Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Hackers Take Down Child Porn Websites
chrb writes "According to Security News Daily, Anonymous has taken down more than 40 darknet-based child porn websites over the last week. Details of some of the hacks have been released via pastebin #OpDarknet, including personal details of some users of a site named 'Lolita City,' and DDoS tools that target Hidden Wiki and Freedom Hosting — alleged to be two of the biggest darknet sites hosting child porn."
So vigilance actions are ok now?
I don't support them, but I sure as well don't support people who take it to their own hands to commit crimes like viruses and DDOS just because other people did wrong. They all should be taken to jail.
Wow- maybe they can do something good, afterall! Hmm... wait, my brain is going to explode now. Moral........compass...........is............frelled . . . .
Losers trolling losers. It's like a battle of retards, except.. Well, it's just a battle of retards.
I mean, who wouldn't use false credentials if they were into that sorta thing? Someone is gonna get wrapped up in a lynching who doesn't have the foggiest idea as to why, watch. It's a PR stunt to try to make Anon look like more than a group of petty thugs, as if their ideals deserved attention or merit. Frankly, they can all DIAF.
Anonymous seem to have found their calling in life .. perfect fit really
The quality of the journalists for Tabloids will be tested with this one, how will they manage to spin this into saying it was an awful tragedy and no one thinks of the children? Assuming they don't just say hacking causes cancer, or something.
Well, so they took down those "porn" websites, but one has to ask, why the authorities have done nothing, preferring to sit on their backsides? Politicians or police using such sites and they want to cover it up?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
It is likely that there are many more child pornography hidden services out there, that are not publicly listed. The hidden services architecture makes it difficult to say how many hidden services there are, and I doubt that the worst child porn websites are keen on being publicly listed.
Palm trees and 8
...to report that these child porn sites were taken down.
How are we even going to know whether or not this is true? Nobody in their right mind would try to verify whether those sites were taken down or not, and even if they did, they sure wouldn't talk about it publicly, what with the risk of the cops showing up just for visiting those sites. Anonymous can pretty much say whatever they want about this with impunity.
>I mean isn't anonymous pretty widely recognized as being associated with the child porn website 4chan?
Yes, in the same way that Princeton University is widely recognized as being associated with The Jersey Shore.
Get off my lawn.
Oh no. They hate the bastards. CP'ers DO use 4chan, but only to be met with a hailstorm of shit. They even got a guy a while ago, got his details and put the cops on his arse. So this I guess is a continuation on that theme of internet vigilante-ism. Hell, Pedo bear was created to MOCK CP'ers. 4chan and anon is responsible for a lot of things, good and bad, but CP is not one of them. I am not a channer by the way; I'm just sayin'.
I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/
So they're tackling the only issue about which there is absolutely no debate, just like cable news anchors. Does Anonymous have a PR department now, improving their image?
Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
And in other news today : Anonymous hack Anonymous into oblivion for their illegal hacking activities.
http://www.vatican.va/
still up
Child porn people are one of those groups I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for. If Anonymous wants to lay the beat down on their ass I hope the cops let it slide. I know it's not just or legal, and it only encourages them, but this time I just don't care.
If someone told me a child molester died in a tragic car accident, you can bet I would dispute the word 'tragic'.
I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction.
~Mark Twain
This tactic could work if it they relentlessly keep doing it and gets it publicized. Fighting pedophiles is tried and true way to win support for almost anything.
Next time some politician attack Anonymous:
- Oh you are attacking Anonymous?
- How come you, they are protecting our CHILDREN!
You know the vast majority of pedophiles were also abused as children, right?
That does not, and will never, excuse them doing the same, or taking delight or being aroused at it happening to others. Now go fuck yourself with barbed wire.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Wah! The child-raper is a victim.
Fuck that. Child-rapers, while *perhaps* having been victimized as children, still had a choice as adults. They chose wrong.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Right. Until they release someone's personal info who made the mistake of not securing his wifi.
I'm not sure why people are surprised. The general collective has always seemed to have a conscience. Their tactics may be illegal but they generally push forward a righteous agenda. Protesting rigged Iranian elections, exposing BofA corruption, defending WikiLeaks and in general defending free speech. I'm not saying they are saints or that they are justified in their actions, just that this fits their m.o.
I'm not sure how you justify the Sony attacks but I'm sure it had something to do with corporate greed and perceived threats to free speech.
So are you saying it is better to let the cycle continue and not stop the pedophile? I hope not.
Or maybe they're just not into advocating genocide.
Facebook is the new AOL
Well, I guess you could say in some mixed up way they are doing "some" good. I don't like the idea of it being taken down unless it is a lawful order, but these sites are just plain wrong.
So the solution is to abuse more children to make child porn to placate them? That's a pretty fuckin odd argument.
Facebook is the new AOL
We need to control these people, but assuming their brains are physiologically capable of making that choice just makes people want to punish them pointlessly.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Most of the graduates from Princeton that I've met are just like the cast of Jersey Shore.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
4chan is hardly a child-porn website. Just that if you allow anonymous image postings, the child porn trolls soon follow. You might as well call Slashdot the GNAA hideout. Or a libertarian website.
Anontalk is a "splinter" group that does heavily favor free speech, totally unrestricted free speech... trouble is that there really isn't that much to speak about in the west except endless silly conspiracies. The only really censored type of speech is related to child porn. So... what do you? Either you have free speech and child porn is part of it, or you don't. Yahoo by the way hosts far more child porn, depending on what you call child porn? Does the art of David Hamilton qualify? It does for some.
Any posted child porn is quickly removed of 4chan but the nature of a public board is that the users really create the content. 4chan has a board for beautifull women. It USED to be mostly asian models because 4chan is a copy of the japanese 2chan board. But over time more and more people used it who had an almost insane hatred of anything non-white. Now the board is filled with "amateur" (read to ugly to be paid) western women. Users deciding content.
So is 4chan about porn then?
If you consider lolcats porn, then yes. 4chan is better known for endless lolcats then child porn which frankly in quite a few years of occasional use I have only seen in the form of deleted posts. Then again, I never ventured into /b/
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Insane much? Child porn is now a right if you have been abused?
Even a UN human rights advocate wouldn't go that far... yet.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
TechLA either think childporn is good OR he just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of people fighting for a good cause.
False dilemma. Perhaps he just doesn't want to run the risk of vigilantes harming innocents (they may target the right people sometimes, but not always). Or some other reason that hasn't been thought of. Who knows?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
..., still had a choice as adults. They chose wrong.
I'm not sure if those people really have a choice.
It seems you can't choose your sexual urges.
At least I can't choose to not get a boner if a beautiful woman undresses in front of me.
Perhaps instead of demonizing those people we should offer them help to control their urges before they really produce more victims.
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
What Anonymous does is wrong no matter who they are attacking. They are trying to gain support for their group by attacking something that is considered wrong by 99% of the people. Who appointed them to be the moral compass of the Internet? No one did! On the other hand why aren't the law enforcement organizations of the world not taking out these known exploiters of children?
Maybe we like punishing them because we're sadistic bastards ourselves and find child pornographers a conveniently defenseless target we can abuse freely.
After all, who would dare defend them?
Some say aggression is a basic need, and if it is why not go after creeps that nobody likes anyway?
It's important to remember that just because Anonymous takes responsibility for something, it in no way means it's the same collective of individuals responsible for some other action under the name. That's both the advantage and disadvantage to using that umbrella to cover your actions. There was just a news story the other day of Anonymous hacking another police station. Can people find justification for that nearly as easily as shutting down child porn? What stops a judge from charging an individual with every crime ever done under the Anonymous name even if they were only personally responsible for a petty one? And let's not forget that parts of Anonymous are involved in child porn themselves, whether that's 5-year-old girls or "jailbait."
Anyway, the question though is how do police deal with this information, and how does a lawyer prevent it from being thrown out of court due to its questionable origin?
They're not "supposed to be" anything. In fact, if you try and put them in a box, a certain subset will go out and do the opposite just to demonstrate that you can't, in fact, predict their actions.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"Members of the Anonymous hacktivist movement are claiming responsibility for taking down more than 40 secret child-pornography websites and leaking the names of more than 1,500 members of one of the illegal sites."
Free Martian Whores!
Guy/s, Do you have any plans for Distributed Daycare online Services yet? . ...Also, I'm not insinuating anything here - but something about J. Bieber just doesn't seem right. You may want to look into that as well...just a hunch. I mean, it could be an innocent infant stuffed into a large plastic doll, and if so, it must be saved immediately. Sincerely, Anonymous
Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
A DDOS, if properly executed, is the digital equivalent of a sit-in. If the machines used were hacked however, it's a lot harder to justify. But if you run a public server, and the public decides to all use the server at the same time, it's hard to classify that as vigilantism.
Really? Seriously? Dude...if it is illegal for a single person to take down a website, what kind of perverted logic makes it legal for a mob to take it down? Your sit-in analogy fails -- a sit-in is just another mob, in the eyes of the law. It is not legal for a mob to do anything that is not legal for an individual to do. More to the point, the organizers of a sit-in can be charged with conspiracy, incitement, mayhem, creating a public nuisance, vandalism, and in my great State of Arizona, even murder, if it turns violent and somebody dies -- even if they were nowhere near the actual event. A DDOS, or digital sit-in if you prefer, would be treated in the exact same way by the legal system here; I'm certain it would be no different in your jurisdiction. I suggest you keep that in mind if you are ever tempted to do something illegal simply because a bunch of other people are going to be doing it with you.
Vigilante action is frowned upon for a reason, but frankly this grassroots approach is far preferrable to the filtering shit being discussed in politics.
It draws public interest rather than stifling it, and therefore is harder to abuse than a filtering tool in the hands of a corrupt bureaucracy ("hey, subversive political speech is basically the same thing child porn, isn't it?"). It is also more effective than filtering (which doesn't affect darknets at all). Finally, it actually goes after the people making money from this, instead of inconveniencing a segment of their customers and hoping their revenue is slightly reduced.
perverted-justice.com has been taking down pedophiles online for years, and doing it legally.
Advice: on VPS providers
So vigilance actions are ok now?
Absolutely not. We should find these vigilantes and subject them to a full measure of justice-- right after we toss all those wall street fucktards and bastard bankers in the clink for tanking our economy. Oh, and the same for Bush and his scummy neocon buddies for starting two wars, spending this country into oblivion, torturing people with impunity, tarnishing our nation's reputation and mispronouncing the word NUCLEAR! Oh, and toss out all those lazy do-nothing scumbags in Congress, and light a fire under our "Yes we can" (but maybe not today) President in the White House... Vigilantism should absolutely not be tolerated in our society, but neither should child-porn, greedy corporate assholes, who jeopardize all our livelihoods and savings for the future, crony capitalism, corrupt politicians-- oh, and throw in litterbugs, jaywalkers and people spitting on the sidewalk. After we've taken care of all of that stuff, preferably in that order, THEN we can go after the Anonymous vigilantes for taking down child porn web sites.
Not really. I've seen CP threads there that lasted for HOURS.
Anonymous is that which is most primal. They may fap to the pictures, but they object to the abuse itself. Purveyors of those deepweb sites made NEW content, much of it HORRIFYING. Those people deserve the worst thing that can ever happen to a man, whatever that may be.
To be honest, the ban on CP doesn't really make much sense to me. It should be the PRODUCTION that is banned. Guro pictures aren't going to make people run out and slice people up, so why would CP make people run out and rape every midget in sight? It's like trying to deny the problem, and then locking up people for being what they are in a way that doesn't really hurt anyone. Indeed, Japan, with it's truly vast array of child erotica, which until fairly recently included legal CP, has among the lowest sexual assault rates on children (and in general, with most people with such tendencies keeping those urges under control with their respective forms of pornography).
Posting anonymous due to highly unpopular opinions in a country that no longer tolerates dissent.
For fucks sake.
Anon didn't just take down CP sites. They are attacking Freedom Hosting, which hosts many other sites, because they refuse to comply with Anon's orders.
And this is why vigilantism is dangerous - because it's riddled with collateral damage since the attackers answer to nobody.
Dilbert RSS feed
Your point is that whatever is popular will not be attacked ?
That's great and all, but we've all been on a high school playground, and we all know where "unpopular = bad" leads to. Let's NOT go there, shall we ?
So, the enemy of my enemy is my friend? If I had to choose between the hacker and someone that vile, I think the hacker would win every time.
---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
Its true that some vigilantes might cross over into attacking (legal) things that they just don't like instead of going after the truly 'bad' stuff. But the problem is somewhat self regulating in that they are actually committing crimes as well. And while law enforcement officials might look the other way if kiddie porn is involved, attacking legal sites could bring the wrath of the law down upon them.
Law enforcement officials themselves are not generally constrained by such fears as they are usually protected from anything short of flagrant rights violations by the law itself. And there isn't much of a 'cops watching the cops' infrastructure in place to hold them accountable.
Have gnu, will travel.
Yes, bring down the just because I dont accept people taking law to their own hands. Note that they didn't. Police does, and the ask court.
But since we went this route, what about if I said " SmallFurryCreature is interested in childporn", as you take part in this discussion. IN FACT your username suggests something similar too. There are no need for courts. You are a child molester. Kill him.
See what I did there?
It's the mark of a good troll I suppose, doing just enough to improve their 'karma' in the public's image so news about them stays fresh. The public isn't 100% decided on them if this hits the mainstream news, I guarantee it. Since really they seem to want attention--anonymously?
I think the idea is that making consumption illegal (not to mention highly stigmatized) increases the "barrier to entry." There are people who do not seek out CP, who would if it were legal (just like there are people who don't smoke weed, but would if it were legal).
Fewer people consuming means less money to be made. Less money means less incentive for production. This is of course assuming there is money to be made... I honestly don't know. It could be that the whole "CP system" runs on reputation or something, like the hacking scene, but either way the point remains the same: fewer eyeballs = less currency = less incentive for production.
Looking at it another way, consuming CP does indirectly cause CP to be produced, so people who download it are contributing to its creation. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this particular point being sufficient to make it illegal, but I'm also not a lawyer or a parent.
After erasing their own names and adding a few of their enemies' to it?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
What is not surprising at all but most entertaining, is that the CP kingpin says that many of the users of his sites are at the highest positions of government, the corporate world and the church. Including a quote about some Goldman Sachs exec who is willing to "hire some more thugs to bust up OWS" (anon seems to be aligning itself with OWS).
Also that the site allows payment in bitcoins.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They are vigilantes, attacking stuff they don't like. Sony, child porn, people putting cats in recycling bins... Due to the sites being on darknets these attacks are probably less risky for them than attacking a normal web site would be, and it isn't like the site owners can complain to the police.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not to mention one would be a complete dumbass to use their real name.
I wonder how many Barak.Obama99 and George.Bush99 (or your country leaders) are logins?
How many stolen credit cards are logins?
Hopefully they are not releasing the names of people victims of identity theft thereby adding more to their woes...
Sounds good until someone uses your stolen identity for a login and payment.
Couldn't you say the same thing about homosexuality?
And wouldn't possession of eg. movies containing violence also count as a declaration of war on society, and social laws?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
so frame jobs are a valid argument against fighting child porn?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
ObClassicSimpsons:
Bob: You wanted to be Krusty's sidekick since you were five! What
about the buffoon lessons, the four years at clown college?
Cecil: I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.
-- "The Brother From Another Series"
Get off my lawn.
Your "understanding" of Libertarianism is truly warped. What you describe is anarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy , not Libertarianism.
Looking at some of the comments, it seems that a few people don't seem to get Anonymous. Anonymous isn't a group, really - they don't have a common agenda, they don't have common opinions or necessarily common skills. Rather, Anonymous is a label people have claimed and since it seems to be a similar type of person each time (e.g. from a certain part of the Internet, hacks sites or brings them down, may be vigilantes or may well be trolling), people still hold the misconception that they are somehow a unified group. They're not. Anonymous are anonymous. That's the point. There is no link between anything they do except people copycatting each other, and using the label. Thus Anonymous is not a group - I would say it is more of a phenomenon that has arisen, with the help of the Internet.
Not really. I've seen CP threads there that lasted for HOURS.
Anonymous is that which is most primal. They may fap to the pictures, but they object to the abuse itself. Purveyors of those deepweb sites made NEW content, much of it HORRIFYING. Those people deserve the worst thing that can ever happen to a man, whatever that may be.
To be honest, the ban on CP doesn't really make much sense to me. It should be the PRODUCTION that is banned. Guro pictures aren't going to make people run out and slice people up, so why would CP make people run out and rape every midget in sight? It's like trying to deny the problem, and then locking up people for being what they are in a way that doesn't really hurt anyone. Indeed, Japan, with it's truly vast array of child erotica, which until fairly recently included legal CP, has among the lowest sexual assault rates on children (and in general, with most people with such tendencies keeping those urges under control with their respective forms of pornography).
Posting anonymous due to highly unpopular opinions in a country that no longer tolerates dissent.
There are smarter ways to go about this. Vigilantism is the dumbest way.
I think the idea is that making consumption illegal (not to mention highly stigmatized) increases the "barrier to entry." There are people who do not seek out CP, who would if it were legal (just like there are people who don't smoke weed, but would if it were legal).
Fewer people consuming means less money to be made. Less money means less incentive for production. This is of course assuming there is money to be made... I honestly don't know. It could be that the whole "CP system" runs on reputation or something, like the hacking scene, but either way the point remains the same: fewer eyeballs = less currency = less incentive for production.
Looking at it another way, consuming CP does indirectly cause CP to be produced, so people who download it are contributing to its creation. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this particular point being sufficient to make it illegal, but I'm also not a lawyer or a parent.
That is a complete line of BS. "There are people who don't seek out child porn who would if it were legal".
Here is the main question, why should we care what gets people off as long as they aren't hurting anyone?
Definitely take down the websites that make money from the content. Beyond that it becomes a pointless witch hunt which doesn't accomplish anything.
No, it is a lead. But releasing innocent people's names associated with such a thing does no one any good. I think they need to be really careful, which is probably why the police aren't acting on it immediately.
"And this is why vigilantism is dangerous - because it's riddled with collateral damage since the attackers answer to nobody."
Unlike the law of the masters and elites, which is pure and without corruption.
(So-called) Freedom Hosting can choose to take that shit down and choose to protect good sites.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I looked at some of the pastebins. Looks like just usernames, "site credit" (whatever that is), and conversations of payments appear to be based in bitcoins.
That is a complete line of BS. "There are people who don't seek out child porn who would if it were legal".
Here is the main question, why should we care what gets people off as long as they aren't hurting anyone?
Definitely take down the websites that make money from the content. Beyond that it becomes a pointless witch hunt which doesn't accomplish anything.
Yeah that would be a good argument except that the child porn does hurt the children....
agreed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Attacking stuff you don't like isn't vigilantism. By that definition terrorists are vigilantes. Vigilantism is illegally enforcing the law. Like Batman.
While some of the stuff that Anon has done, like this anti-child porn stuff, is vigilantism; other stuff like attacking Sony and Paypal most definitely is not. Since the minority of Anon's actions qualify as vigilantism, I wouldn't label them as a vigilante group. They may be on their way toward becoming one, but at this point I think it's an inaccurate description.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
They just tell you where to get it
Unlike the law of the masters and elites, which is pure and without corruption.
It's less bad, yes.
(So-called) Freedom Hosting can choose to take that shit down and choose to protect good sites.
Yeah, fuck freedom of speech, just give in to every bully!
Dilbert RSS feed
Your post is philosophically incoherent.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
It remains virtually impossible for adult males to befriend children. (Friendships between adults and children used to be pretty common, even in the USA.)
As one example:
Neil Wilkes was a teacher in Manchester, England who had a close relationship with an eight year old girl he taught. He got on well with her and with her family.
But someone decided it was "inappropriate" for a man to befriend a girl, and launched a formal investigation into the relationship.
There was no evidence that Neil Wilkes had done anything wrong.
All the same, Neil lost his job and the girl's family was frightened into breaking off all contact.
On October 20th 2010, Neil Wilkes went to a quiet tourist spot, sent a text message to the girl telling her "I love you and I always will", doused himself with fuel, and set himself on fire.
http://www.thejournal.ie/teacher-sets-himself-alight-after-texting-i-love-you-to-girl-8-2011-03/
It is clear to me that the obsession with child pornography and child abuse is intended to break down the trust between generations, provide an excuse for controlling and monitoring all expression, and firmly cement the power of the ruling class. This panic also provides employment opportunities for a predatory class of therapists and an entire child abuse industry.
Thanks to the manipulation of the public consciousness and abusing the public's natural concern for the well-being of children, the prohibition of child pornography has provided a means for the ruling class to do whatever it wants. Want to eliminate a rival? Just claim they had child pornography on their computer. No one will investigate it, because investigating it would constitute a crime - so everyone must take their public servant overlords' word at face value - and the public accepts this without question.
We don't even have proof of what typical child pornography looks like. The claim is that it is all horrific images of rape and abuse, but ordinary citizens - even reporters - are not allowed to see for themselves. It seems more likely that it is mostly pictures of happy children wearing little or no clothing, because most guys don't get turned on by pictures of real abuse - but how could we find out? The public goes along with the farce, because they have been conditioned to hate pedophiles so much that they don't care whether their victims are even pedophiles, much less whether pedophiles or child pornographers are actually doing harm.
However, we do occasionally get a window into child pornography convictions. Here are a few young ladies speaking out against the conviction of the man who took their photographs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ogJhlOw9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs
This case is illustrative of two points: First, that many of the models do not feel harmed, and secondly that much "child pornography" consists of pictures of clothed children. It certainly gives the lie to the traditional narrative.
What the GP describes is "lawlessness", not Libertarianism or Anarchy. From your own link: "When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society." There are many varieties of Anarchism, including some of the more consistent variations on Libertarianism. Some are indeed lawless, but the factor which sets all forms of Anarchy apart is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rules.
What sets Libertarianism apart, of course, is the Non-Aggression Principle. This means that, unlike Anarchy, which may include lawlessness, Libertarianism implies the rule of law. (What confuses people is that Libertarianism distinguishes between the rule of law and the mechanism by which laws are commonly enforced, namely government.)
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ogJhlOw9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs
Of course, the "child pornography" they were involved in featured them fully clothed, but the photographer is still in jail for it.
But it brings up several questions: What is child pornography? What are the dangers of not allowing the public to see the evidence? How do the models in real child pornography feel about it?
These ladies can stand up to social pressure because what they were modeling for was obviously not pornography, despite the convictions - but we rarely hear from other models unless they are found as children and their answers can be scripted for them. When they don't agree with the narrative of abuse, they are routinely silenced.
Why won't anyone listen to the children?
"The evil Internet group Anonymous stops people who THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
A DDoS attack ... removes accountability
That mistaken belief is exactly what gets script kiddies arrested.
even just possession of pictures puts you at war with human society not on the grounds of abstract legal principles, but on the grounds of innate biological drive.
Sorry, I don't see it the same way as you do. There is perhaps an "exact moment" when a pre-pubescent human female becomes post-pubescent. The male is wired to impregnate the female as soon as possible after this exact moment.
Attempting to impregnate a human female too long after this event, and the human male (A) may find that a competitor (B) has already laid his seed, and the female is already pregnant; male A loses.
Attempting to impregnate a human female at any time before this event will result in A simply wasting time and resources, because impregnation will not occur.
So it is absolutely true that human males who are attracted to pre-pubescent human females are abnormal. However, human males who are attracted to post-pubescent females, who are younger than an arbitrary legal age limit, are not abnormal, however much you would like to rant against the injustices of the world. And in this case, the injustice is written into our code of law. Perhaps generously decided to give the human females time to develop further, but that's not part of biology/nature/the real world.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
so frame jobs are a valid argument against fighting child porn?
No. But they are a valid argument against all forms of vigilante justice, as vigilantes typically do not have the resources/intelligence to discover whether the person they are targetting has been framed. For all its flaws, a jury trial is the only way we have of doing that that's even approaching reliable.
There are well-known cases of people having their houses burned down, being beaten up, or even worse, simply because somebody incorrectly accused them of being a pedophile. Which is why releases of information like what Anonymous appear to have acquired here need to be prevented: we have no idea how accurate that info is, but somebody out there is going to assume it's 100% reliable.
that logic reminds me of this skit comparing glen becks Libertarianism to Sudan, Hilarious yet frighteningly accurate. free markets aren't quite the opposite of democracy but whatever the financial equivalent of a dictatorship would be would be a likely result. They say that choice would prevent monopolies but lobbyists could easily skew that choice
Yeah, I thought it was funny, too. But some weirdo modded me interesting. Interesting? WTF?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
That's an understatement. It's as if he is trying to combine an appeal to the old theological concept of natural law as a source of morality with a more modern interpretation of evolution as a source of natural law. Incoherent doesn't quite cover it. The best argument I can extract from there doesn't actually say anything about the morality of child pornography or child sexualisation at all, but just tries to explain by pop-psychiatry the reason for the extreme intensity of the emotional response of most people faced with the subject.
Looking at it another way, consuming CP does indirectly cause CP to be produced, so people who download it are contributing to its creation.
Exactly! Just as people who download the torrent of Transformers: Dark of the Moon are contributing to its creation!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
They ARE supposed to! Don't tell me the media lied to me!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Your troll-fu is weak today. I think you have some good points but missed an opportunity for their discussion by delivering your comments in a pithy and slightly antagonistic manner.
You're right that we will always defend our young and will view any corrupting influence as a threat. It's a hot-button issue for us and yet despite knowing this we continue to debate the problem with a high level of emotion. I suggest we all need to grow up about this subject if we want anything to really change.
We have collectively created a witch-hunt and a feral mob mentality (as demonstrated by posts above this one) that serves only to drive the perpetrators underground and does nothing to remedy the issue.
Only when the outraged shrieking that follows any conversation on the topic dies down are we finally going to get something done about paeodphilia. It's obviously not going away and it's equally obvious we're not doing a good job of managing the problem as it stands. What's more, there may be some suspicion that the cases we see on the news are merely the tip of the iceberg - the ones that got themselves caught.
I propose that with a shift in our attitude will come an opportunity to lance this boil and start healing our civilisation from this (admittedly highly offensive) sickness. When we mature to the point where we see these people as ill rather than evil we'll have the chance to interact with them and get them some sort of help. They know they need help!
However right now if they admit they need help, we give them Hell and there's no redemption for one so accused whether rightly or wrongly.
This is madness and will only perpetuate the problem, leaving us fearful of ever letting our kids get out of sight in a tense climate of paranoia.. kinda like we have now.
But then, that does seem to be in vogue just now.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
well then you explain the source of the intensity of the emotional response. this should prove loopy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you're not representing all the variables. getting a female pregnant is not the whole story, she also has to raise a child. so you need a female with enough resources, presence of mind, and skills to do so
culture X, which impregnates females at first menarche, will produce poor offspring. culture Y, which lets females decide when they want to get pregnant, which will naturally be a lot later, will produce richer offspring, more robust physically and mentally, since those children will have more resources devoted to them with more mature mothers. therefore, culture X will naturally be driven to extinction by culture Y
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is that they tipped off guilty and there was no real punishment. But delving into their minds I bet it puts the fear of god in the child porn traders that there may be from now on online hackers that don't necessarily follow laws (just like they don't) that are targeting them. It's a warning shot across the bow of a ship... change direction or be destroyed.
The porn traders will hunker down and become more secure but security is an illusion, it just takes one tiny crack... (nice pun) and you are compromised.
But I'm against targeting those that get their jollies from masturbating to wrong things or peeping at disgusting and wrong things. (It's a lot like people wanting to watch a donkey show, when in reality it's just a poor desperate woman being used that will really will do nearly anything to make money.)
It's people that pay to watch and hence promote the exploitation that are immoral along with those that produce the reprehensible content. File trading sites can serve law enforcement as a honeypot if they track people. You have the curious, then you have the collectors, then you have actual pedophiles. Monitoring the file trading sites allows you to investigate people further and put them on a watch list.
What really needs to happens is the laws change so that based on deep logs lasting for years law enforcement (a special state unit, nor ordinary cops) can get a warrant to quietly place spy cameras and in general bug a suspected pedophiles residence and life for a short period of time (a few months) to see if they are actually abusing children. In this day and age it's ridiculous that you would need to put a child on a court stand. Just record the actual crime. If the guy is just sick and likes watching.. finding out later that he was investigated and being watched while he masturbated will really scare him. So long as the guy is isn't publicly reveled or permanently put under surveillance then no harm no foul. If confronted properly it may be possible to motivate him to get the right physiological help to insure he never commits a crime.
Yeah, it seems more like a hacker message board where people chat and decide if they want to hack something. I know there was a split though -- over their reasons for hacking. One side wanted to hack because they thought it was funny (for the lulz), and the other wanted to hack for some political or moral reason (they called them "moralfags"). When they were having this argument was when Ryan Cleary launched a coup and took down their main servers. After that, two groups split off: LulzSec (for the lulz) and Project PM (moral guys). It seems now though that the lines are becoming less clear. Anonymous claimed to have a lot of values in the beginning, which they're beginning to break (like not hitting targets that would affect everyday people). The real irony in all this though is that Anonymous is helping secure the Web. Anyone remember the Deceptive Duo and the other patriot hackers? They were doing a lot of the same stuff Anonymous and LulzSec are doing, but they were trying to convince the companies to close their security holes. These new hacker groups are actually bringing attention to the terrible state of cybersecurity and are making companies and government close these holes, whether they mean to or not.
I get it now, Anonymous is just like Slashdot, because Slashdotters are slashdotters.
I wasn;t commenting on the morality or legality of their actions, merely pointing out why they do it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm no more qualified to state the reason than the original commenter. It's clear that child porn is a powerfully emotive topic - few other issues can invoke such a response, and no other criminals are so loathed and hated. Exactly why this is the case is a much harder question to answer. It's possible he was onto something, and the answer really does lie in genetically-coded instincts to protect children, but it's difficult to prove this is the case.
Think of it as the online version of Occupy Wall Street.
New Economic Perspectives
But there is a flaw. The moral panic over child porn is focused on protecting other people's children, or children in general. Not one's own relatives.
feeling for one's family gets generalized across tribe, clan, and eventually nation. even completely amoral convicts will happily murder a kiddie diddler in prison. why? because this feeling that someone preys on children is someone who needs to be eliminated is very deep. biological. not cultural or theological. you characterize it as hysteria, panic, hypermoralizing. but you're wrong, it is a lot deeper than that. just calling it panic doesn't address the root of the impulse at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, Anonymous are sort of like Al-Qaeda?
You've had groups of people specifically targeting and outing members of NAMBLA for years. I'd link but I'm at work and they frown on visiting those kinds of sites while you're on the clock. Frankly, more power to them.
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.