US Warns Users of Child-Porn Blackmail Ransomware

coondoggie writes "The nasty Trojan known as Citadel malware, which is based on Zeus, has typically been used to extort money from online banking users, but a new variant is making the rounds that tries to get your money by saying you looked at child porn sites and must pay a violation fee to the U.S. Department of Justice. This variation, called Reveton, lures the victim to a drive-by download website, at which time the ransomware is installed on the user's computer, says the U.S. Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). Once installed, the computer freezes and a screen is displayed warning the user they have violated United States Federal Law."

Comments

Scummy yet brilliant.

[MrQuacker]

Its not like you can call the police and complain about it. You'll instantly get labeled as a pedo and have your kids taken away.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anrego]

I imagine most people would also be hesitant to take it into a repair shop with that message displayed on the screen even if they recognize it as a scam.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a shame.

In the US if someone reports you it is on your record and you are unhirable again even if the court clears you it is public record. Might as well pay UP!

Why can't the Russians stop these assh*les? It is like the wild rest and these guys go on for year after year making hundres of millions of dollars. That is just crazy

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that from your post American law has a much bigger problem than the Russians do in this particular instance.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[outsider007]

Is there something you would like to share with the group, MrQuacker?

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[SuricouRaven]

Even if the russians did, the scammers would just relocate their operations somewhere else.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[AHuxley]

Yes that repair shop would have a nice ongoing relationship going back many years
"FBI asks computer shops to help fight cybercrime"
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/05/ln/ln01a.html

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Realistically, the only solution is user education. On second thought, that is not much realistic either.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Joce640k]

This is why "possession" of something shouldn't be a crime. Anything can be planted in your house/PC/car/whatever without your knowledge.

A country which allows a computer virus to ruin your life and make you forever unemployable has some serious problems with its laws.

PS: I cleaned up a machine with this three or four months ago here in Spain.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

"PS: I cleaned up a machine with this three or four months ago here in Spain."

With MyCleanPC no doubt.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[shiftless]

No, the only solution is to get rid of the police state that scapegoats people and singles them out for extra punishment based on their membership of some arbitrary group of "evil" people.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's possession of illegal material. There are many good reasons why possession of certain stuff can be considered a crime. Toxic/dangerous stuff without a license.

You may disagree that CP should be considered illegal material, but good luck convincing lots of people otherwise.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Joce640k]

But it's possession of illegal material. There are many good reasons why possession of certain stuff can be considered a crime. Toxic/dangerous stuff without a license.

Sure, if they can prove that you *know* you have the stuff in your possession.

eg. If they find the heroin in a baggie in your underpants then it's unlikely you didn't know about it. If they find it taped under your desk in a busy office then there's no way you should be in trouble unless they have more evidence. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Opportunist]

And that's the part that scares me more than that ransomware by itself. Because it can only mean one of two things:

1. That there ARE actually that many people looking at CP and they feel guilty and don't get help for that reason.

2. The CP witch hunt has crossed the line where people don't even dare to get help if accused wrongly because the allegation alone already puts you on some stupid list.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Opportunist]

You mean, like, say, Communists?

Oh, the ironing.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Opportunist]

I can see toxic/dangerous substance, because I can cause a lot of people harm with it. With CP, I guess the harm has happened before someone got into possession of the material.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[DarkOx]

We don't have "American Law" we have whatever your favorite executive agency decides to this week or worse with this person. That is the real problem.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not american, but it seems, that "Innocent until proven guilty and all that." is not always true in US and with every day it becomes event more untrue

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[RodBee]

It's the same on a lot of other countries. Neocon magazines and newspapers pass the judgment now.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[VortexCortex]

But it's possession of illegal material. There are many good reasons why possession of certain stuff can be considered a crime. Toxic/dangerous stuff without a license.

You may disagree that CP should be considered illegal material, but good luck convincing lots of people otherwise.

On any website there could be this:
<iframe src="http://pedo.example.com/illegal-porn.jpg" style="width:1px; height:1px; border:none" ></iframe>

Cross site scripting and/or SQL injection could easily plant that stuff on any website, unseen. Your browser will happily and automatically download the image and put the "illegal material" in your possession.

We don't need "good luck convincing lots of people" that this can happen to them, all we need are script-kiddies like Anonymous who'd love nothing more than to get a bunch of people wrongfully convicted of child porn possessions esp. if it means making a point about how retarded the law is.

This stuff isn't dangerous or toxic sitting in your Internet cache unseen and unknown to anyone. It's only dangerous to have the configuration of bits on your drive because the laws have deemed it to be so. Protip: this script kiddie scenario isn't hypothetical... delete your caches regularly.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it doesn't matter how it came into your possession or how quickly you deleted it. If they had to prove that you knew about it and didn't delete or that you solicited the images it that would be a completely different story.

But as it is, if somebody emails you some child porn and reports you for it, you're almost certainly going to see prison time and be on the sex offender registry whether or not you solicited or even knew that the images were in your possession.

I have no particular issue with the materials being illegal, I do have a huge problem when genuinely innocent people can have their lives ruined through no fault of their own.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[flyneye]

But wouldn't it be wonderful, instead of all the blunder butt crap the government does do to the U.S. people, why don't they do their secret snooping to find black hats responsible and let the C.I.A. peel all their skin off. I don't think you could get a rights organization to shed a tear, if they've ever fallen prey to a trojan or lost something to a virus.
            The time for tolerating "black" hats as useful to computer security was sooooo over years ago. Now is the time to make hardcore hunting sport of them.
I would personally love to own a lampshade made from the ass of the last trojan I cleared off a chumps harddrive.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not american, but it seems, that "Innocent until proven guilty and all that." is not always true in US and with every day it becomes event more untrue

Just look how "innocent until proven guilty" Julian Assange is, you know, the rapist.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in my country, the law is that it's not possession if you just look at it with your browser.
The material might be stored in a cache, but the cache is not considered to be in your possession, since it is temporary, automated and can be deleted by itself at any time.

This exception is there in the law just to avoid cases like this. If you accidently happen upon a page with illegal material, for example through a malicious link or someone posting something inappropriate on a public forum or chan-board, it is not enough to convict you if a few images happen to be temporarily stored in your browsers cache. You have to actively save or preserve them in some way. In other words, there has to be an intent to keep the material (no matter how you gained access to it).

It is also like this for watching streamed content, either live cam-streams or video stored on a server you do not own. It is not possession to merely watch a stream. In the case of actively engaging in a live thing, though, there are other laws that may apply, such as recent "grooming" laws.

Of course, some people want watching live feeds depicting such material to be illegal (notably our Queen once made a statement on it), and are lobbying for it ...

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would personally love to own a lampshade made from the ass of the last trojan I cleared off a chumps harddrive.

Make certain that:

1. Your ancestral purity is up to snuff.
2. You own the jury pool in your state or federal district.
3. You have the plan and materials to commit the perfect act of terrorism against your local ADL chapter. "Lampshade" is a word that the ADL has reserved unto themselves since in this context it refers to Holocaust victims body parts used for household items. Also applies to "soap" and "pillow fill".

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so much. Keep in mind that the original assertion by MrQuacker that reporting an infestation of those virus would cause the police to charge you with child porn possession was a joke. Thanks response to that, to which you yourself are responding, assumed that the joke was serious, then went on to state as fact that being charged with and then acquitted of this crime would cause 100% of future employers to reject, which is of course untrue. So a misstatement of fact based on a misunderstood joke does not equate to a broken judicial system.

Which is not to say that the US Judicial system isn't badly broken; it is -- but not in this particular way.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[flyneye]

Where's Batman when you need him?
There really needs to be a vigilante for law enforcement to unofficially ignore while the press reports on the worldwide vivisection of Malicious code authors, botnet admins and their benefactors.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll vote for option number 2. Any law where lack of criminal intent is specifically excluded as a defense is hideously broken, not only violates the US Constitution (which the neocon Supreme Court lets them get away with) but the principles of common law on which much of our legal system is based. The police state cheerleaders (usually "small government" neocons, BTW) get away with this because..."but, the children!". I can't point to statistics here that I know of because people who try to study the issue in an academic setting often seem to end up in jail and in this witch hunt environment even searching for stats could be dangerous, so I won't and you shouldn't either. However, have you ever heard of a case where somebody who actually had this stuff on purpose would have been let go because nobody could have proved intent? I didn't think so.

OK, now I just agreed with those who pointed out a serious legal flaw in all of this, without actually commenting on the underlying issue. Trust me, in a public debate doing anything other than constant public cheerleading for the witch hunt crowd will get you branded as a supporter of criminals. The "you're with us or you're with our enemies" simpleminded mentality extends far beyond alleged terrorists in this woefully undereducated country.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[spiffmastercow]

I'm not so sure he was joking.. At any rate, if you call the cops they expect to arrest someone. If the real perp is too inconvenient to go after, you're the lucky winner. This is even more likely if the malware does a bunch of google searches for kiddie porn in the background

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

This has nothing to do with "possession" or even crime in and of itself.

This has to do with the hysterical overreaction of the general public towards anything which is so much as suspected as being involved with or related to child pornography. Victims of this ransom-ware may well pay in fear of being ripped to pieces by an angry mob, and their fears would not be all that far fetched at this point. At the very least, they stand a good chance of having their entire life ruined should even a hint of suspicion fall on them.

Child pornography, like all hysterias, has become an excuse for a segments of the public to indulge in chaos, anarchy and criminal behaviour in their reaction to it. Even a pointed finger can now be a life or death sentence for innocent people. This is why it was important not to let the rule of law slide on this or any other issue.

But no. People wanted to indulge their outrage. I suppose democracies get what they deserve.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Yeah you have to admire the unadulterated evil brass balls on these lads. Its a nice mix of social engineering and tech. If they put half as much effort into legitimate business imagine how much money they'd have made.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[kelemvor4]

I'm not so sure he was joking.. At any rate, if you call the cops they expect to arrest someone. If the real perp is too inconvenient to go after, you're the lucky winner. This is even more likely if the malware does a bunch of google searches for kiddie porn in the background

I agree, it sounds like a very realistic scenario to me.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[hoggoth]

By 'rapist', you mean 'is accused of having consensual sex without using a condom', a minor crime in Sweden with a $750 penalty.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

Why would you be labeled as a pedo? Are the police somehow going to lend credibility to some random piece of scumware?

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Jeremi]

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

As far as the police and the courts are concerned, that's (hopefully) the case. As far as your job, marriage, and social life are concerned, it can be more like "innocent until accused, and then forever after assumed guilty, even if you're later acquitted". :^(

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[fustakrakich]

PS: I cleaned up a machine with this three or four months ago here in Spain.

Ah, destroying evidence, eh? Expect extradition papers forthwith..

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[fustakrakich]

If they put half as much effort into legitimate business imagine how much money they'd have made.

Contraband is much more profitable... and tax free. Crime does pay... very well.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[bitt3n]

and have your kids taken away.

at least that's some consolation

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

Is that why the supreme court is giving the executive such a hard time about so many things these days?

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

As with all possession bans, they originally try to regulate the distribution and manufacture, and when that proves too difficult to investigate for on the beat johnny law, they change the laws to persecute the end user through bans on possession. This allows them to lean on the users to turn states evidence on the manufacturer and distributors.

Exceptions for unknowing possession are too easy to exploit so they just write off any innocent bystanders as collateral damage who should have secured their [car/desk/house/locker/boat/computer] against tampering.

Regulation of distribution and manufacture is a legitimate job of government, but like everything government: bans on possession are the inevitable slippery slope born from making someone's career dependent on the ease of bulldozing the rights of the public.

Expediency for public servants will always trump individual liberty in the end.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

Thats not a law problem, its a problem of people's perspective. There is no law change you could make which would change the whole "felony makes it harder to get a job" thing, or the whole "accusations stick with you even when proven false".

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Opportunist]

Well, communists are outdated. Terrorists don't work anymore either. And, well, the simpletons need someone for their daily two minute hate.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like someone that support child pornography... All brave over the Internet, try to say that in public meat-space. I like to think that peoples outraged by child pornography are the one with such fantasy, using their anger as a mask. Pretty much the same way most of the violent anti-gay later admit being homosexual themselves. Also, the politician love that. It allow the peoples to express anger at something other then their corruption. A lot of innocents will have to die before any of this change.

Posting as Anonymous coward for obvious reason; I don't want my name and child polarography to return anything in google. Not that goggling for 'child pornography' along with anything is any wise.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you be labeled as a pedo? Are the police somehow going to lend credibility to some random piece of scumware?

Yes. Also, you sound like a child pornography supporter. Please take a seat.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[toadlife]

Maybe. The police are generally, average people - i.e. idiots to the average Slashdot reader. Even some of their computer forensics people are at the bottom of the barrel intellectually.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

At any rate, if you call the cops they expect to arrest someone

Spoken like someone who has no idea what he is talking about, and is an armchair law expert.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

You really, really, really dont want to live in a world where vigilante justice is what passes for criminal justice.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

I'll vote for option number 2. Any law where lack of criminal intent is specifically excluded as a defense is hideously broken,

"I didnt mean to sideswipe that pedestrian, i had no criminal intent! That your son is dead is an accident!"

Im pretty sure you dont want to live in a society where there is no punishment for what we call "criminal negligence".

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a crime to have sex without a condom in Sweden? So the next Swedish generation going to be one big accident?

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think that hitting a pedestrian should be an automatic long-term prison sentence without considering the circumstances? If the driver intentionally hit the pedestrian, then there's an obvious case for imprisonment.

If the driver hit the pedestrian as a result of negligence, though, the more reasonable punishment is maybe a short jail term for (willfully) negligently operating a vehicle, along with a permanent driver's license revocation. The real punishment will come in the form of a lawsuit, where the family will be awarded substantial damages. The driver will then have to work to try to pay off the judgment.

The point of imprisonment is to protect society from a danger. If you revoke the driver's driving privileges, you know that the problem won't happen again (unless the driver drives without a license, which is a separate crime). The financial penalties (and loss of license) will be enough to deter people from behaving negligently. By not locking up the driver, you allow him to remain a productive member of society while compensating the victims to a greater extent than would be possible if he were imprisoned.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[1s44c]

By 'rapist', you mean 'is accused of having consensual sex without using a condom', a minor crime in Sweden with a $750 penalty.

If it's such a minor crime why is Sweden willing to extradite him for it? Maybe because they intend to send him to a US torture camp, something the UK is unwilling to do.

Rape, having consensual sex without using a condom, or whatever every else Julian Assange is being accused of is just a ruse to get him somewhere the US can deport from.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone who lives somewhere where there are no mandatory arrest rules, for instance, for domestic disturbance calls.

See also: There is no situation so fucked up that calling the cops can't make it worse.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[spiffmastercow]

Since when do the police know the law?

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[t4ng*]

Yes, because something like that could never happen in a democracy, so it must have been a joke!

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

He was trying to remove scamware from his computer, not put more on.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[DarkOx]

Yes once in a great while you see a tiny glimmer of hope but not often enough. The former administration was slightly better in that they at least got Congress to authorize things, even if they boondoggled them to do it. The current admin has lets see:

1. Orchestrated the passage of the Affordable Care Act in a way that was deliberately designed to prevent congress for reading it before the vote.

2. Given an American Car company to the Italians over the objection of the bond holders, despite the proper order claims under bankruptcy law. Going on TV and (this is provable) knowingly lying about the position of the bond holders and thereby slandering them as unwilling to help the nation.

3. Conducted a military action without congressional approval in Libya for more than 60 days.

4. Decided on their own Due Process, where it comes to the execution of an American Citizen, is met by simply talking about it amongst themselves.

5. Granted states waivers for the No Child Left Behind act despite the fact that the low does not specify an provision for doing so and they have no legal authority to do fail to enforce the law in this way even if it is stupid.

  I could go on and on but the above are the ones most people will be familiar with. Regardless of if in your view the immediate outcome of some of these actions has been positive or your feelings on the policy being correct. It show contempt for our political system. It damages the rule of law and the strength or our Constitutional protections.

Over the long term its bad for the nation. No simply voting a GOP at least the mainstream, or TEA party ticket is not the answer. There are good people on both sides of the political isle who act with integrity. That is the answer voters need to set aside their short term agendas and elect people who respect our laws and system. We need to vote for people who look at our political frame work as something to cherish and work within, rather than something to try and weasel around.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[flimflammer]

Yes. Because everyone goes irrational after the words child porn comes up. If you ever find child porn on any of your high traffic machines or even something borderline, you better not alert the police, or they'll take your kids away and label you a pedo before any sort of legal proceedings can determine otherwise. And if they can't prove it came from you? Good luck getting your kids back, regardless, because social services will still likely say they aren't safe with you.

That's the mentality drilled into everyone's head, and it's really not a lie, either. There have been many cases like this. That's why this malware is so brilliant. You start pulling out the child porn card and suddenly they are the loneliest, most helpless victim in the world.

It's a sick reality, really. Witch hunts have not gone anywhere, they just switched targets.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

"executive agency" took on a whole new meaning last month, didn't it?

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[rrohbeck]

delete your caches regularly.

Which would also require you to wipe the free space on your disk because LEA scanners look for sectors with specific content.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I speak from personal experience. Being arrested and charged with a sex crime does fuck you for life in the U.S. I was arrested, spent 14 months awaiting my "speedy trial" and was acquitted in court. However when I purchase a gun my arrest is flagged and it takes three days for the paper work to be approved. Also I have neighbors who now treat me like dirt because the arrest is printed in the paper but the acquittal isn't. Being arrested is akin to being convicted, in the American legal system. Here, there is no such thing as the American Justice system.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[MrQuacker]

What are you trying to imply?

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

Also I have neighbors who now treat me like dirt because the arrest

Do you think the accquital being int he paper would matter? Is there a law which requires thearrest to be in the paper, but prevents the acquittal from being there?

More to the point, you really think there is a change of law which could change this? If so, tell me what it is, cause im skeptical.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The brillant thing about this is that in this country, just being accursed of child porn will haunt you for decades if not the rest of you life. If you call the police, they will investigate, and it will be on the front page of your local news, before anyone can publicly say it is bull ***.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Im pretty sure you dont want to live in a society where there is no punishment for what we call "criminal negligence"

You mean like "manslaugter"? I don't know what little country you came from, but it must suck there.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[MrQuacker]

Yes. See:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/07/1757248/man-barred-from-being-alone-with-daughter-after-informing-police-of-porn-on-pc

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Sulphur]

By 'rapist', you mean 'is accused of having consensual sex without using a condom', a minor crime in Sweden with a $750 penalty.

That gets you sent to Gitmo.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is funny because I kept getting an FBI email claiming if I did not respond, a warrant would be issued and I would be arrested for supporting terrorism.
Malware or a Trojan email no doubt.. I never did an internet search of the email to find out what scam it was..

The funny part of this Torjan and the FBI one I kept getting is they never say jack squat to you they usually bust your door in and then say we have a search warrant.
This is not a smart Trojan because of that, of course people that know this find it to be a dumb Trojan but for most they actually believe it. Should teach people a lesson quit opening emails unless you know who they are from, and quit searching the internet randomly.

I also know you can visit a site and click on a link and get redirected to a link that was not the listed address, getting stuck or trapped into this.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Deliveranc3]

I've got to agree with this. People looking at pedophilia look always at the pedophiles as a completely EVIL group. They never examine the actual implications, damage, or related issues. They have laser focus that these people are evil and don't want to know, discuss or think about it anymore.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same AC, but if I may answer on their behalf...

The solution is simple: media blackout. If rape victims can be shielded from media scrutiny because they may cop shit over it, or because slut-shaming scum might attempt to smear their name, then the defendant can and should be shielded from the guaranteed assumption of guilt from the unwashed masses.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please quote the part where that AC declared that there should never be punishment where intent would be a mitigating factor? Can't find it? Could it be because said AC did not state that there should never be punishment where intent was benign?

Engage those critical thinking skills, please. Intent should always be a factor. It's not hard to conceive of cases where even the person in the straw-man you lovingly set up can and should be exonerated.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds just like the real government. The difference in how they get your money is just details :-) They should work out how to get terrorism, atheism and communism in there as well.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! They don't have to plant anything at your house. They take your computers away and you don't get a copy (Except we better pray that upload Kim does, maybe it can help set a good precedent for NZ in any case). They could put something on it in the comfort of the office. But they don't even need to do that. The judge doesn't examine your computer. They could simply claim that they found something. A million ways to fuck you over.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LongearedBat]

But... vigilante justice is criminal "justice". ;)

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[flyneye]

Nonsense, I fully expect to purchase a state sponsored hunting license in the near future.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[flyneye]

And yet I really really have for nearly 5 decades.
I quit buying that saturday morning cartoon crap about cops , judges and lawyers nearly 4 decades ago when it was age appropriate.
The truth is, you are just as likely to go down for something you didn't do as a criminal is likely to get away. A few patrol, while the majority collect taxes with radar guns to buy new toys. Sure, they bust bad guys if they happen to find them, but the first priority is to acquire more money for raises, toys and ways to invade your privacy.
        Judges, run the gamut from a handful trying to be just to the majority just trying to get through the day. Again, tax collectors for the county/state. More fines less jailtime until it nears ELECTION! Then it reverses. Until the Cops cry to the newsclowns about the jails filling up and the cost of transporting prisoners to other jails for rented space.( Gee , where's all that ticket money? Didn't get your new SWATmobile yet?)
        District attorneys? BWAHAHAHA! These animals would eat a dead rat sandwich to convict you of jaywalking. Their high competition lifestyle is dependent on convictions and nothing else. Jail em all and let God sort em out! No one is innocent. Again, tax collectors.

Vigilance is beginning to look a lot better now, isn't it?
Occasionally, some evil bastard dies at the hands of an unknown and everyone hearing about it smiles, if only for a second.
No costs ( except the donut patrols time for investigationish) No jails and no taxes.
Some (pedophiles, crimes against women types, and tattle tales) get justice shortly after being jailed. I notice there isn't a stampede to stop that.
Nope your love of what passes for criminal justice is kind of childish and cute... if you're a little kid.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, put your firefox browser.cache.disk.parent_directory on tmpfs on single user systems.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[i kan reed]

This post is generally false, not utterly, but in primary substance. 4 is pretty much true(with the caveat that the previous administration did the same thing without names on the list being approved personally by the president), but the rest require real stretches of reality to be considered true.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer lies in Revolution. When the Day of the Rope comes around, the politicos, et. al. have ALREADY chosen their end of the rope.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[K10W]

this ISN'T possession though since it doesn't put illegal stuff on there it just makes users who don't understand computers very well panick and think it may have.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[Grumbleduke]

I don't know about Sweden, but under English law (which is what was relevant for the extradition), having sex with someone without their consent is usually rape (depending on the way the sex happens), and the person must have the freedom and capacity to give that consent. In the condom case, the allegation is that the complainant only consented to sex *with* a condom, so sex without one would be non-consensual, thus rape (or similar).

In one of the other Assange situations, the complainant was allegedly asleep - which has special sub-laws about, presuming a lack of consent unless Assange can suggest otherwise. However, extradition hearings only cover whether or not the alleged offence is sufficient for extradition (and procedural stuff), and are not a proper trial - that is for the Swedes to do.

Re:Scummy yet brilliant.

[LordLimecat]

....That....was the point of my post, that we have such laws.

Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

A "violation fee" to the "Department of Justice" for a felony without conviction.

What kind of idiot is going to--- never mind.

Re:Stupidity

[Curunir_wolf]

A "violation fee" to the "Department of Justice" for a felony without conviction.

What kind of idiot is going to--- never mind.

I know, right? How ridiculous. It's like people think the President is putting people on some sort of "kill list" and sending drones after them. oh... wait.

Re:Stupidity

[swalve]

I know, right? They should do it the right way, and publish decks of playing cards with the targets fancifully depicted as jokers.

Re:Stupidity

[Curunir_wolf]

I know, right? They should do it the right way, and publish decks of playing cards with the targets fancifully depicted as jokers.

Nah, that would imply a desire to capture and try them. Better to just keep the list secret and just share it with the drone pilots. Cheaper, too - it's not like there's a reward, just kill them. Also makes it easier as we moving from "Americans we think are terrorists" on the list now to "Americans that are political enemies". No need for they drone pilots to know WHY anyone is targeted for death.

Re:Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

The violation fee isn't so far fetched. Here in Texas, for certain tickets, you can pay "court costs" (which vary depending on the ticket, even within the same jurisdiction), take a class, and the ticket is dismissed. So, for a fee, you can make the case go away without a conviction. These aren't felonies, but the basic idea is the same.

aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution before our very eyes, watch out creationists!

I think that singling out kiddie porn is kinda stupid though since not too many people watch it. Just illegal porn would be much better. I guess it can be pretty much anything at all with these people browsing the web with internet explorer 6.0 using adobe flash, microsoft silverlight and oracle java and every other plugin you can imagine.

Hope you catch many idiots!

Re:aka Idiot tax

[SuricouRaven]

I think it's a great scam, because people are terrified of the idea of being associated with child porn. A threat like that will ensure they don't go to a repair shop, or mention it to anyone. Not the police, not friends or family. Noone. Greatly reducing the chance of the sucker being told it's a scam.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[AHuxley]

If the command server is raided and all the ip's/timestamps that are waiting for CC numbers are found in plaintext?
Thats a lot of crime to solve, a huge boost for cyber enforcement clear up numbers and a budget boosting PR victory for next year ...

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

In most places, Illegal porn gets you a a dirty look from the judge and a fine if you are really unlucky. CP on the other hand can get you a 20+ year sentence in the US.

It doesn't matter if the victim watches it or not. The scammers are hoping to exploit the fact that their victims would be reluctant to seek help out of fear of false prosecution, which is not as far fetched as I'd like to. Personally, I'd suggest zero-write to anyone who caught this bug. I wouldn't count on the malware authors not putting incriminating evidence on infected systems and even putting spiteful logic bombs which trigger when you clean the infection. Better paranoid than trying to reason with the pitchfork jury.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[EdIII]

Just illegal porn would be much better

Uhhhh... what is illegal porn again? Child porn involves criminal acts with a child. Rape porn, also involves criminal acts against a person. Snuff... well you get the point.

Other than obvious instances of crimes that are being visually recorded just what do you feel should be made illegal?

Sounds to me like "illegal" porn is just what you find objectionable on a moral or cultural basis, and is not actually against any law. Unless you are talking about antiquated sodomy laws or something.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Dr_Barnowl]

Well, for example, porn that depicts violent acts, even between consensual adults, is illegal in the UK.

The performers have a defence as long as the acts they participate in are acts which a person is legally able to consent to in the UK, but the photographer and others present (sound crew, director, etc) are on the hook.

A relatively recent law as well, so not some antiquated sodomy law.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Just illegal porn would be much better

Uhhhh... what is illegal porn again? Child porn involves criminal acts with a child. Rape porn, also involves criminal acts against a person. Snuff... well you get the point.

Other than obvious instances of crimes that are being visually recorded just what do you feel should be made illegal?

Sounds to me like "illegal" porn is just what you find objectionable on a moral or cultural basis, and is not actually against any law. Unless you are talking about antiquated sodomy laws or something.

That's kind of exactly what it is, in the US anyway.

US 'decency' laws are subjective, so porn may be acceptable in the area it was made but legally indecent in another. Max Hardcore is a great example. Went to jail for violating indecency laws in his pornos. Some of his stuff was admittedly nasty, but not explicitly illegal. Obscene is whatever you can talk a jury into agreeing is obscene, so pick your jurisdiction carefully and you never know what might qualify.

Other good examples include animal sex, if memory serves it's legal in a few states, and not in most. So your Zoo-porn site may or may not be illegal depending on where it's hosted, and then again, it might be illegal to view it where you live even if its legal where it's hosted! Fun with laws!

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

UK seems to be a bunch of prudes.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Opportunist]

Umm... in the other cases you mention, the crime is actually not the sexual act.

Rape: assault/bodily harm
snuff: murder

What else is there? Aside of backwards laws that outlaw stuff between consenting adults, every "sex crime" has an element outside the sexual act that is actually by itself a crime.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[misexistentialist]

What a ridiculous "law", completely unjustified in its existence, inherently unequal in its application, and explicitly discriminatory. A movie with a pig skull-fucking an infant is a more moral work than that piece of legislation.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[bergelin]

A translator of Manga comics recently got convicted of child pornography in the district court and the court of appeal in Sweden. This picture (nothing nasty really) was judged as child pornography by the district court, but was cleared in appeal. He was still found guilty in appeal though, but for other pictures. The case is currently being heard by the Supreme Court.
The defendant is not a child abuser by any means, and in all likelihood hasn't got any pedophilic tendencies. He's just a fan of Japanese comics and owns a huge collection of those.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[WrongSizeGlass]

I think it's a great scam, because people are terrified of the idea of being associated with child porn. A threat like that will ensure they don't go to a repair shop, or mention it to anyone. Not the police, not friends or family. Noone. Greatly reducing the chance of the sucker being told it's a scam.

If the authors of this scam thought it through they probably delete all your temp internet files and your history. That way it looks like you already tried to clean up your activity (the act of an obviously guilty person). They may even send a few http requests to known CP sites to plant some evidence on your computer.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Zaphod-AVA]

Huh. How does it not apply to boxing, wrestling, and MMA?

Re:aka Idiot tax

[ehlo]

Well, kind of. The actors wouldn't be off the hook if they did something that the photographers and other present would be liable for since you cannot consent to sex akin to BDSM (you cannot consent to bodily harm that isn't desirable ie contact sports/surgery): R v Brown (the Spanner Case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown (this was a 1993 case in which homosexual men consentually engaged in BDSM were all sentenced).

In law school the above case is taught alongside (well it was at mine anyway) a 1996 case (after R v Brown), R v Wilson, in which a man used an iron poke to brand his wifes ass. The act was considered to be akin to tattoo and consent was a defence. The man was not held liable because it could not be established that this was 'undesirable' activity, and contrasted to R v Brown where in fact none of the men were 'hurt' per se. In R v Slingsby (1995) a man who fisted his wife whilst wearing a ring tore her vagina and she developed a blood infection and eventually died. Because this sexual act gave 'pleasure' and was consentual this was held to be a defence. (???)

There is a terrible discrepency in how the law is applied to heterosexual couples and how it is applied to homosexuals engaged in seemingly LESS culpable acts. There were demonstrations at Russell Square in London in the 90s when these cases were coming about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_(criminal_law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown

Re:aka Idiot tax

[ehlo]

There are areas of the law where there is presumed consent. They are 'desirable' activities so to speak. These include sports (particularly contact sports), the fact that you may get jostled on the underground in the morning on your way to work, etc.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Jeremi]

Uhhhh... what is illegal porn again?

Well, in Saudi Arabia it would be pretty much all of it.

Other than obvious instances of crimes that are being visually recorded just what do you feel should be made illegal?

This isn't an issue of what the previous poster thinks should be illegal, it's an issue of what the law says is illegal. If you live in a country where porn is illegal, then you have to deal with that reality, regardless of how you (or anyone) think things ought to be.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[am 2k]

Personally, I'd suggest zero-write to anyone who caught this bug. I wouldn't count on the malware authors not putting incriminating evidence on infected systems and even putting spiteful logic bombs which trigger when you clean the infection.

Technically, that stands true for every kind of unwanted software (any worm, virus, etc). As soon as you run untrusted code without any restrictions, your whole system is not to be trusted any more.

That's why I consider virus removal software to be a flawed concept in itself.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Dr_Barnowl]

And his (insightful) point was that a porn film involving these acts can have *explicit* consent, have greatly reduced risks of injury (I think the average S&M flick probably has a script and performers who will accept "safe words", unlike the majority of contact sports, but probably something it has in common with WWF), but remains illegal under this law, despite being less dangerous, just because people are getting their rocks off instead of screaming until their face goes purple while drinking beer and waving a big foam finger.

I'll bet I know which one leads to more uncontrolled punch-ups and permanent injuries (to unconsenting participants).

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. That World Wildlife Fund is a violent place indeed.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

If you live in a country where porn is illegal, then you have to deal with that reality, regardless of how you (or anyone) think things ought to be.

Or you don't and you question it.

If the country you lived in suddenly said "Right, whistling in restrooms while taking a leak is now illegal," you would just blindly accept that and not go "Hrm, that's retarded. No, I won't accept that."

Re:aka Idiot tax

[rrohbeck]

Aha! Japanese comics. He's obviously a pervert. Lock him up!

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow! I've bought lewder things involving lolies than that in a bookstore here in Texas, US!

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the full version of that pic: http://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=318111

Probably shouldn't look at it though.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's a good feature they could add to the virus. And delete the original scam email. It would probably work.

Who made this virus? Was it a joint American/Israeli venture?

Re:aka Idiot tax

[Anonymous Coward]

A translator of Manga comics recently got convicted of child pornography in the district court and the court of appeal in Sweden. This picture (nothing nasty really) was judged as child pornography by the district court

To my mind, that qualifies more as erotic than pornographic (like a modern version of classical nude portraits), it's rather tastefully done.

Of course, the real problem here is that it's a drawing. Not a photograph, not a tracing/rotoscope of a photograph, it's an unrealistically clean and perfect (idealised) hand drawn image. I've never seen a real child look even close to that so this is starting from pure idiocy with nowhere to go but down the rabbit-hole.

Re:aka Idiot tax

[pantaril]

Uhhhh... what is illegal porn again? Child porn involves criminal acts with a child

Unfortunately you are wrong. In most western countries, child porn involves material depicting persons who look like minors engaging in "indecent" actions.
No real child needs to be involved. Erotic comix can be considered child porn. Yes, the law is stupid.

Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure with all the "DINK OF TEH CHILLUNS!" bullshit that goes on that we burn anyone that looks at child porn at the stake, no one will believe they can get away with it for just a fine.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Billly Gates]

The problem is the laws define a pedo with just having the material.

For example, if I uploaded kiddie porn to your computer you are a criminal for having it. Sure the penalty is much less than being a kiddie porn manufacturer which is someone who sends it but you are not guilty.

Worse, try to get a job again? Your future is ruined forever, because of an asshat and many will pay to make the problem go away! This is truly evil in the nth degree whether you feel this current laws are silly are not.

No respectable employer will hire anyone and yes if someone plants porn your life is gone whether you had anything to do with it or not. I can see people willing to pay believe or not sadly for these reasons.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually going to joke: 'Seems like the DOJ/NSA/Dept of Cybersecurity/etc has finally figured out the easy way to solve the Federal Budget Crisis.' Just do this to every american, pedo or not and you'll be back in the black by the end of the week :)

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[MacGyver2210]

There was recently (in the last few months, I believe) an article about intent in child porn cases. I think it was even on /. It said that simply possessing the child porn wasn't enough, there had to be proof that the person had intentionally viewed it.

found it. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/05/10/138205/ny-ruling-distinguishes-downloading-viewing-child-pornography

Is that only in New York, or has it set some sort of precedent or how does that work? I'm not fluent in legalese.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Amouth]

but even if it is only in that area - you have to prove you didn't do it, and even if you can do that you have to do it n court, even if you come away "free" then it is still there that you where once prosecuted for it, and you have to live/survive that process which will more than likely ruin your life as you know it.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[rally2xs]

Pay? Not much more than the price of a brand new hard drive,which last time I looked was about $90. Bury the old dribe somewhere unretrievable, install the new drive, and you either baccked up your data or you didn't. No worse than a hardware meltdown...

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[SuricouRaven]

Not for very long, though. If you follow the media, espicially the more conservative media, there is a fair bit of public outrage at the ruling - lots of headlines along the lines of 'New York legalises child pornography!'. So much that within less than a day of the ruling, the legislature was already in the process of passing a bill to reverse it. It will, without a shadow of a doubt, sail through unchallenged.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765576135/New-York-bill-quickly-follows-court-ruling-on-child-porn.html

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[jimicus]

Not much more than the price of a brand new hard drive,which last time I looked was about $90. Bury the old dribe somewhere unretrievable, install the new drive, and you either baccked up your data or you didn't. No worse than a hardware meltdown...

Considering how damn awkward some malware is to remove, this is probably not a bad solution for a lot of infestations. It's certainly quicker than a scan with a live CD followed by booting in safe mode, running every virus scanner you can think of, digging through HijackThis logs and still finding there's traces on there - and for a lot of people, time is money.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[F.Ultra]

Yes, but we are talking about people that are not computer savvy. To them the whole computer is the hard drive. And since they also think that computers are magic, they probably believe that the message will reappaer on the new hard drive the instant it's installed.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the link:

"The viewing of child pornography creates a demand and there is an entire industry out there of these images," she said. "When there is a demand, that requires abuse of the children to make more images."

So if you download music for free you're killing the music industry, but if you download child porn for free you're supporting the child porn industry?

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[gstrickler]

Obviously you must be a pedophile, anti-American, neo-Nazi, terrorist [did I miss any?]. How dare you mock "think of the children".

Everyone, for the sake of our children, please help root out this vile anonymous coward. We must not allow questioning of anything done for the children. /sarcasm

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder what would happen if someone changed the trojan to actually display real child porn a few days prior.
And write it all over the victims hard drive.
Both of which would be crimes (for the VICTIM) because of stupid laws like this.
And instead of demanding money it would send an email to the police.

Great way for the imprisoning industry to get more "customers".
Or to deal with the idiots that make INVOLUNTARY viewing and possession of child porn a crime.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. The entire basis of criminal law in the US is that the prosecution has to prove you did do it.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Opportunist]

My hope is just that this trojan infects the same bunch of people that kept cheering on when some BS laws got proposed and passed.

I cannot wait for the first politician infected with it. Please let me be the one who gets to analyze the computer, please... it will be the first NDA I violate.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Opportunist]

Money? C'mon, be a bit more creative.

Hint: You cannot post critical political comments from a PMITA jail.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, tell that to the crowd with the pitchforks. Or you next (not-)employer.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

She's lying. There's little to no commercial trading. A few places require newcomers to trade pictures to join but most sources are free. Commercial trade is too dangerous.

The curious thing about child porn is that so few people are involved in it that very few actually know how it works. That leaves the field open to people with an agenda to lie because you cant argue against them without knowing how the field works and if you know then people will think you're involved in it.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for those who are truly innocent, changing the law so viewing it is illegal is the right thing to do. Otherwise, we may have the "guilty" providing themselves a sense of protection by only viewing, never saving, the offending material.

However, I'd rather see a system in place that deals with rehabilitation rather than just prison sentences. In the event that someone is innocent, and it can be proven during the rehabilitation process that they don't have that problem, no ill effects would occur to the 'convict' or to society at large.

But maybe in the case of child pornography, they should be focusing on those who are doing the physical harm to children and those who spread the offending material. Is there any way to stop it at the source so the victimization can't be done in the first place? Pedophiles were once children, so, are there any signs that would indicate someone may grow up to become a pedophile?

These are serious and disturbing questions we need to be asking if we ever truly want to solve this problem. The cycle needs to be ended if we want to prevent the victimization of children.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

And technically they do. They prove that you own the computer and that there was child porn on that computer.

Which is probably why there's no mens rea requirement attached to possession of CP as that would require them to have actual evidence that the accused knew about it and had some type of involvement in it coming to be on that HDD.

There's a shocking number of people that think that the system failed whenever somebody is acquitted as obviously the prosecutors never falsely accuse anybody and don't make mistakes either. Except when they do in which case it's your fault for being accused.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[robthebloke]

Tell that to the pediatricians.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Nimey]

Now if only this trojan could be targeted at certain prominent conservatives... say Limbaugh, Murdoch, et al. When it came out they'd gotten this on their computers, bet you the conservative media drumbeat changes.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the vast liberal conspiracy to harm them did it! They are masters of shifting blame and diversion tactics. If all that fails they will preach how the laws are unfair and its big government to blame as well as the fault of children themselves this stuff goes around. Just look at past positions; they default to blaming the victim (unless it is them.)

I'd love to see it just for the entertainment of how they recover from it; and they will recover. Legitimate conspiracy theories proven or otherwise are culturally taboo in the USA but it seems the only ones who get away with it are the right wingnuts.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[TinyLittleMend]

Unfortunately for those who are truly innocent

No. Not "unfortunately." I'd rather have a hundred criminals escape than wrongfully convict a single innocent person. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. That doesn't change just because children are involved, or for any other reason.

Pedophiles were once children, so, are there any signs that would indicate someone may grow up to become a pedophile?

It's only a problem if they become child molesters. Pedophiles don't necessarily molest children, and I do not believe in thought crime.

The cycle needs to be ended if we want to prevent the victimization of children.

If the solution involves punishing people for thought crime or harming innocents, I'm out.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see it just for the entertainment of how they recover from it; and they will recover.

It's not that entertaining. Take, for instance, Foley, who got rehab for his little "problem" while Republican continue to scream that pedos can't be rehabilitated.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, on many job applications, you're not asked whether you've ever been convicted of an offense, but rather if you've ever been arrested or ever been charged. One false accusation in this backwards country can ruin your life.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[rrohbeck]

It shouldn't be too hard to scan through the files on their machine and do some simple word statistics on things that they wrote. I have a feeling that you can find the political persuasion of the author with good accuracy.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[rrohbeck]

"I think of children all the time," said the pedophile.
Corollary: Anybody who thinks of children might be a pedophile.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[luther349]

true but most jobs never check shit. it cost them to much money to run credit and background checks on every new hire..

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still disagree. What I mean is we need to close the loophole so viewing is still illegal. And it is unfortunate that some people may be innocent of intention but get hurt from this law. However, if we make the consequence of being convicted not necessarily a prison sentence, but rehabilitation (meeting with a psychologist), then the harm in convicting an innocent person is minimized.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word pedophile. Maybe I should have said "pedophile who views child pornography". Now, is it still a thought crime if it involves viewing a record of a criminal act (actual, not virtual, child pornography)?

We need a criminal justice system that deals with curing people rather than "having them pay their debt to society". Would it necessarily be dangerious to require those who view child pornography to seek psychological counseling in lieu of jail time?

Does the nature of the punishment necessarily dictate whether it's a thought crime or not? Incarceration vs. psychological counseling?

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

then the harm in convicting an innocent person is minimized

I don't care if it's "minimized." Innocent until proven guilty. Always. Intention always matters, and if they can't prove it, too bad for them. We can't make exceptions to this even "for the children."

We need a criminal justice system that deals with curing people rather than "having them pay their debt to society".

Agreed.

Would it necessarily be dangerious to require those who view child pornography to seek psychological counseling in lieu of jail time?

Dangerous? Probably not, considering all they do is view images. Even people who look at child pornography aren't necessarily child molesters, and they're simply looking at images. I believe we're trying to hard to catch these guys while ignoring the people who are doing the molesting.

Does the nature of the punishment necessarily dictate whether it's a thought crime or not?

No.

Re:Who would fall for a fee?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're twisting my words. It'd still be innocent until proven guilty. If someone views the image, they'd technically be guilty of viewing it. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe it wasn't. If it was an accident, I'd hope the court would see that and dismiss the trial. Let's say it was an accident and the person is convicted. If the punishment is treatment with little to no jail time, the damage is minimized because it'd be a lot worse if that person went to prison for an accident as opposed to being offered psychological counseling.

Consider this extreme scenerio. A group of "pedophiles who are okay with the violation of children" commission a "person who is willing to risk prison" to violate a child and record the act. This keeps going until the person is caught. If we only punish the molesters, and not the viewers, the viewers could always try finding someone willing to get someone to violate a child. As I said, an extreme case. A less extreme case is to not commission someone, but to simply go browsing for the images that exist because someone made those images for free.

A less extreme example would be the victim is still victimized by the police not doing anything about people viewing the violating act. Put yourself in the shoes of a child. If you were victmized sexually, videotaped, and the videographer went to prison, but people were still watching the video, how would you feel? Punishing people for viewing those images is a (partial) sense of relief for the victim.

I need to ask you. Do those pedophiles, who view actual child pornography, need psychological help? Given that child pornography isn't free speech because it is a depiction of a crime, I wouldn't label punishing pedophiles to be a "thought crime" issue.

Here's another thought. If you videotaped the murder of someone for the sole purpose of people getting sexual pleasure off of watching that murder, should viewing that image (the video) be considered illegal? Let it be given that the motivation of the murder could very well be for the purpose of making the video for sexual gratification.

On another note, is a video of someone being raped considered illegal to view (outside of a court trial)? That is, does the age of the victim count as a variable regarding whether the video should or shouldn't be illegal? Remember, a child can't consent due to statutory rape laws. So no sex with a child is consensual.

You know, regardless of whether we agree or not, the exploitation of children is a problem I think we both agree on. What we need is some intelligent people on both sides (for or against illegalizing the viewing of images) to discuss this issue.

To sum up my argument: If saving is illegal, so should temporarily viewing the material. Because if temporarily viewing the material isn't illegal, it allows an avenue for those people to view without doing anything illegal.

Not as bad as I expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually expected this to really plant CP on the victim's computer and offer to remove it for a fee. Now THAT would be an asshole move.

Re:Not as bad as I expected...

[DarwinSurvivor]

That would also make them distributors and the target of just about every federal and most international police forces. As it stands now, it's just extorsion so as far as the governments are concerned, they're just lumped in with all the other un-prosecuted Nigerian scammers.

Re:Not as bad as I expected...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, as long as the CP is not under copyright, no one will come after them over a border.

de-lousing...

[harvey the nerd]

Sounds like a job for a bootable Linux lite thumb drive with trojan hunting files.

Re:de-lousing...

[SuricouRaven]

You are not the target of this scam.

Re:de-lousing...

[AHuxley]

Pay money or your IM/irc friends gets random Windows 8 questions .... interlaced with Maths 101 questions...
It took you a long time to find Linux users, pity if they where to think of you as dual booting...

Re:de-lousing...

[Hentes]

You mean like this?

Re:de-lousing...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not the target of this scam.

Psst.. I he means as a way of cleaning up the infection.

Re:de-lousing...

[luther349]

sounds like a job for dban.

soo

[Anonymous Coward]

if you visit lots a pron and never see this message YOUR COOL....
nice idea
ROFL

I don't get it

[Chrisq]

Bury the old dribe somewhere unretrievable

I guess "old dribe" must be the guy sending out these blackmail notices then.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

A little lead, a little concrete, and Mr. Dribe has written his last worm.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this is /. Bury the old disk? How about "reformat", or even better -- reformat and (re-)encrypt. Not to mention using operating systems where such issues are not the problem as prevention is better than curing.

Drive-by Downloads?

[Anonymous Coward]

lures the victim to a drive-by download website

What? Why is this still even a thing? What browser setup are people using that this is still a viable attack vector?

Re:Drive-by Downloads?

[Zaphod-AVA]

All of them using Flash and Java. Most of which spend a lot of time unpatched. Even if they are, zero day exploits happen monthly.

It's worldwide

[jimicus]

I've seen a version that's been localised to the UK; apparently there are also versions localised to Canada. I haven't analysed it but it wouldn't surprise me if it's all the same trojan and it uses geolocation to display an appropriate logo.

Brilliant scam because even if the user knows it's a load of rubbish, nobody wants to be even remotely associated with paedophilia. You'd have to be a bit of an idiot to think you could make such an accusation go away by paying a small fine - or for that matter to believe that the police's MO in these cases is to put a great big warning on your screen (rather than to arrest you at dawn and take all your computers away), but I suspect there are probably enough idiots in this world to make it profitable.

Re:It's worldwide

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. That is how all these scams work. Send out the scam 1,000,000 times, get a 0.1% hit rate that's 1000 people paying you $.

Re:It's worldwide

[deroby]

My dad's PC had this, although apparently the creators didn't do their homework very well. Belgium having 2 (main) languages the scareware used the wrong language for this part of the country so he hardly understood what needed doing (not everybody speaks both languages). Off course the police logo etc made it look kind of daunting and -although it started up ridiculously slow- once it took over the pc became completely unusable.

It was rather easy to get rid of (safe mode, regedit, hijack-this and then a full scan with Security Essentials -which seemingly had missed it originally!)

The part I don't get is : how do the scammers get to their money (assuming some people are silly enough to pay) without the possibility of being traced back ?
=> shouldn't there be ridiculously easy traces to follow via paysafecard.com ??
=> worst case it should be easy enough to have these -at least!- blocked

Re:It's worldwide

[zyzko]

Yes, and in Finnish among other languages, F-Secure has identified a lot of localized versions. Although that malware is not that well sophisticated as zeus (instructions to get away from it are quite simple and included in the blog article) the method is the same - display the logo of a local law enforcement agency (police, internal police...) and demand (an anonymous) payment because they have found cp on your machine.

Easy money because it is a big accusation (even stronger than copyright infringement - with cp you are totally destroyed instantly by the community, copyright infringement at least gets yous some good-will) and just paying a relatively small sum may seem like an easy way out of the trouble. Of course education will help but there are those who are so freaked out by the accusation that they will not even think of seeking help and those who feel guilty because they have surfed "free porn" and are not really sure if that is all ok (no intentional cp, but you can never be sure with those shady things, can you, maybe those girls were 17 and not 18 after all...) and are afraid of if anyone else finds that out.

Re:It's worldwide

[Dunbal]

how do the scammers get to their money (assuming some people are silly enough to pay) without the possibility of being traced back ?

Usually they use different 3rd parties, don't tell them where the money is comig from or where it's going, and have them take the fall if they get caught.

Re:It's worldwide

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually they use different 3rd parties, don't tell them where the money is comig from or where it's going, and have them take the fall if they get caught.

You know those "work at home" advertisements? Most of them are just envelope-stuffing, blog-spamming scams. But some of them actually pay out quite well, and those that do often involve performing sketchy money transfers. Taking the fall is what they pay you for.

Re:It's worldwide

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably worse than that. My network security teacher claimed unsolicited spam has a hit rate closer to 0.0001%, yet the average spammer makes about $400k/year. The next closest for those kind of accuracy, and still making money, is the weather man.

Re:It's worldwide

[Deliveranc3]

What if that warning came saying "We can't get a warrant yet, but you're on file and we'll check up on you from time to time when it's legal." Might make people stop before they end up in prison for doing something really illegal.

Cops give out warnings all the time, it would be nice to think they check the person's record first though.

Not new

[gigaherz]

This has existed in Spain for many months. The Spanish version also includes piracy and other illegal activities in the list, in case you didn't look at child porn. It scares the shit out of people, and I suppose it works more times than it doesn't.

Love this virus

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant scam, lol

general purpose virus

[tommeke100]

it's not really targeted at child pornography. I've moved the German version from a couple of PC's (BundesPolizei it said) a couple of months ago, and it said something 'pornographic material has been found on your computer etc...'. So child pornography was just part of the options. Anyway, it's exactly the same type of scam as those fake anti-virus trojans that try you to lure into buying their 'software'. It's not really looking for pornography on your computer, it's just giving that message to everyone and trying to scare them into paying.

Re:general purpose virus

[Johann Lau]

Ohhh, I'm just looking at a screenshot of that thing...

Es ist die ungesetzliche Tätigkeit enthüllt! [..] mit dieser IP wurden Seiten mit pornografischen Inhalten,Kinderpornographie, Sodomie und Gewalt gegen Kinder aufgerufen. Auf ihrem Computer wurden ebenfalls Videodateien mit pornografischen Inhalten, Elementen von Gewalt und Kinderpornografie. Es wurden auch Emails in Form von Spam, mit terroristischen Hintergründen, verschickt

translates to

The illegal activity, it is revealed! [..] with this IP pages with pornographic content, child porn, sodomy and violence against children were visited. Furthermore, video files with pornographic contents, elements of violence and child porn have been found on your computer. Emails in the form of spam, with terroristic motivations, have been sent as well.

And apart from "Es ist die ungesetzliche Tätigkeit enthüllt!" sounding like the catch phrase of an Engrish Sherlock Holmes, I can't help but notice one thing: The scammers, recognizing their own, seem to know the war on terror's a scam, and they just use it. You see, intellectuals and brainwashed people can discuss all day and night wether an outline of cheese is cheese or the moon -- but this is an actual mouse going for that cheese and eating it. And that just fascinates me in a morbid way. Same goes for child porn hysteria I guess, but that is already well discussed in this thread. This thing plays on the fear of being mistakenly identified and punished as a pedo as well as a terrorist, at least the German version does.

Yes, spammers and virus makers suck. But realize, the people who are actually claiming to earn their luxury by "serving us" (politicians are public servants, remember that the next time your throat is perched), are creating and maintaining a world where something like this might work better than it should.

We have no reason to trust the authorities, so we don't. We know the murderers get elected to high office, the petty thieves are hanged, and that sometimes sometimes ants just get stepped on. So instead of everybody just having a good laugh and reinstalling, some people will actually pay... and I'm not sure I feel comfortable about just blaming the virus authors for that. You see, I wouldn't expect different behaviour from a reckless criminal, I might be glad they're not doing armed robbery instead - not to excuse it, but when it comes to "us" and our "(mis)leaders", we're at least supposed to do better than fucking spammers. And we don't. In a healthy society, such a virus would never have been created. Scamming people who are technically illiterate, yeah, sure. But only the Kafkaesque tyrannies we have enable social engineering on such a low level in the first place.

(Sorry for ranting, and apologies to anyone who actually bothered reading it ^^)

Someone do the right thing...

[3seas]

make one of these that informs people to instruct government on what and where the taxes they pay are to be spent.

Re:Someone do the right thing...

[Jeremi]

make one of these that informs people to instruct government on what and where the taxes they pay are to be spent.

How would that be different from the status quo?

Everyone already "instructs their government" that taxes spent on things that primarily benefit them (or their community) is "vital and necessary investment", and anything that primarily benefits other people is "wasteful government spending".

I doubt malware is going to give anyone a broader perspective.

Breaking News:

[VortexCortex]

US Warning of Child-Porn Blackmail Ransomware Remains Unheeded

US Gov. to proceed with CISPA anyway.

As night follows day

[PopeRatzo]

Who couldn't see this coming? First, you make "looking at child porn" the worstest crime imaginable, like genocide against against a million nuns, worst than murder, worst than cannibalism, worst than, I don't know, eating fatty food, and then you...PROFIT!

Anybody want to bet that in the next few years (or less) we'll be hearing about some major politician who has (cue the somber, scary music...) looked at drawings of naked children.

"Is he right for America? We don't think so. Paid for by Americans for Families and Stopping Immoral Behavior among People Who are Different From Us."

Re:As night follows day

[rrohbeck]

What we need next is a version than downloads some Al Qaeda manuals to your drive. Pay a ransom or you'll be locked away without trial.

Elitists

[Anonymous Coward]

"...we burn anyone that looks at child porn at the stake, no one will believe they can get away with it for just a fine."

Unless they are rich, powerful, elitists. For more info, watch "Conspiracy of Silence", read "The Frankin Cover-Up", "Why Johnny Can't Come Home", or research Perry Dunlop (Canadian).

People do get off (no pun intended) - without even a fine if they are part of the 'brotherhood".

let's say the Kelly Middle School gets hit by this

[Joe_Dragon]

let's say the Kelly Middle School gets hit by this what will happen then??

Linux for another win!

[Murdoch5]

Sucks to be anyone running Windows, I guess now all Windows users are pedo's, good job Gates!

Re:Linux for another win!

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be an unspoken command that news agencies never use the term "Windows Virus", "Windows Trojan", "Windows Malware", etc. The original article never mentions Windows over two pages. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/053112-citadel-259739.html?page=1

I am simply baffled that other countries would allow proprietary software produced in the United States to run on their computers. Smooth move Iran. You should have figured this out in June of 2010! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

If the corporations successfully manage to have all platforms (Desktop, Laptop, Tablet, Phone) use UEFI to run only "Trusted Computing" operating systems, we are all schttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5115609628556940516rewed. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5115609628556940516 Even RedHat Linux users would not be able to update their kernels to eliminate known holes.

When will the ignorant masses learn that proprietary software enables cyber warfare, restricts rights, invades privacy, and interferes with self-determination? When will the ignorant masses wise up and see the path that they are on is leading to thralldom at the hands of governments, corporations, virus writers, etc? Even Linux users will not be safe. If this doesn't stop, we are all "Nookd". http://www.gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/technology/gadgetbox/nookd-bookseller-replaces-kindle-nook-war-peace-e-book-808308

Re:Linux for another win!

[techno-vampire]

There seems to be an unspoken command that news agencies never use the term "Windows Virus", "Windows Trojan", "Windows Malware", etc.

That's because to the people writing those stories, using a PC equates running Windows. Yes, some of them have heard of Linux, but they usually don't know what it is and even if they do, they're going to assume that their audience doesn't.

Violating Federal Copyrights and Identities

[Doc Ruby]

The operators of this extortion system should be on the "Public Enemy #1" list. Not only are they an organized syndicate extorting from Americans, on a very large and nationwide scale. They are impersonating Federal officers to do it. Protecting the ability of Americans to respect someone who claims to be a cop, especially a Federal one, is among the highest priorities of the Justice Department. Or at least it should be.

The failure of the FBI and the other cop agencies we give $BILLIONS to every year, who have vast and even un-Constitutional powers to do whatever they want in the name of protecting us, to do what's necessary to stop these giant phishing operations is baffling mystery. Why banks are allowed to let their trademarked brands get diluted by phishers robbing in their name, resulting in large and widespread losses contrary to the very essence of trademark and copyright, is a mystery. But the failure of the cops to protect themselves is even more bizarre.

Re:Violating Federal Copyrights and Identities

[Deliveranc3]

Police budgets were cut under Bush and are only getting up to those levels now. Meanwhile, the TSA, CIA,NSA, HOMELAND SECURITY, Etc. have INSANE budgets. They're investigating and preventing crimes, why not just hire more police? Or more detectives (FBI). As far as I can tell it's because those agencies have less judicial oversight so they can be used to target subversives or whoever is inconvenient, often with them not even realizing that's what they are being used for.

Obligatory bitcoin reference

[Jawnn]

Can I pay the ransom in bitcoin?

reasonable doubt

[Organic Brain Damage]

This trojan just provided everyone ever accused of possessing kiddie porn with reasonable doubt.

MOD PARENT UP

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Insight and accurate information should be rewarded.

But......

[oldmeddler]

...will it run on Linux?

Re:But......

[knorthern knight]

> ...will it run on Linux?

If it's a Java or Flash exploit, yes it can. I haven't had Java on my linux machine for years. And while I generally disagree with a lot of Steve Jobs' ideas, getting rid of Flash was a brilliant idea. A container file for audio/video does *NOT* need an embedded scriptable language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actionscript as part of the spec. The scripts that execute as part of the Flash spec are the root of the vulnerability, OS notwithstanding.

Not only that, the newer HTML5 video codecs are more efficient. My 6 megabit ADSL connection nets 4.98 megabits down. It can almost keep up with 1080p Flash videos. E.g. if I let a video buffer for 30 seconds, it can play 5 minutes before the playback overtakes the downloading video. But HTML5 1080p WebM videos can easily be played without buffering at all.

what we need to stop this

[RobertLTux]

1 make it a lot easier for folks to get hands on Self Booting Fix discs (hint Norton/Mcafee/ect should include this in their products)

2 redefine CP laws so that CP is defined in a strict narrow way:
as a rough example:
A Does it depict a Sex Act with a Minor?? (wiggle for models with actual ages not in line with appearance needs to be written in)
or
B Is the Model NUDE (or only clothed in something Trival) AND is it devoid of Artistic Diagnostic or Documentary Value
or
C Does it depict any other crime

Then the Pic/Vid/media IS NOT CHILD PORN.

the problem is BURN THE WITCH!! is never Justice so we need sanity in the laws.

OT: Don't laugh, violation fee=Civil prosecution

[davidwr]

A "violation fee" to the "Department of Justice" for a felony without conviction.

What kind of idiot is going to--- never mind.

You won't see it for child porn investigations, but for fraud and other white-collar crimes you frequently see the feds doing a "civil prosecution" instead of or in addition to a criminal one.

Many civil prosecutions wind up with something akin to a plea bargain: The feds offer to close the case in exchange for paying a "violation fee," er, I mean a fine, and perhaps agree to oversight or other "consent decree" conditions, without admitting any wrongdoing.

The burden of proof for the government in a civil prosecution is a lot lower and when it is met, those responsible for wrongdoing are subject to significant forfeitures and/or civil fines, the objective of deterring other greedy people is met, and nobody goes to jail or winds up with a criminal conviction.

Unfortunately, civil prosecution is also harder for an innocent person to fight.

Memo to scammers - next time be grey-hat

[davidwr]

Next time, be grey-hat:

Next time circulate "You have downloaded child p0rn" ransom-ware only among people who have actually intentionally done so.

Even better, target police pretending to be child-porn-traders. This should be easy as they no doubt widely outnumber real child-porn-traders.

Clear Cache on Exit.

[krischik]

One more reason to have the “Clear Cache in Exit“ activated.

But you are right: Most do not know about that.

Interesting: In Germany the content of the browser cache is not considered “possessing“.