully the writers of the Constitution and the Supreme Court have set those idiots straight.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well knowing the internet and how rule 34 applies, it's probably the muppet.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[dgatwood]

I'm assuming you would agree that movies depicting gang killings are expression, right? Take West Side Story, for example. What about movies that are depictions of actual gang killings, e.g. Freedom Writers? As soon as you get into dramatizations of real-life murders, the line rapidly blurs. So as long as the actual dead body isn't shown, you're okay with it. But what about photos of DUI victims in MADD videos? Is that okay? If so, how is that different? If not, how is that not expression?

At what point do depictions of murder victims become "not okay"? There really isn't a clear line. What makes child porn special is that it causes irreparable psychological harm to the (still-living) victim, and that's why disseminating it is illegal. This, of course, assumes that there is an actual child victim. In cases where it is faked (either through adult actors/actresses or through CGI), that's a much harder argument to make.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[dgatwood]

Well, maybe, but how can you determine just by looking at a photo or video that the people involved are not two consenting adult actors/actresses? I think that was the point of the GP's question.

I mean sure, if they actually say, "I put on my robe and wizard hat," you can safely assume they're role playing, but....

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[cynyr]

and think of the money that could be brought in taxes if it was legal! and tickets for driving under the influence.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[McGiver]

Not necessarily the most legal porn. Sorry if I'm a sexually-repressed prude for not thinking kiddie porn and bestiality is OK.

Will someone THINK OF THE GOATS???!?!11

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[ksemlerK]

You can legally own lock picks, crow bars, cutting torches, plasma cutters, bolt cutters, hammers, wrenches, etc in WA State. Hell, the day I got my DUI, I had lock picks in my car, and the police didn't say anything about it. (and I got my car searched for weapons, drugs, and alcohol).

You are fully allowed to have "burglary tools", you just can't use them to commit a crime. Similar to how I can have a knife on my person whenever I want, I just can't assault people with it without justifiable cause. I can own as many firearms as I want, so long as I don't assault anybody without justifiable cause.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[ksemlerK]

Q: What's the difference between a Girlfriend and a Blow up doll?
A: When you have a girlfriend; she blows you. When you have a blow-up doll; you blow her.


Q: What's the difference between a wife and a blow-up doll?
A: When you have a blow up doll, you blow her. When you have a wife; she has a headache, so you blow yourself.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[ATMAvatar]

I will never fully understand US standards (despite living here all my life). We show gruesome films like Hostel nearly/completely unedited, but if a single exposed breast is shown, the FCC flips out. Yet, sex is a natural and accepted aspect of human life, while the wanton torture and slaughter of others is (in some states) a capital offense. If some measure of censorship is unavoidable, one would hope we would at least get our priorities straight.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[AaxelB]

Too bad the current US President seems to be channeling Woodrow Wilson. The demonization of middle-age & senior citizens, often with children & grandchildren with them, that have protested this governments' irresponsibility (Tea Party), and the characterization of them as violent & dangerous, is the first step towards repeating, or even exceeding, Wilson-esque suppression of dissent. Particularly when coupled with the government wishing to be able to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial or due process on their whim.

Wait wait wait, who is characterizing the Tea Party as violent and dangerous? They've been doing a really good job of characterizing themselves as clueless and uninformed, but I haven't seen anyone imply that they're dangerous (except maybe politically, but that's a different thing).

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[hairyfeet]

The problem is when you go after the consumers instead of the creator scumbag, it never seems to stop in a logical place. For example if you are stopped in the wrong place words on a page will get you sent to PMITA prison, and if that isn't thoughtcrime I don't know what is. I won't even bother posting the links where people have been thrown in prison for ink on a page, again no children involved in any way, shape, or form, because sadly we have all seen that before.

No matter how much it sickens us we have to accept our leaders in politics and the courts have proven time and time again they can't be trusted to have even the tiniest bit of common sense, especially with hot button issues. I used to have lunch with a buddy that worked at the state crime lab and he said a good 90%+ of the losers they busted with that crap hadn't touched anybody but themselves...well ever, because they were socially retarded and spent all their time at home whacking off.

It was a classic case of doing something about the actual problem being hard and expensive, but need to show they were doing something so they went for the easy targets, losers jacking off to kiddy pics on Kazaa. Now that they have about used up the low hanging fruit expect to see more and more being busted for cartoons and stories, just to say they are doing something to stop it and it is just gonna get worse. Where will it end? Romeo and Juliet? After all they weren't 18, it's child porn! Hell we are already busting kids for taking pics of their own bodies, so why the hell not?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

I know it when I see it.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[clone53421]

The rationale (and whether or not it makes any sense is up for debate)...

Violence is around us. It is [supposed] to frighten and disgust us, although movies have pretty much desensitized us to it. However, if you ignore the desensitizing nature of habitually and deliberately watching violent movies, it’s no different than walking out on the street and randomly seeing a violent act take place. (Well, chances are good that a movie is significantly more violent and gruesome than the average mugging... but so the theory goes.)

Sex, on the other hand, is something (traditionally) that is “supposed” to happen behind closed doors. We know it happens and we want it to keep happening, but a person who habitually went and spied on people having sex in real life would be called a peeping tom. So we don’t think people should be watching other people having sex in movies or on TV, either.

Like I said... whether the argument holds any water is up for debate, but it does at least make a little sense from that perspective, even though I think it’s ignoring some obvious and relevant facts (such as, watching it desensitizes us to it).

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[the_other_chewey]

And yet there is all sorts of political speech that is illegal in Germany. For instance you can not say heil Hitler on tv even in a sitcom like Hogan's Heros where they where making fun of the Nazis.

Hogan's Heores is quite popular in Germany, Heil Hitler in the dubbing included. In fact, the arts and sciences (history!) are the main exception to that law.
Heck, Berlin had building façades filled with swastika flags and Hitler-greeting nazi soldiers running around big streets for multiple movies over the last decades.

Nobody got arrested for it.
Germany does however have a law against displaying nazi symbols outside those exceptions. Given Germany's history, that's understandable. And by the way,
this law was co-written by americans.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[theaveng]

>>>it was the republican majority the pushed through the bill.

What bill? There was no bill. It was simply a mandate issued by the Executive Branch that banks must hand-out loans to low-income persons, or face prosecution.

The Republicans circa 2004 (six years later) tried to stop the obvious price inflation happening in the housing market, but the Democrats refused to cooperate. There are numerous youtube videos (i.e. proof) which show these congressional debates, and the Democrats saying, "The housing market is fine - there's no problem."

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>The law tends to disagree with you there.

The marijuana possession law is null-and-void, when you obey the Law. The Supreme Law never gave Congress the power to ban a plant. The Supreme Law reserves such power to the Member States' governments. So the Congressional Prohibition is should be nullified as if never existed. This is why we need a new amendment:

The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.

Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed.
Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>How is child porn an expression? An expression of what?

In the case of nudists, it's an expression of freedom. Or more simply: A family portrait of mom, dad, and the kids enjoying summer vacation at the beach.

Similarly murder photos are commonplace. They are not outlawed. I can look at the Lizzie Borden murder photos any time I feel like it. The government has NO constitutional authority to outlaw these photos.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>And the same court ruled that porn is not protected.

Bzzz. *Obscenity* is not protected. Porn IS protected (playboy exists). And nude photographs, regardless of age, is also protected - read the Supreme Court cases for yourself. It is why Borders and Barnes&Noble have books filled with naked children in the rear of their stores (photography section).

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In no time does it make any statement about the freedom of expression.
>>>

Yes it does. It's contained in your State Constitution. (Or at least it's in MY state constitution; yours may be different.) So since it's in the state constitution, photographs, art, and other non-speech are protected by State law, and Congress can not overrule that law (per amend.10).

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>You can't sell, consume, promote, or otherwise utilize child pornography without inherently promoting its production. By doing so you are absolutely complicit in harming the child.

By that reasoning, if I am hosting the images of the Lizzie Borden murder photos on my website, I am inherently promoting the production of more murder photos, and I am complicit in the harming of the parents & should serve jailtime. (See how your argument is flawed? Observers of crime photos, are not the criminals.)

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[BlueStrat]

Too bad the current US President seems to be channeling Woodrow Wilson. The demonization of middle-age & senior citizens, often with children & grandchildren with them, that have protested this governments' irresponsibility (Tea Party), and the characterization of them as violent & dangerous, is the first step towards repeating, or even exceeding, Wilson-esque suppression of dissent. Particularly when coupled with the government wishing to be able to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial or due process on their whim.

Wait wait wait, who is characterizing the Tea Party as violent and dangerous? They've been doing a really good job of characterizing themselves as clueless and uninformed, but I haven't seen anyone imply that they're dangerous (except maybe politically, but that's a different thing).

Well, there's Bill Clinton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvkM98tfvVg

Nancy Pelosi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tmQwVm9Vqc

Then there's the entire Liberal/Progressive propaganda arm...oops, I meant the mainstream media...that's repeatedly tried to link the Tea Party to violence and cast it as dangerous when there have been ZERO ARRESTS of Tea Party people, but multiple violent assaults by, and multiple arrests/charges on, those who call themselves "liberal" and "progressive" and screamed about freedom of speech and protest equaling patriotism when GWB was in office.

Remember kids, it's not just the speech you like/agree with that's free, because otherwise some day it will be YOUR speech being curtailed.

Strat

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[amicusNYCL]

I can own as many firearms as I want, so long as I don't assault anybody without justifiable cause.

Not in all cases. My point is just that mere possession can in fact be a crime under certain circumstances. Alcohol is a great example, it's never legal for a person under 21 to be in possession of an open container of alcohol. I believe that the laws concerning child porn are equally black and white, it's never OK to possess it. Personally, I don't find an ethical nor legal objection to that particular law.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[amicusNYCL]

The marijuana possession law is null-and-void, when you obey the Law.

I'm not aware of "The Supreme Law", or if that's a legal term you're referring to, but when I got arrested for marijuana violations I did not get charged by Congress, I got charged by the State of Arizona for violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Federal law never came into play.

The Supreme Law never gave Congress the power to ban a plant.

Congress was also not specifically granted the power to outlaw controlled substances like heroin, or the trafficking of such. Things change. Our laws are not created in a vacuum.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[SgtSnorkel]

This begs the question of who is more ignorant?

The word beg, when used in this phrase, does not mean "asking for something", instead it means to dodge or avoid.

"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

What was that you were saying about ignorance?

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[LWATCDR]

I do agree that it is understandable. According to the Wikipedia the heil Hitler is changed in the German version.
Hey if never saw a Neo-Nazi I can not say that I would cry. And yes the law was co-written by Americans but if you think it makes sense now just think how much sense it made in 1945-46!
But that is the point different cultures have different expectations.
In the US the idea of arresting someone for giving a speech or writing a book with unpleasant or even downright evil political ideas is just about unthinkable.
Limiting say pictures that we consider obscene is not.
In the US political speech has more protection the sexual or commercial speech. In many places in the EU that isn't the case. As long as the majority of the people agree with it and it seems somewhat reasonable I don't have a problem with it.
BTW Did you know that most of the Germans in Hogan's Heros where/are Jewish? And the some of them where or lost family members in the camps. When asked about it they said they enjoyed doing the show because what better revenge could they have than making Nazis looks foolish.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[ksemlerK]

There is one exception to minors in possession of alcohol. They are allowed to do so if they are taking it as a religious sacrament, (such as communion), or if they are within the confines of their parents and/or legal guardian's residence with their approval and presence.

Re:How is the porn part relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cody Rhodes, son of the "American Dream" Dusty Rhodes got the War Machine armor?
Man, I gotta watch that again!

It'd be way more entertaining if Golddust got it, IMO.

couldn't they at least keep the porn part?

[Anonymous Coward]

see title

Re:couldn't they at least keep the porn part?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, if their servers are being sold, then you might be able to pick up a couple of terabyte storage array filled with porn, real cheap.

Don't complain. :)

Re:couldn't they at least keep the porn part?

[Anonymous Coward]

couldn't they at least keep the child porn part?

Fixed that for you, sicko.

Hey hey hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Hey hey hey!

[Anonymous Cowpat]

How long did your career producing segments for Sesame Street last?

Re:Hey hey hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Score 0: Redundant

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday May 19, @03:15PM (#32268606)

Score 5: Funny

by Tanuki64 (989726) writes: on Wednesday May 19, @03:26PM (#32268748)

Only on Slashdot can you become retroactively redundant.

Re:Hey hey hey!

[clone53421]

Maybe it was redundant because he cleverly bolded the word “porn” to make it stand out and then pointed out the rather obvious fact that it was unlike the others?

And maybe something that’s otherwise somewhat redundant can be funny if you put it to a witty rhyme?

Porn?

[jspenguin1]

"FTC Takes Out Porn, Internet traffic slows to a trickle."

Re:Porn?

[rrohbeck]

Damn. Can they put the porn back online and just leave the botnet off please?

Re:Porn?

[PatPending]

Maybe now the employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission will start doing their real jobs.

Re:Porn?

[mjwx]

"FTC Takes Out Porn, Internet traffic slows to a trickle."

After a short, intense burst of traffic, main fibre links are now flaccid.

Today "malicious content"

[Darkness404]

which the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing and all manner of malicious Web content

That is the story today, but what about the story tomorrow?

While it could be true that this was an ISP where nothing of value was lost, could it have also hosted sites critical of the government and its policies?

Something interesting to look into...

Re:Today "malicious content"

[mystik]

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"

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[pilgrim23]

" 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..

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Skarecrow77]

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?

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[clone53421]

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

Re:Today "malicious content"

[clone53421]

Because think about it.

That’s a dangerous way to start off an argument about something you know little about.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[RobertLTux]

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

Re:Today "malicious content"

[ICLKennyG]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[clone53421]

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”!!

Re:Today "malicious content"

[digitig]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[TooMuchToDo]

The porn industry is indeed starting to hit a saturation point:

http://www.google.com/search?q=porn+industry+suffering

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Obfuscant]

" been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC" - Why is it any arrest results in fines that some fed agency collects....

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?

Re:Today "malicious content"

[TooMuchToDo]

Also, let me add this quote from Bill Asher, co-chairman at Vivid Entertainment (one of the large adult film producers in the industry):

"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

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

5 naked pics of a child PORN

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?

Re:Today "malicious content"

[sheph]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[Mordaximus]

3 Non parent has a bunch of pictures of children (with a number of them barely dressed) PORN

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.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[RobertLTux]

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).

Re:Today "malicious content"

[clone53421]

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.~

Re:Today "malicious content"

[clone53421]

Oh, so it’s not as simple as you previously pretended it was?

Re:Today "malicious content"

[2obvious4u]

It is amazing how the correlation!=causation crowd becomes complete hypocrites the moment CP is mentioned.

Re:Today "malicious content"

[vampire_baozi]

Hey!! By that logic, we should also legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroine, and other drugs!

I'll buy their IP addresses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only to sell them later this year when IPv4 runs out. I'll make a killing.

Oh god NO!

[0racle]

Not the TITTIES!

Re:Oh god NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA: It's child porn. So unlikely to have "titties".

Re:Oh god NO!

[DaVince21]

Not the... goat titties?

Coincidence?

[gyrogeerloose]

Just checked the spam folder in my e-mail client--it's empty. I can't even remember the last time that happened.

Re:Coincidence?

[Bugamn]

It was when you created the account.

Where/When is the Auction?

[endikos]

I've always wondered how to get in on auctions like this. Anyone know how to find the pertinent information?

Re:Where/When is the Auction?

[RNLockwood]

I've always wondered how to get in on auctions like this. Anyone know how to find the pertinent information?

Yeah, there's gold waiting to be extracted from those disks ...

Re:Where/When is the Auction?

[mindwhip]

I can see it now... as soon as you win they seize the servers again (they didn't wipe them) and have you up on the same changes as the previous owners...

Re:Where/When is the Auction?

[RobertLTux]

i would hope that the actual drives themselves are locked in some evidence warehouse in crates labeled with a case number since they will needed as evidence for when they hang^imprison these folks post trial.

so in short if they still have the files on them a number of somebodies need to lose their jobs (or you wont be getting the drives at all).

Re:Where/When is the Auction?

[WiseWeasel]

They've got top men working on it. TOP men.

do7l

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll be able to Mod points and project faces a set our cause. Gay 80s, DARPA saw BSD prospects are the aacounting

One of These Things....

[Tanuki64]

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?
....

Re:One of These Things....

[Anonymous Coward]

Phishing doesn't belong because it's a verb.
The others are nouns.

Hint for the graduates of Texas:
nouns=names

Re:One of These Things....

[GaryOlson]

Spam does not belong because it is a food item. The others are just ways to waste time.

Re:One of These Things....

[RJFerret]

Botnets doesn't belong because it's the only one without the letter "p" in it.

Re:One of These Things....

[Garfong]

Pornography featuring children (RTFA) does not belong. The others prey on people who should know better.

Re:One of These Things....

[clone53421]

Spam can be a verb.

Re:One of These Things....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you follow http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/math/recent there was a fun one *recently*--

"Odd One Out"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1005.2700

Tanya Khovanova
Department of Mathematics, MIT

enjoy

Re:One of These Things....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's there, it's just upside-down.

Re:One of These Things....

[Anonymous Coward]

three moderators are loons. porn doesn't belong. porn isn't illegal.

Re:One of These Things....

[clone53421]

porn isn't illegal.

The kind that we’re talking about is.

What, didn’t you RTFA?

Re:One of These Things....

[geekoid]

None of them are the same thing.

Re:One of These Things....

[cynyr]

Porn doesn't have an S in it.
Phishing is the longest.

Re:One of These Things....

[mjwx]

Spam can be a verb.

It's also a noun and a proper noun.

For University of Texas graduates:
Proper noun = name of a specific item, as in one of a kind.

Teabaggers

[ktappe]

And where are all the teabaggers who go around saying the government never does anything right? Seems to me this is government working exactly as it should be, in the best interests of the public. A win for Washington, no?

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Obama has proven the value of his presidency and left the critics red-faced with this one.

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[Chordonblue]

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}

Re:Teabaggers

[blueg3]

Up there getting "Flamebait" mods for equating this to government silencing dissenters (using the tried-and-true slippery slope fallacy).

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship? A win?

Is criticizing the Great Leader 'malicious' content? He seems to think so, calling out bloggers in his speeches.

I'd be worried about an administration that deals with criticism the same way a 13 year old girl does.

Re:Teabaggers

[Snarkalicious]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[Snarkalicious]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[sheph]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, spot on

Came in for the people who didn't RTFA on Soapbox

[ICLKennyG]

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.

Is 3FN 3FN.NET?

[abbynormal brain]

If so, it still seems eager to take my business:
http://www.webhostingstuff.com/company/3FNNET.html

Re:Is 3FN 3FN.NET?

[LandDolphin]

Hmm a sleazy company is willing to take your money even though they might not be able to provide the service in the near future? Shocking!

Re:Is 3FN 3FN.NET?

[amicusNYCL]

Maybe so, but their uptime graph really sucks.

Blocked at work so I can't RTFA - but...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

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.

Re:Blocked at work so I can't RTFA - but...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's not generally advisable to try to find out more about what is classed as child porn -- you could become collateral damage to your own curiosity.

Re:Blocked at work so I can't RTFA - but...

[Renraku]

In some countries, crude drawings that can be interpreted as being under 18 are just as bad as full-on child pornography. So, it really doesn't matter if it was Little Lupe (the over-18 porn star), or a six year old, as far as politicians go.

Re:Blocked at work so I can't RTFA - but...

[ksemlerK]

Definition of Child Pornography

Re:Blocked at work so I can't RTFA - but...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I'm going to assume that you posted that link in good faith and not call you to task for the incompleteness of your perfectly-accurate-but-useless-in-the-real-world answer.

To others who visit that link, keep in mind that CP, in the broadest definition allowed by the linked cite, includes "...simulated lascivious exhibition of the ... pubic area...".

That means that pictures of fully clothed kids can be prosecuted as CP. After all, if you can see the crotch area, then the pubic area is on display. If the person in possession can be reasonably proved to get some jollies from looking at the picture, that makes the pubic area exhibition into something lascivious. (Google the Knox decision, if you want more info.)

Thus, we have people convicted of CP crimes for taking pictures of their daughter in a bikini. (Google "Webe Web" if you want more info.)

Bottom line - all pictures of kids are CP if they're in the wrong hands, leaving it up to prosecutors to decide just what they want to attack when it comes to CP.

That means that my original question stands: What sort of real-world, working definition did the FTC use for "child pornography" when they took this action?

free market

[Anonymous Coward]

My heart overflows for this poor oppressed Botnet operator.

Damn government! Always interfering with the free market!

What about the providers?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

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...

Re:What about the providers?

[jDeepbeep]

Now, GOOD for the FTC, but where are the upstream / downstream providers in this equation? These guys were not operating from random DSL lines; SOMEONE sold them connectivity and KNEW what they were up to...

FTFY

Re:What about the providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have no life.

Re:What about the providers?

[erroneus]

I see your intent here, but what happened is precisely what needed to happen... maybe FASTER than it happened, but still it happened.

Here's why I would have issue with your extended prosecution logic:

1. Such a move does not place limitations of responsibility. For example, you prosecute the upstream provider of the "criminal organization." Great. But what about the upstream provider of that provider?
2. Such a move would serve to stifle admittance onto the internet in general. It would cause upstream providers to "police" those downstream. It would also cause upstream providers to be more exclusive about who they provide access to which leads to OTHER problems like denying someone the ability to make a legitimate living based on "who knows" what information but would likely lead to some pretty unfair business practices.

Re:What about the providers?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Now, GOOD for the FTC, but where are the upstream / downstrem providers in this equasion?

Has anybody started a blacklist for blackholing bgp routes?

I'd use a reasonably-run list at my gateway (my choice, competing lists should exist).

If a certain percentage of announcements from a given upstream made it on the list, some people might use that information to influence the market.

Re:What about the providers?

[PopeRatzo]

Such a move would serve to stifle admittance onto the internet in general.

Ultimately, that's probably the aim of the FTC, which is little more than a pro-industry group. This has definitely been the aim of the largest telecoms for at least a decade now.

They let the internet get away from them. They're still mad that the wild, wooly Internet ever came to exist without their guiding hand from day one.

The Internet was basically an accident. If it had been started by the "Free Market" it would never have looked anything like the way it looks today, with anybody who gets connectivity having the ability to become a content provider with global reach. Job #1 now is to get it completely under corporate control where (they believe) it should be. They're not going to stop until they are once again the gatekeepers for what people see and do, and every single Internet activity is metered and monetized.

This is why people like me are so anxious to keep the Internet public, using Net Neutrality laws. We remember how it started, what it was like before there was any corporate presence, and how desperately the largest corporations want to turn it into cable television.

Re:What about the providers?

[dimeglio]

Seriously, these people were actually making money? And what's wrong with porn? The article makes it sound like its a bad thing. Why not mention how they were hosting images of children, sites of various religious groups, even recipes for Kentucky Fried Chicken(tm) batter!

Good riddance for the rest but please use better judgment when selecting articles.

Re:What about the providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with Net Neutrality laws is that they lock the internet down, and give control to anyone but you. politics is full of funny definitions.

Re:What about the providers?

[MyIS]

... If it had been started by the "Free Market" ...

Shady government-sanctioned telecom monopoly certainly does not qualify as a free market. Demublican-supported big-corp hookups are not at all what free market advocates have in mind.

Re:What about the providers?

[moeinvt]

"This is why people like me are so anxious to keep the Internet public, using Net Neutrality laws."

If you put your faith in government, your doomed to be disappointed. I like net neutrality "in principle", and I reconcile(d) that with my libertarian world view mostly because I believe that the availability of information is critical to a free market and a free society. I was even something of a "crusader" for the cause a couple of years ago. I then came to the realization that we cannot trust the federal government to do ANYTHING for the benefit of the average citizens if it might be somehow detrimental to the wealthy politically-connected elites. If we ever get something like a "Net Neutrality" law, it will be just like "Health Care Reform" and "Financial Reform". A nice sounding cover page on top of 1000+ pages of provisions that benefit wealthy campaign contributors, citizenry be damned.

Check out "opensecrets.org" to see who's greasing the wheels in DC. The telecom and cable companies are near the top in campaign contributions and rather high up in lobbying expenditures.

We can't expect the government to serve the people. We should just assume that the battle lines have been drawn, and it's the citizens on one side vs. the government and their corporate allies on the other.

Re:What about the providers?

[clone53421]

And what's wrong with porn? The article makes it sound like its a bad thing. Why not mention how they were hosting images of children

What a coincidence, they were hosting images of children. Pornographic ones.

Re:What about the providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, suppose I'm a criminal sinner kind of guy and nobody ever told me there was this great ISP somewhere that would let me do phishing, deal child porn, publish spam, take over other people's computers with botnets and use them to do all this stuff, etc. How do the bad guys all seem to find the ISPs that will let them do this stuff? My ISP sues spammers and hishers and would probably frek oiut if I typed al queda, terrorist, porno, Nigeria, viagra, or Obama in this message. You are spot on in that the authorities need to coordinate thir efforts and pursue this, using whatever information they get from seizing this rogue ISP's servers, files, etc., and go after the phishers, spammers, scammers, child pornographers, botnet operators, etc. that were their customers. That's where the real money is. the ISP would be out of business without the FTC having to do anything if their undesireable customers were shut down. Follow the money. Then they could have the other authorities w3ork their way downstream and pursue those who buy and deal child porn etc., too, but the upstream investigations, as you note, are the priority.

"sold by a court"

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers will be sold with no prior formatting of the hard drives I guess? Bad idea...

Before you knee-jerk about the porn...

[Delusion_]

...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.

Re:Before you knee-jerk about the porn...

[discord5]

Adolf Hitler was considered an enemy of the Allied powers because they didn't like his painting.

Well, he was a lousy artist...

Re:How is the porn part relevant?--stop fire

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

3FN was also a webhost with thousands of customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Who ran legitimate businesses. Sucks that they have lost their websites. Hope they had backups.

Talke about NEWS in ACTION!

[abbynormal brain]

What a difference 20+ minutes makes ... it was green when I originally linked it.

The law already anticipates that.

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:The law already anticipates that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternately, you can show it to no one except the cops.

That's an insanely bad idea. Upon showing him the image, the police officer would immediately proceed with your arrest. He basically has no other course of action, unless he wants to become a sex offender himself.

Re:The law already anticipates that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot. I have reported child porn to the police myself many times over my past 25 years in IT, they don't arrest you for reporting someone elses crimes.

wow

[WeeBit]

I hope they clean those servers before they sell them.

Re:wow

[Snarkalicious]

Nuclear fire. That is all.

first they came for the spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Came in for the people who didn't RTFA on Soapb

[Anonymous Coward]

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

But what about the porn?

[jetole]

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.

Re:But what about the porn?

[clone53421]

In the article, it indicates that it was child porn. The summary just excerpted the first 2 paragraphs of the article and those failed to mention this.

Anyway I’m sure you know how less-than-reputable porn sites and malicious web content go hand-in-hand. Where do people typically get infected with computer viruses? Dodgy porn sites.

Re:But what about the porn?

[jetole]

Ok. Well I still have issues for the way the article was phrased however, since child porn was involved. The FTC should be entitled to shoot the ISP owners in the head and just seize all of their assets.

So That Explains It...

[IonOtter]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion