FBI Hunt For Child Porn Thwarted By Tor

v3rgEz writes "Documents released by the FBI provide an unusual inside look at how the agency is struggling to penetrate 'darknet' Onion sites routed through Tor, the online privacy tool funded in part by government grants to help global activists. In this case, agents were unable to pursue specific leads about an easily available child pornography site, while files withheld indicate that the FBI has ongoing investigations tied to the Silk Road marketplace, a popular, anonymous Tor site for buying and selling drugs and other illegal materials." Sounds similar to the problems that plagued freenet.

Comments

FBI angry?

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI SMASH TOR!

Re:FBI angry?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI should just save the data at some ring servers. Wait 15 years until computing power can decrypt it (perhaps with quantum computers), and then arrest the bad guys.

Even the threat of a quantum computer should make those who transmit kiddie porn think twice.

Re:FBI angry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless of course you use a system that can beat it, and this being tor, something which has quite a lot of interest into not being breakable by big government with big budget, I am pretty sure that they will try to limit all that very well. Also, if you have to way 15 years, I believe that in many countries, it will have aged too long. Not to say that public shaming wouldn't do whatever is needed, but you would have to hold a whole lot of data to find the person 15 years later. I think it would be nearly impossible, given what you have to have access to. Remember that with tor, even if you would have to get the source of the person uploading it and be able to decrypt his stuff since it could also be a node in between sender and received without you knowing who. And usually if you know who to look for, it means you already have enough data for your case.

Re:FBI angry?

[lister king of smeg]

there is a law that stops them from doing just that it is called the statute of limitations it keeps them from prosecuting you for a crime that you committed years. by the time they manage to brute force decrypt all of the layers of encryption that tor uses even with magical quantum algorithms that don't exist yet on hardware that dose not exist yet. not to mention all of the pytabytes of each years accumulated encrypted traffic the statute of limitation would kick in and it would be pointless to go through it all then their is all of the wire tapping laws they would be braking in the processes that it would require a truly herculean legal effort to prosecute you for that nudey picture of the seventeen year old girl in a picture on 4chan you download that her ex-boy-friend had posted {no really her phone was hacked honest}. it would not be worth their time when they have real criminals like copyright infringers to kill.. i mean take care of.

Re:FBI angry?

[betterunixthanunix]

Even the threat of a quantum computer should make those who transmit kiddie porn think twice.

1. I seriously doubt that the FBI could store that much information for that long a period of time.
2. I know for a fact that no ISP stores customer records for that long, and it is unlikely that the FBI will be able to gain access to such records when their only evidence is "so-and-so happened to be using Tor!"
3. Quantum computing has numerous challenges facing it; betting on a breakthrough to catch child sex abusers is a pretty stupid strategy.
4. People who consume child abuse imagery do not generally think about police capabilities. According to one computer security research I spoke with, the police have their hands full catching people who do not even bother with cryptography, who download these images in the clear. Most people in general have little familiarity with cryptography or cryptography software; why would people who want child abuse images be an exception to that rule?
5. People who produce child abuse imagery (i.e. people who abuse children) do not use Tor, because of the low bandwidth and the extreme paranoia amongst such people (at least the ones who manage to evade police for years at a time). Another security researcher I spoke to noted that it is not uncommon for producers of these images to use the postal system, mailing encrypted DVDs to their customers, which is considered to be more secure. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of the images shared through Tor are old images, which have been circulating for years and which are already in the Innocent Images database.

Re:FBI angry?

[thexile]

or vagina.

Re:FBI angry?

[berzerke]

FBI SMASH TOR!

The post above was modded funny, but maybe it's true. It could be that the FBI's supposed "struggle" isn't one at all. Could they have already figured out how to penetrate it and are releasing this misinformation in hopes of snaring more people who now think it's safe? Remember, cops, including the FBI can legally lie to you, and have no hesitation about doing so.

Re:FBI angry?

[Slashdot Parent]

For cases of child sexual abuse, I think you'll find that the statues of limitations are quite long, where they exist at all. Storing a PB or two of data stream for 10-15 years wouldn't be too expensive, and if an exploit is found for whatever crypto Tor uses (or a bug in the implementation) or some magical quantum machine gets invented, you just never know what goodies you might find.

Even if you don't get enough info to catch anyone (how long does your ISP keep IP lease logs?), you might be able to ID a victim, as facial recognition improves. Once you have a victim, you might have someone who can ID and testify against the rapist.

So yeah, I think storing a bit of data would be a clever thing for the FBI to do. Even if they don't turn anything up, it's not like it would cost more than a few thousand bucks.

Re:FBI angry?

[Slashdot Parent]

Exploits to crypto algorithms are found all the time. Exploitable bugs in implementations are found all the time. Facial recognition improves all the time. Storage costs decrease over time.

I thought the idea for the FBI to take a PB or two of data as a sample was a great idea. Sure, nothing will probably ever come of it, but you never know. Statues of limitations for child rape are long, where they exist at all. If you ID a rapist or victim, you could get a prosecution.

Re:FBI angry?

[betterunixthanunix]

You are underestimating the sheer volume of data that is transferred through Tor. Even if you only looked at Americans using Tor, you would have a huge amount of data to store; petabytes is an understatement (remember that every connection on Tor involves transferring more data than is actually being transferred end-to-end, due to the nature of onion routing). If you take only a sample, you are not likely to find child abuse imagery -- despite the headlines, most of the data transferred through Tor is not related to child abuse (e.g. Chinese people often use Tor to download American films, which on its own accounts for quite a bit of the utilization of Tor).

I doubt the FBI has the resources to do what you are suggesting. It is not just a matter of storage; the FBI does not yet have the ability to wiretap the entire Internet, and a Tor circuit is fairly likely to cross international borders and thus go outside of the FBI's jurisdiction (assuming that such things even matter these days). The FBI could not even compromise the much smaller anonymous remailer system; Tor has hundreds of thousands of nodes.

The NSA might have those kinds of resources at its disposal. Asking the FBI to do it is silly.

Re:FBI angry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please!!! Won't somebody think of the children?

It doesn't matter

[Arch_Android]

Nothing is important enough that it takes priority over liberty and freedom of speech. Nothing.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ShanghaiBill]

Nothing is important enough that it takes priority over liberty and freedom of speech. Nothing.

Nothing? Not shouting fire in a crowded theater? How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?

Freedom is important, but it is not an absolute.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The key point with freedom of speech is this: you need to be able to criticize your government, so you can change the laws. As long as that is possible, then you have the freedom to convince people that other things should change. If you're good at convincing, you will win.

Other freedom of speech is good, but it isn't as essential that you be able to insult Mohammad openly. If you live in a country where that is illegal, your primary difficulty is convincing your neighbors that it shouldn't be illegal. That will be much more difficult than actually getting the law to change.

You need to have speech to convince people to change the law. Other speech freedoms are relatively less important.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately technology is forcing us to decide -- a repressive police state that enforces your views of censorship, or a society that allows free speech. What little middle ground there ever was is rapidly vanishing.

Child porn, hate speech, etc are awful -- but we've seen what's first up against the wall when the censors get their way -- criticism of the law itself.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Nursie]

Thankyou. There are lines and boundaries to anything.

Where these lie is a subject for discussion, sure, but the childlike scream of absolute freedom of speech/communication is naive.

Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a tor or freenet node.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

Not shouting fire in a crowded theater?

I find it somewhat unlikely that people would get up, scream, and trample over everyone else to get out of the building because someone screamed something that they don't know to be true. And even if they did, I'd say they should be the ones paying for any damage they did to other people.

How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?

Prosecute the rapist.

Freedom is important, but it is not an absolute.

That depends on where your priorities lie. In some cases, and to some people, it might be.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, freedom is not an absolute.

But neither is the law and yet people try to treat it as such.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

But I don't think that's what the person you replied to meant to begin with. He was probably referring to banning TOR or something such as that.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

You need to have speech to convince people to change the law. Other speech freedoms are relatively less important.

And sometimes they're both highly related. I know I don't want to live somewhere where my speech (in your example, insulting Mohammed) is deemed illegal merely because the certain people take offense to it. I believe that it indicates a rampant, out of control government that is very prone to corruption.

Re:It doesn't matter

[nbsr]

What if someone kills your daugther? Should we pass a bill to bring her back to life? Or maybe we just put the murderer in jail.

If I had to choose, I would much more prefer to have CP pictures floating around than having a wide-spread surveillance network looking into *all* aspects of my life.

This is a fine act of improving quality of our lifes. On one hand being killed or raped makes the victim's life pitiful (or gone), on the other - eliminating this danger is impossible and makes everybody's life poor (no one has managed to solve this problem, not even China or NK).

Re:It doesn't matter

[betterunixthanunix]

On the other hand, Tor's ability to protect dissidents who live under repressive governments, it's ability to enable free speech in those countries (e.g. discussing the Tienanmen Square incident, criticizing the Ayatollah, etc.) should, in my opinion, take priority over the quest to arrest people who download and share child sex abuse images. We may be revolted by such imagery, but:

1. There are plenty of other ways the images can be shared. I have even heard from one security researcher that producers of child abuse imagery often choose to send an encrypted DVD through the postal system, since it is considered to be a more secure way to transmit gigabytes of data. Tor is a relatively low-bandwidth network, and so the scale of such activity on Tor is inherently limited.
2. Anything that can be done to catch people who share child abuse images on Tor could be used by a repressive government to persecute dissidents. I doubt that the FBI will really be able to keep any hypothetical Tor-breaking technique out of Chinese hands, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the Chinese government would hesitate to use its intelligence capabilities to obtain such techniques. The fact that the FBI is unable to break Tor is a hopeful sign for the people who use Tor to protect themselves from persecution over political statements, religion, or human rights work.

So while freedom may not be absolute, we are not really talking about an edge case where free speech does not apply. We are talking about an important technology that enables free speech in places where there are few protections, which happens to see some use among child abusers (and the free speech issues relating to sharing child abuse imagery are not really settled -- not all the people who possess or share such imagery are producing it, and it is even less likely that someone who uses Tor to download such images has in any way paid for or encouraged its production).

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, same. I'd like to run a node to help people in less free countries, but knowing that some scumbag will inevitably route CP traffic through it is a deal breaker. Unfortunately, technologies which are meant to make people more free can be abused in this way.

Re:It doesn't matter

[houstonbofh]

Nothing? Not shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. Libel, inciting a riot, reckless endangerment, and conspiracy all do not limit the speech but the actions that arise from the speech.

How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?

Freedom is important, but it is not an absolute.

Use the film to prove the rape, prosecute the bastard and send him to a prison where someone else shows him what it is like. Also, prosecute the billboard owner for obscenity. Lets face it. The worst thing happening in that hypothetical situation is not that someone took pictures. It was rape.

Re:It doesn't matter

[phantomfive]

I don't want to live somewhere where my speech (in your example, insulting Mohammed) is deemed illegal merely because the certain people take offense to it.

If you were the king in a country where insulting Mohammad is illegal, and you decided to legalize it, then you might have a revolution on your hands of people who want to change the law back. Ultimately, social power lies in numbers, and if everyone in your country feels that it should be punishable to insult Mohammad, then it will be.

If you have freedom of speech to criticize the government, then you can change that. It won't be easy, but you can.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

But you happily pay tax money used to build infrastructure that help transport the very same material.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech.

I don't think that makes much sense. In this same way, even countries like China have freedom of speech. After all, people are only punished for the consequences of their speech.

If the government punishes someone for their speech, then that type of speech is indeed being limited.

but the actions that arise from the speech.

They're actions that result from other people.

Also, prosecute the billboard owner for obscenity.

That sounds far too subjective to me, and why would they prosecute him, anyway? He didn't even necessarily put it there.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing? Not shouting fire in a crowded theater? How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?

Freedom is important, but it is not an absolute.

Freedom is absolute, including freedom of others. Depriving another of freedom in name of your "freedom" is its highest perversion. So please, stop using these retarded arguments.

Freedom means ability to be left to your own devices and not interfered with by others, if you so chose to be, provided you are not impeding on freedoms of another. You know, be and let be. It is that simple.

I can't believe you got moded insightful. Maybe people do not understand what freedom means anymore.

Re:It doesn't matter

[artor3]

Whoops, you messed up. By saying the billboard owner should be prosecuted for obscenity, you're agreeing with the GP that there should be some common sense limitations on free speech.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded up? In both of the counter examples, the person is persecuted for their speech...

Re:It doesn't matter

[spire3661]

Nobody HAPPILY pays taxes. It is theft at gunpoint. Either you pay, or you are subject to punishment. There is no opting out. Im not trying ot sound like a anti-tax nut, its just the reality of the situation.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

For the longest time - and even after becoming a father - I felt the same.

Recently, in a way similar to what was described in TFA - I came across some CP on Tor by following a link that I thought was to something else. A handful of images which led me to wipe my entire system (that's another issue that I'll get into below), and I'm certain it's not the worst of what's out there. I find that it's a viscerally different experience, *knowing* this stuff is out there vs actually seeing it.

While I still have no interest in pursuing the people who look at CP - that's a thought crime and there is zero evidence that shows it leads to increases in abuse - I can't any longer say that I'm fully opposed to finding better ways to track down the people actually inflicting this on children. Your right to liberty does NOT trump a child's right to be safe from that kind of abuse.

  You can't logically say "find the people doing this and hold them responsible" in one breath; and in the next breath say "oh, but don't compromise anybody's anonymity to do it". Freedom != anonymity; and with freedom *does* come responsibility -- responsibility which anonymity allows us to evade all too easily.

That being said - I don't see a clear path here. It's obvious that there are legitimate uses for services that Tor provides. And it's equally obvious that there exists a
significant subset of individuals using Tor for darker purposes. Where is the balance? At what point is it no longer "ok" that others are losing their rights- and worse - because I want to keep my rights?

Meanwhile, the furor over trying to catch the people who view this stuff has left me in a position where - even though I want to help - I'm blocked on two levels. First, as TFA shows, the site is a .onion site - and so is essentially untraceable. Anything I did report begins and ends with that .onion domain name.

But more importantly: in the *best* case (I've been looking into other people who have had similar situations), I can expect to have my computer confiscated for a period of time while it's examined. This could be days or months; and is not an option - I need my computer to earn a living. And in the worst case, I face restricted visitation rights to my own son, simply because I clicked links expecting one thing, and received something else. Because of my fear of this situation - fear that "think of the children" has indirectly spawned - I am prevented from taking any action that will *actually* allow me to protect a child. As a result, I wiped my system and no longer even know where I found those images.

I've gone off-topic here, so let me circle back: it's easy to say "nothing is important enough that it takes priority over liberty" when it's someone else's liberty at stake -- a child, a rape victim, a murder victim. But it's not so easy to continue down that path once you understand that these are real people.

Posting anonymously for reasons that actually are obvious.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Deuteronomy 22 28-29 says that a man who rapes a young girl virgin keeps her, and pay the father when discovered. Deuteronomy also says to kill those that preach against it's law.

Raping female children means you keep them. You are opposed to this law of God and need to be killed. You want males to be raped and dominated and controlled. Deuteronomy says the man is ba'al (master). You say otherwise. You need to be killed..

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

How is prosecuting someone for obscenity for a picture they posted publicly not limiting freedom of speech? Actually, none of your arguments do anything to refute the OP's point.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Mr. Slippery]

Not shouting fire in a crowded theater?

You can, in fact, shout fire in a crowded theater. If something is actually on fire, you could be a hero for doing so. If it's done on stage as part of the script, it could be perfectly normal.

If there isn't a fire and you know it, then you've committed fraud and may be civilly and/or criminally liable afterwards, which is a big difference from prior restraint. We don't put masking tape over your mouth when you enter the theater on the theory that "OMG, somebody might yell 'Fire!'"

How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?

Do you have a release from her? If not, then you've used someone's image without their permission and will be open to a civil suit, which is also a big difference from prior restraint.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing? Not shouting fire in a crowded theater?"

That is a fairly easy to spot logical fallacy. That argument does not prove what you think it does because of the simple fact that shouting fire in a crowded theater is a violation of liberty, namely self ownership and external property. So in raising that example, you are arguing for the opposition. It is unfortunate that this example of yelling fire in a theater still exists, since it was so thoroughly dealt with: http://mises.org/daily/2569

To back peddle a bit however, I'd phrase ethical arguments under the language of reality, non contradiction, and truth rather than rights, liberty and freedom but really the former necessarily implies the later. It is just easier to avoid confusion like we have here by using the rigorous terms that have escaped conflation in common vernacular to mean all sorts of things by different ideological advocates. Speaking of freedom for example can be taken as freedom from nature(like no lack of resources, right to some arbitrary set of goods and services) which is a cornerstone for positive obligation. This is utterly at odds with freedom defined as the absence of violent imposition of other people.

If we used these definitions rigorously, one would not find it so hard to discover the ethical rules that are consistent, universal and without exception. It would help us avoid the ad hoc blindness we suffer from today, where we bounce around in this primordial philosophical soup like amoeba; clutching to whatever we randomly come in contact with. Instead, we'd see what is and is not universally preferable behavior in a similar fashion to how we use the natural scientific method.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ffflala]

Why do you think this? And how do you define "liberty"? Life, for starters, seems like it a strong contender for more of a priority than freedom of speech, should the two things conflict. Living a life of dignity seems more valuable than freedom of speech in many cases where the two things conflict. (Easy example: the Westboro Baptist Church hate demonstrations.)

Maybe there's a well thought-out reason that you make this statement, but I suspect that most people waving that particular flag haven't bothered to think carefully about it at all.

If someone is going to raise a concept to a higher priority than life itself, I'd like to hear some very good reasoning behind it. Otherwise I don't see how one can distinguish this sentiment from that behind any other adrenaline-based flag-waving.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ffflala]

How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school? Freedom is important, but it is not an absolute.

Use the film to prove the rape, prosecute the bastard and send him to a prison where someone else shows him what it is like. Also, prosecute the billboard owner for obscenity. Lets face it. The worst thing happening in that hypothetical situation is not that someone took pictures. It was rape.

Or, you could prevent your daughter being raped by depriving the rapist of his precious liberty before he rapes your daughter in the first place.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Phydeaux314]

Er. I happily pay taxes, because I enjoy the services they purchase. Roads, regulation of industries, national defense, etc. Sometimes I don't agree with the purpose to which my money is put - but as long as my perspective is properly represented and considered, I don't feel that my taxes are 'theft at gunpoint.' The representatives as a group may opt to take a path different from the one I would personally choose, but that doesn't mean what I've given is wasted.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are lines and boundaries to anything."

Are there boundaries to that statement? If not, then we have come across a contradiction and your claim cannot stand. If yes, then it defeats itself.

Self detonating statements like this claim I have quoted are cornerstones to determining apodictic truth that avoids being tautological, but instead one level up from pure axiomatic truth. They are great inroads to knowledge about the consistent and universal nature of reality.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

He's North Korean. Did you know in North Korea every citizen is free to speak against the great leader? Also, the soldiers are free to shoot whoever speaks against the great leader.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Nursie]

"Are there boundaries to that statement?"

Of course there are. just like all generalisations are wrong, including that one I just made.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope they are at least tracing the money.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately your argument is also just as naive as Nursie's. Just because someone uses an item or service to commit a crime doesn't immediately make it evil/bad. Based on your flawed argument cellphones, cars, guns, and the internet as a whole would be off-limits due to the fact that they are used daily to commit crimes. I guess you can tolerate certain types of crimes but not others.

>
I think people lose their minds when the subject of terrorism or child porn are discussed. I understand that these are terrible crimes but law enforcement is using these horrible crimes to gain more and more access to our private lives with very little evidence that more surveillance powers equals greater success. All I've seen is that with greater powers, law enforcement tends to abuse them more. I personally believe we are under a decade away from encryption and anonymous services being outlawed by western governments because they can't monitor what citizens are doing in totality.
>

Re:It doesn't matter

[Dwonis]

Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a telephone network.

Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run an ISP.

Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a shipping company.

Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a camera company.

Your conscience needs adjustment. Every sufficiently useful and/or popular tool will be used for crime at some point.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Randle_Revar]

>Nobody HAPPILY pays taxes.

Oh, hush. Just because you don't like doesn't mean everyone else feels the same.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The American system has a unique solution to this conundrum, albeit executed imperfectly.

There are two sources of law in Anglo-American jurisprudence, parliamentary and common law. The First Amendment to the US Constitution says that _Congress_ cannot pass any law limiting free speech. The amendment says nothing about limitations on free speech stemming from common law (i.e. law "discovered" by the courts, which in the late 18th and early 19th centuries meant law logically deduced from cultural principles--such as the general duties society recognizes between individuals--in the light of a sound analysis and application of real facts).

This means it's possible for reasonable and dispassionate limitations on free speech to emerge which are actually grounded in and defined by existing scenarios, and which account not only for the demands of the present election cycle but also of those a hundred years from now. Of course, much depends on the culture of the courts. But without an enlightened and impartial judiciary you'll have lots of other stuff to worry about.

Democracy is overrated. It's necessary but entirely insufficient. You need both a way to limit the creation and application of law (an upper-bound on democratic power), as well as a non-democratic institution capable of defining run-of-the-mill law (a lower-bound on democratic power). Democracies are really crappy at the big stuff and small stuff, because democracies are discriminatory and fickle.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid comment. American Christians believe they don't have to follow the Old Testament* because St. Paul said Jesus fulfilled it.

*Except hating gays and other things they like to use as a basis for hating people.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

Your right to liberty does NOT trump a child's right to be safe from that kind of abuse.

So, in other words, "for the children" we must give up freedoms. I disagree entirely. The fact that a few people are getting hurt is not, to me, a reason to prefer safety over freedom.

But I do not believe a child has a right to be free from that kind of abuse at the expense of my own freedoms. In one case, it is criminals who are infringing upon the child's "right," and in the other, it's the government taking away your liberty to stop the criminal. There is a difference.

You can't logically say "find the people doing this and hold them responsible" in one breath; and in the next breath say "oh, but don't compromise anybody's anonymity to do it".

You can do so very easily: "Attempt to find the people doing this in ways that don't violate anyone's freedoms."

Freedom != anonymity;

Anonymity certainly helps protect people, though.

responsibility which anonymity allows us to evade all too easily.

Taking it away is very similar to collective punishment. You're punishing not only the supposed criminals, but innocent people using it for other reasons, too. And the reasons for doing so seemingly stem from emotion more often than not.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

Living a life of dignity seems more valuable than freedom of speech in many cases where the two things conflict.

"valuable" being subjective.

Easy example: the Westboro Baptist Church hate demonstrations.

Is that an easy example? I value freedom of speech there.

I'd like to hear some very good reasoning behind it.

What is "good reasoning"? Something that you agree with?

Re:It doesn't matter

[aliquis]

Having it published doesn't help though.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ffflala]

It appears that you are unable to explain why you too, apparently and like GP, value "liberty and freedom of speech" above all else, without exception.

If someone elevates these concepts above all others, and is unable to enunciate why exactly they would do so, that would tend to indicate that such belief is more akin to a religious faith or a knee-jerk patriotism than a well-reasoned conclusion.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Mathinker]

> Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a tor or freenet node.

In the near future, then, you should consider not running any kind of website which allows user content to be posted. Steganography exists and can be undetectable at low enough data rates (that only means that people using it as a covert channel will need to spread their information over multiple websites).

Would you be willing that, for example, 1KB of CP would be transmitted using your website? 10KB? Take into consideration that even a just a few bytes could be significant (it could be a password to a file uploaded to a shareable file locker provider somewhere).

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just silly. So if a corrupt politician spends your money to enrich himself, thats not wasting your money?

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Speech is not action. The crime is the rape, not showing it. We show crimes all the time on TV, including murder and yet no sane person would suggest we ban that speech.

And dear god, you're going to quote from the Schneck case to support your argument? (falsely yelling fire in a crowded fire hOuse). That was A terrible anti free speech ruling. The court ruled that banning speech opposing the draft was constitutional!

Thank god we have strong tools to allow anonymous speech to get around ignoramuses like you.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, if the alternative was, say, the destruction of the entire planet, I think I'd give up some speech.

Talking in absolutes just makes you sound like a tard.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Nursie]

Shush now.

The predominant use of freenet was untraceable child porn last time I looked.

And crime is not the issue. Unlike you, I don't confuse morality and legality.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Nursie]

Who said it was evil? Who said it should be banned?

I said that I cannot, in good conscience, run a node.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

It appears that you are unable to explain why you too, apparently and like GP, value "liberty and freedom of speech" above all else, without exception.

Why don't you? For each response you give, I could keep asking you why. Eventually, there will very likely come a point where you no longer know the answer (or you begin engaging in circular reasoning).

I asked you what I believe is a valid question: what is "good reasoning"? Is it something that you agree with? What exactly would it take to make you think that something has "good reasoning"? What if someone told you that it's simply something that they themselves prefer? In what way is that not valid?

We are talking about preferences here. I see nothing objective about this.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Once she goes to the police after being raped everything becomes a public record, right? That's freedom for 'ya

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone shouts fire in a crowded theater, they committed an act that endangered others. If someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard, they have committed multiple crimes. The point is that the freedom of speech of the general public (who has not been proven to be criminals) is priceless. Your examples fail in both content and context. Freedom is an absolute, but not a get out of jail free card. Due process to offenders still occurs. By your reasoning, everyone's freedoms should be abridged because they might commit a crime. Following that path results in castrating all men because they might rape.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ffflala]

I'm not asking an endless series of "but, why?" questions here. If someone is going to assert that certain ideals are important above and beyond all other ideals, then asking two very basic questions --(1) what do those ideals mean, exactly? and (2) why are those ideals so important?-- should not be showstopper questions. If the person making such assertions is unable to answer these fundamental questions, then it indicates that they've simply accepted a belief system as a matter of faith or emotion.

I haven't asserted the supremacy of any ideal above all others. In fact I am very suspicious of anyone who does so... *because* (note! an explanation, a reason) that kind of belief sets the believer up to be manipulated so that others may profit and gain power. If people can be convinced to value some ideal even more than life itself, it's not difficult to convince these believers to risk and lose their lives for said unquestioned ideals.

So there you have my reasoning. What's yours?

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm not asking an endless series of "but, why?" questions here.

I don't believe it matters. Your reasoning is very likely just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

If someone is going to assert that certain ideals are important above and beyond all other ideals

Well, I don't do that. I believe it's just my own personal opinion.

then it indicates that they've simply accepted a belief system as a matter of faith or emotion.

Much like just about any preference.

note! an explanation, a reason

But whether such reasons or explanations are "good" is up for the individual to decide. "Why do you care about that?"

So there you have my reasoning. What's yours?

It depends on the liberty in question. But I believe someone shouldn't be blamed for the individual actions of others due to things they said previously because it ignores the people who caused the actual damage: those who acted on the speech without question.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ffflala]

Where has... I have to use your construction here... person W blamed person X for the unquestioning actions of person Y that were based on the speech of person Z because person X once previously said something? What exactly are you talking about? That makes almost no sense to me at all.

I'm afraid that I'm simply not understanding any point you're making beyond the several ways now you've said that "good," and other individual preferences are subjective, not objective. And that particular point seems to me like such an obvious given that I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to point out.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

What exactly are you talking about?

"It appears that you are unable to explain why you too, apparently and like GP, value "liberty and freedom of speech" above all else, without exception."
"So there you have my reasoning. What's yours?"

You asked. I was speaking of absolute freedom of speech there.

And that particular point seems to me like such an obvious given that I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to point out.

Is that so? I've seen people who feel otherwise. If you feel that way, then there is no problem to me.

Re:It doesn't matter

[strikethree]

I don't feel that my taxes are 'theft at gunpoint.'

I completely agree with you that government is a necessary evil and that the infrastructure it provides is incredibly useful... however, try not paying your taxes sometime. I promise, men with guns will come force you to do their bidding.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Dwonis]

Shush now.

...

The predominant use of freenet was untraceable child porn last time I looked.

Really? How did you determine that? Do you think the dissidents using it make their Freenet URLs public?

And crime is not the issue. Unlike you, I don't confuse morality and legality.

What are you talking about?

Re:It doesn't matter

[Jedi Alec]

Bullshit. Plenty of folks recognize that taxes are part of the social contract. We may not approve of everything that money gets used for, we complain and grumble, but generally speaking we recognize the need/benefits of a centralized system for providing necessary services, even if we disagree on the necessity of some of these services.

And there is a very easy way to opt out, just move to a country that has a different social contract. That might mean having to forego minor amenities like roads, firehouses, police, hospitals etc. and there's always the risk of *actual* theft at gunpoint by the local warlord, but it's an option.

So yeah, you *are* sounding like an anti-tax nut, if only because you have the arrogance of thinking your views are representative of the entire planet.

Re:It doesn't matter

[azalin]

Of course you can opt out. Move to a different country with low taxation (like Somalia maybe) and revoke your US citizenship. Of course this will limit access to all those nice things that taxes buy you in a civilized country but who needs those anyway. It is very likely that people paying taxes enabled you to make money in the first place. Infrastructure, a reliable legal system, education and even military all pay off by providing a stable place to do business.

Re:It doesn't matter

[azalin]

Unless, just maybe you look at the percentage of acceptable vs not acceptable (conscience wise) use. I'm doubtful any of your examples gets even a single percent of cp usage, while tor...

Re:It doesn't matter

[kyrsjo]

... unless you happen to live in a country where the police doesn't carry guns in normal service. Oh, an we have high taxes too. Which buys us all the basic infrastructure stuff, pluss free as in progressive taxes healthcare and education (hey, we actually *get payed* by our gov't to get a degree - including BSc and MSc. Just love to tell that to americans, especially in the soon-having-three-kids-in-college age, just to see their jaw contact the ground.), and then some more stuff.

But as a lot of people on /. know is the absolute and holy truth, social democracies are of course scary hell incarnated, complete with death panels and everything, and the only good man is the one who starts with nothing but the latest in finance-fashion pinstriped shirt on his back and a 100M$ from dad.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Kjella]

Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a camera company.

This. The single biggest advance for the production of child porn is not the Internet, it's the digital camera. Nobody but people who'd feature on America's Dumbest Criminals would ever deliver their pictures for processing and almost nobody had their own private photo lab, particularly not for color processing. Now everybody can do it in the privacy of their own homes. Probably the second biggest thing is that "everybody" is now carrying cameras around at all time, banning an area from camera phones is possible only in the most high-security locations. Everybody is going to bring their smart phones into dressing rooms and I know places that downgraded their security from "no cameras" to "no photography" simply because they had to harass practically everyone to leave their cell phone and people wouldn't accept it.

Re:It doesn't matter

[azalin]

Wouldn't that be a little bit against the foundation of any decent legal system out there? After all he hasn't done anything yet...

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

The first is handled by laws against creating a needless panic (I don't know what they're called in your country), the latter is rape and a violation of your daughter's right to her personal picture.

Both crimes that can be handled without additional laws limiting your freedom of speech.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

That's the same black and white thinking as good and bad of TOR and the internet. The internet is good because it allows us to transport information, but it can also be used for hate speech and incitement so it's bad and needs to be banned. TOR allows people in repressive countries to speak their mind, that's good, but it's bad that it can transport CP so it needs to be banned.

NOTHING in this world is black or white. And no technology is good or evil, don't punish technology, punish the ones that abuse it. Is a car evil because a guy ran over his cheating wife? No, the guy is. Is a gun evil because a murderer used it to kill a witness? No, the guy is.

Are taxes evil because some politician squanders it? No, the politician is.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Nursie]

Really? How did you determine that? Do you think the dissidents using it make their Freenet URLs public?

Well, given it's an anonymous publishing medium, and the idea is to provide information accessible to all but in a way that can't be traced... yeah, pretty much. Maybe they don't always though, sure.

What are you talking about?

This, from your previous post -

Every sufficiently useful and/or popular tool will be used for crime at some point.

I didn't mention illegality or criminality, I have no objections to (for instance) the Silk Road, or the free circulation of dissident material, even those these activities may be criminal under various laws in various jurisdictions. I am not concerned with the law here, I don't give much of a crap about the law.

I feel that providing infrastructure for tor or freenet, right now, is providing a substantial aid to those that wish to anonymously transfer CP. But for all that, I feel more strongly that I don't wish to provide the conduits for sickos to peddle CP, particularly in such an untraceable way. If your moral scale weighs the balance of these things differently, good for you, I haven't said "it should be banned!" or "nobody should be allowed to do this!", I'm just saying I'm not going to help.

Your other examples don't hold because these things are not systems designed to specifically to hide the users/publishers. If I ran a telephone network and became aware of its use for moving CP around the place I would certainly make moves to shut down those doing it, similarly for an ISP or a shipping network. The camera company one is not the same sort of thing, IMHO, as it's not a comms conduit making ongoing use of infrastructure, just a tool. Perhaps if a camera retailer became aware that an individual was purchasing kit to perpetrate CP they would also refuse to sell to them and report them to the cops...

Freenet and Tor specifically disallow you seeing what's flowing through or being stored on your node. This is a useful feature for those that support the unadulterated free-flow of information. For those of us that don't wish to have our resources used for things we find abhorrent it is the feature which stops us from participating.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Oh, more surveillance power equals greater success. You're more scared and cowed than you were before, and you're no longer at ease with speaking your mind against government or in favor of one of the things that were, are and will be forbidden, aren't you?

See? Success.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Ain't it interesting? When exactly the same argument is made against torrents and P2P, and how it's mostly used to share illegal content, there's no shortage of people jumping up and declaring how it is also used to share legal stuff and hence it should not be shut down.

But as soon as someone thinks of the children...

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know whether democracy is overrated? The US is a Police State.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

My freedom ends where yours starts. Simple as that. And I guess you'll hardly find a lot of (sensible) people who disagree with this. You may say and do whatever you want, unless you cause harm to someone else. Arguably that's impossible, because every action of yours affects someone else (even NOT doing anything does), but I think everyone but the nitpickers who try to reduce every argument to absurdity know what I mean.

The problem with CP is not that some pervert jacks off to pictures of kids. The problem is that these kids get violated indirectly that way. Not by the wanker himself, but by knowing that there are people all over the globe who jack off to their pictures. But that's not different from any other pictures and videos where the decency, reputation or self worth of people are violated. Is it really that much different from the Star Wars Kid video? Or any other videos where kids are bullied, beaten or otherwise exposed to ridicule and shame, world wide?

The problem is that these videos pose the same problem but are treated differently. For some odd reason it seems to be acceptable to degrade and humiliate kids in front of cameras with impunity, as long as this humiliation has no sexual undertones.

This is not really a problem of free speech. It's a problem of privacy, and that it's very fine and normal to invade children's most personal and private space, as long as it's not sexual.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Really? They quote it an awful lot for not wanting to follow it. For example, care to show me the passage against homosexuality in the NT?

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you could prevent your daughter being raped by depriving the rapist of his precious liberty before he rapes your daughter in the first place.

Using what, pre-cogs ?

Re:It doesn't matter

[Nursie]

Bittorrent is a protocol. You could conceivably shut down the 'bad' trackers, clients, whatever and leave the rest in place. Bittorrent also does not protect its users from detection, particularly where legit content is being trafficked.

Freenet and Tor are specific networks/services, not just protocols, that do protect their users from detection. These things are different.

BTW, who (other than the FBI) is clamouring to shut them down? People here are just saying they're not going to take part.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ultranova]

Living a life of dignity seems more valuable than freedom of speech in many cases where the two things conflict.

And do you think being forced to live a lie is dignified?

Easy example: the Westboro Baptist Church hate demonstrations.

Bad example. WBC are jerks to a ridiculous degree, but their demonstrations don't threaten anyone's life, except perhaps theirs.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ArsenneLupin]

How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?

Then he should first be jailed for raping my daughter, and then snickered at for wilfully making the police's job easy by publishing evidence of his own crime.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Your liberty to swing your arm stops at my nose.
Also, a lot of people consider the justice system and right to a fair trial important enough to override liberty and freedom of speech (by way of, for example, the liberty to take vigilante justice; or the freedom of speech to say whatever you like in court regardless of the truth; or to make prior convictions known to the jury, biasing their judgement; or the liberty of convicted criminals; or the freedom of speech to publicize someone being arrested on suspicion of making child porn and ostracizing them even when they're released in a case of mistaken identity).
But sure. Liberty, justice, freedom of speech and the All American Way (tm) rah rah rah.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Deuteronomy also says to kill those that preach against it's law."

I hope that at least it follows the laws of Grammar.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably by bashing his head in while he's just getting started.

Re:It doesn't matter

[progician]

In this same way, even countries like China have freedom of speech. After all, people are only punished for the consequences of their speech.

Nope, you miss the point of free speech. The point is that each citizen has the right to express their opinion in any public forum. In China, people don't have that right. Don't mix up things with the consequences. While somebody can be persecuted for telling a lie, nobody is allowed to restrict people from speaking publicly just because they may lie. That's the freedom of speech.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first is handled by laws against creating a needless panic (I don't know what they're called in your country),"

I don't know, we don't even have needful panics here.

Re:It doesn't matter

[moeinvt]

"There are lines and boundaries to anything ... Where these lie is a subject for discussion"

That's the fundamental problem. Those lines will always be arbitrary and, when enforced by the power of government, will be arbitrarily MOVED and selectively enforced to promote an agenda.

Absolute freedom of speech is a "simplistic" solution to this problem, but IMO, the potential abuse of those arbitrary boundaries vastly outweighs the abuses which stem from the absolutist stance.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Nursie]

The lines are already arbitrary.

You do not have absolute freedom of expression now, even if (*gasp*) you live in the US. How 'bout them defamation laws?

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

prosecute the billboard owner for obscenity

Get your religious delusions out of my legal system please.

Re:It doesn't matter

[moeinvt]

What do you call the tax collectors then? The OP is right. To deny that taxes are forceful confiscation of wealth is to obscure the nature of government. Covering up this fact with the cloak of "society" or the "social contract" is just masking naked theft.

I'm not a stateless society advocate. I just think we need to recognize that government, by its very NATURE is the use of violent force to achieve certain objectives. Looking only at the benefits government provides is to deny this nature. When you put government in the right perspective, it becomes obvious that government should be the "solution" of last resort. Unfortunately, it is also an "expedient" way to achieve an objective, so it becomes a temptation to do everything by force.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cHiphead]

Shouting fire in a theater causes panic, a panicked crowd effectively denies liberty to the individuals that make up the crowd. Someone raping his daughter is denying liberty. We have a justice system for a reason, because nothing is important enough that it takes priority over liberty and freedom of speech, and we have all agreed not to allow each other to deprive others of these as a matter of our (U.S.) civilized society and legal system.

Re:It doesn't matter

[mcamino]

Break out the MPAA/RIAA on them as that is copyright infringement

Re:It doesn't matter

[ffflala]

There's a reason that a human right to dignity is enshrined as the most basic right in the constitution of almost every democracy except that of the United States: because most people value a life of dignity. There's also a reason this is almost certainly news to you: your own ignorance.

And you're wrong the WBC is not just an excellent example but practically a textbook one of the conflict between human dignity and freedom of speech. Another great example is whether or not a society will permit Nazi parades.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. You have terrible terrible misconceptions there. If you resist the unarmed police in an effort not to pay your taxes, I guarantee you that police with guns will show up no matter which country on this planet you live on. LOL the QOTD is "The British are coming! The British are coming!"

Re:It doesn't matter

[RedShoeRider]

"The fact that the FBI is unable to break Tor...."

How am I halfway down the comments and haven't read another possible solution: The FBI has (or nearly has) broken TOR, sends out this press release to saying that they can't so that the folks using it for whatever illicit purposes pile data on there, giving the FBI far more data to work with. In 6 months, we read a headline that says "FBI uncovers major CP ring thanks to paid informant", and everyone goes on their merry way.

Subterfuge is fair game in "war."

Re:It doesn't matter

[betterunixthanunix]

That is possible, but I have my doubts about that scenario. Tor has been reviewed, attacked, analyzed, etc. by countless cryptography and security researchers. We have a good idea of Tor's weaknesses, and we have a good idea of Tor's strengths. It is definitely possible that there is an unknown, unpublished vulnerability that the FBI will exploit, but the likelihood that after so many years nobody in the research community noticed such a serious problem is pretty low.

If you ask me, Tor is probably not something the FBI can break with its resources. The NSA might be able to, since Tor is weak against a global adversary (a well known issue).

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

The point is that each citizen has the right to express their opinion in any public forum.

That's great that you're the only person allowed to define what free speech is. When you say "free speech," you're not telling me what you mean. What kind of speech is free? If you just leave it at "free speech," that, to me, implies all speech.

Don't mix up things with the consequences.

Almost all things have consequences. Whether the "consequences" of the speech are enough of a reason for the government to arrest you is another matter.

While somebody can be persecuted for telling a lie, nobody is allowed to restrict people from speaking publicly just because they may lie.

Well, no. But either way, somebody is prosecuted for their speech. It makes no difference, and that is a limitation on speech (whether you agree with it or not).

Re:It doesn't matter

[JesseMcDonald]

Er. I happily pay taxes, because I enjoy the services they purchase. Roads, regulation of industries, national defense, etc. Sometimes I don't agree with the purpose to which my money is put - but as long as my perspective is properly represented and considered, I don't feel that my taxes are 'theft at gunpoint.'

Of course not—you're on the side holding the guns. Those forced to subsidize the services you enjoy may feel differently, though.

The problem with taxes isn't that no one likes them, because obviously some people do—mostly those on the receiving end. The problem is that others are forced to participate against their will. No amount of benefit to some is worth any amount of coercion against others.

Re:It doesn't matter

[houghi]

[...] we've seen what's first up against the wall when the censors get their way[...]

I do: The marketing department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

sensible

I wonder what that means?

Not by the wanker himself, but by knowing that there are people all over the globe who jack off to their pictures.

I don't think they can know when someone is looking, and it doesn't really matter that they're offended.

This is not really a problem of free speech.

Of course it is. Unless you try to say that data isn't speech (which means all communication is free game).

Re:It doesn't matter

[kyrsjo]

Oh. You have terrible terrible misconceptions there. If you resist the unarmed police in an effort not to pay your taxes, I guarantee you that police with guns will show up no matter which country on this planet you live on. LOL the QOTD is "The British are coming! The British are coming!"

Just making a point. And yes, if you resist them *with guns or something similar*, you are of course right.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Calling fire in a crowded theater when it's on fire will certainly result in a panic. But in a probably very helpful one.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Opportunist]

Well, then we should maybe first of all define the function a government should provide in the first place. I think we might already differ big time in this.

For me, the government's main function is to give everyone the chance to compete on equal footing. My products have to have the same rights to exist on the market as yours, no matter whether I'm some multinational conglomerate of corporations or some mom'n'pop shop at the corner of the street. Because it is my strong belief that the latter is better for the overall economy.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you asked:

Romans 1:27 And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Not the same AC you responded to, BTW. That AC apparently didn't know Paul addressed homosexuality.

Re:It doesn't matter

[DamnStupidElf]

The problem with taxes isn't that no one likes them, because obviously some people do—mostly those on the receiving end. The problem is that others are forced to participate against their will. No amount of benefit to some is worth any amount of coercion against others.

What would you prefer? That men in guns stopped you from pulling out of your driveway if you didn't pay the toll for the road you were planning to drive on? That men in guns stopped you from entering a hospital unless you had enough money to pay? That men in guns stopped you from getting into the polls if you couldn't pay the fee to cover the cost of poll staff, vote counters, and the rented space? You weren't planning on just freeloading in an anarchist society, were you? Because ultimately the only thing that protects private property is a gun or some other threat of force. If the government isn't protecting its revenue with guns to pay for the services you desire it will be private individuals with guns preventing you from freeloading on their property or with their services. I'd much rather deal with a single known evil than every possible shade of evil caused by the private ownership of *everything*. Compare city or country regulations with the insanity that passes for housing covenants. Imagine a similar private covenant for literally everything you do, everywhere.

Re:It doesn't matter

[hacksoncode]

I really wish that people who used this analogy would go look up the case where it was created.

You know, the one in which publishing a communist newsletter was deemed equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

It's very dangerous to create slippery slopes, and pointless when there are adequate ways to deal with the problem already.

Re:It doesn't matter

[JesseMcDonald]

What would you prefer? That men in guns stopped you from pulling out of your driveway if you didn't pay the toll for the road you were planning to drive on? That men in guns stopped you from entering a hospital unless you had enough money to pay?

Sure, so long as they're just protecting their own property from trespassing, staying within the bounds of proportional response, and not externalizing the cost of that protection onto others. It's their property, and they have the right to keep out trespassers.

That men in guns stopped you from getting into the polls if you couldn't pay the fee to cover the cost of poll staff, vote counters, and the rented space?

I would say the same here, but why would there be polls in the first place?

You weren't planning on just freeloading in an anarchist society, were you?

Not freeloading, no.

I'd much rather deal with a single known evil than every possible shade of evil caused by the private ownership of *everything*.

First, "every possible shade of evil caused by the private ownership of *everything*" is nothing more than scare-mongering, especially compared to obvious injustice and violation of natural rights inherent in the nature of every government. Second, I'd rather deal with the responsibilities of liberty, even if it does mean dealing with some "evil", than personally participate in and legitimize a known evil.

Re:It doesn't matter

[DamnStupidElf]

Sure, so long as they're just protecting their own property from trespassing, staying within the bounds of proportional response, and not externalizing the cost of that protection onto others. It's their property, and they have the right to keep out trespassers.

Who's going to make sure that they stay within the bounds of proportional response and don't externalize the cost? More people with guns? Who pays them?

I would say the same here, but why would there be polls in the first place?

Unless you hope to negotiate international relations individually or not at all, you're going to need at least one elected representative.

First, "every possible shade of evil caused by the private ownership of *everything*" is nothing more than scare-mongering, especially compared to obvious injustice and violation of natural rights inherent in the nature of every government. Second, I'd rather deal with the responsibilities of liberty, even if it does mean dealing with some "evil", than personally participate in and legitimize a known evil.

So here's how I, as a private road owner, would operate it. Every morning I'd open an auction in each neighborhood to sell passes for roughly 95% of the expected traffic to enforce scarcity. Once those passes were sold, additional passes would only be available at much higher rates. Since, in general, it's very difficult to have more than two roads attached to every house I would have a monopoly on people's access to their jobs and the stores they need to access. Having that monopoly would allow me to extract arbitrary value from the residents. What, precisely, stops me from doing this in a free market economy? Competition? What if I buy a majority of the roads, which would be within my rights? Private ownership of everything is what occurred in feudal states. The richest owned the majority of the property and the serfs worked the land for a pittance. How would private ownership of everything be different in the U.S.? Or did you expect private citizens to invest all their capitol in the infrastructure of their own neighborhood and the road they take to their job? I buy electricity from a cooperative; they have an effective monopoly because no one would even dream of giving an easement to a new startup. The existing coop could always cut a sweet deal to the owners of the natural chokepoints in the grid to encourage them not to give the necessary easements for reaching customers who did want access to a new electrical company. A private electrical company has every right to deny backfeeding the grid or other unauthorized use of their lines and poles. Who regulates the natural monopolies?

It's within my natural rights to leave the country and effectively opt out of the taxation system. You were only defaulted in because of your parents' choices; you too are perfectly free to leave. It's also within my natural rights to enter into a contract with everyone else in my country to cooperatively manage the resources that I don't feel can be properly managed by private interests. I'm perfectly free; I simply choose to remain in this social contract. I fully support your right to buy a lot of available property and start your own privately owned city, but I don't think you'll have much luck doing it within the borders of the United States (or any other modern country) because by virtue of being within the borders you are automatically granted many federal protections (military, economic, judicial, etc.) that you would then be expected to pay federal income tax for. I hear you can generally buy islands from smaller countries, and presumably with enough money you could even offer to buy a portion of mainland from them to operate individually.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes approximately as much sense as Kodak discontinuing the Polaroid camera because some scumbag will inevitably use one to take naughty pictures of kids.

Re:It doesn't matter

[retchdog]

romans 1:24-27.

Re:It doesn't matter

[metrix007]

Liberty and freedom of speech tend to be so highly valued because we recongize that man should be free to do what makes him happy, at least as much as he is not affecting others. Freedom of speech is especially important because people must not be afraid to voice their opinions and contribute. When people are afraid to do so, society is held back.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?

Prosecute the rapist.

...and if someone distributes the film of your daughter being raped? That's ok?

Re:It doesn't matter

[cheekyjohnson]

It's not as if she'll get raped each time someone decides to watch the film. She was already raped, and no amount of slippery-slope-style censorship will change that.

But what's funny is that people even bother asking these questions. It's a pointless endeavor because the minute someone answers in a way they didn't expect, they typically begin calling the other person a liar and other such nonsense.

Title

[kenh]

I think theres an extra "FBI" in the title - "FBI Hunt For Child Porn FBI Thwarted By Tor"

Re:Title

[SeaFox]

Maybe it's a two-sentence headline...

"FBI Hunt for Child Porn. FBI Thwarted by TOR"

Re:Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, I read it that the FBI failed in their hunt for Child-Porn viewing FBI agents who were using Tor. Who knows, maybe the agents just loved poring over the "evidence". Viewing, like copying, shouldn't be a crime.

Re:Title

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI was also thwarted by the phone company who allows anonymous phone calls, they even put phone booths on public streets where every drug dealer and kidnapper can use them, shocking!
The postal system contributes by delivering ransom notes and sometimes body parts to show the ransom note should have been sent 'express'.

It's outrageous, this has to stop.

Make up your minds

[BlackSabbath]

Freedom of speech, or government monitoring of all communications.
Decide which one you want and accept the consequences of your decision.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I disagree with the baby-crazed breeders who lose the ability to reason once they pop out a brat or two?

Re:Make up your minds

[phantomfive]

Problem is, it doesn't stop governments who want to monitor all communications, because they can detect and block the protocol. So it helps bad guys (unless you think child-porn sellers are not bad) and doesn't help the good guys.

I like TOR, and I think it should stay around, I'll fight to make sure it stays legal, but I am disappointed that it hasn't lived up to its original promise and potential.

Re:Make up your minds

[BlackSabbath]

You live in a democracy don't you?
Accept the tyranny of the majority or impose your own.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Cynical me just thinks this is part of a plan to reduce your freedom and anonymity on the internet.

They're just going to use the child porn _viewers_ who I bet only affect a very few people[1], as excuses to create new laws that affect everyone.

[1] As many slashdotters know, just because you watch porn doesn't mean you even have sex ;).

As for the demand creating a supply thing, if there's money involved why doesn't the FBI follow the money trail (advertisers, subscribers etc)? Not important enough compared to the FBI's work in convincing people to be terrorists (go look that up)?

If there's no money involved (whether directly or indirectly -ads ) then won't downloading child porn for free kill the child porn industry just like downloading music for free kills the music industry? ;)

Re:Make up your minds

[BlackSabbath]

Isn't your post self contradictory?
If a government detects and blocks the protocol then it's blocked for both good and bad guys and Tor is rendered ineffective.
If however its possible for the bad guys to bypass these blocks the it's possible for the good guys too in which case Tor is achieving its purpose. I'd be grateful for anyone more familiar wih the tech to chime in at this point.

Just to be clear, it's purpose is not to "help the good guys". It's to provide a technology that enables uncensorable speech. With respect to my original post it is firmly on the side of "freedom of speech", with all the ugly consequences that entails.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy, asshole!

My system:
1. Everything is allowed, unless it harms somebody.
2. Everybody decides for himself, what harms him.
3. In case of harm or potential harm, the parties have to separate on all cases touched by whatever it is about.
4. If parties do not separate or seize harming, or return back and harm later, they become free-for-all, and lose all rights. It is extremely important to note, that this is always true for all involved sides. That means all parties have to actively GTFO.
5. Of course, one can always be forgiven.
6. There are only individuals doing things. There is no such thing as "corporations", "states/governments" or other groups "doing something" or being sources of harm. It is always specific individuals.
7. Done. No changes can be made to this. (Yes, addiions and removals are also changes.)

Yes, this allows competing "governments" in the same spacetime. That's a feature.
Yes, this allows partial associations to multiple groups... which can partially overlap.

And most of those rules are already implicitly followed by nearly everyone, regardless of their laws or form of goernment.
It's also the natural way the Internet society works.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

While there are some countries that actively try to block tor, it seems most are failing. China seems to be doing a very good job at it however.
The biggest problem seems to be when you live in a country where not only its illegal for you to say a certain thing, but its also very deadly to try and circumvent their censorship.

Check this video from the tor developers for more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX46Qv_b7F4&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLOQVl2i6gJWMch-xF_vxlMw

Re:Make up your minds

[mug funky]

lol. virgin. don't take your teenage angst out on parents.

we'll defeat you with our superior numbers.

this is how the game works - if only stupid people breed, then you'd better (supposing you're not stupid) produce as many offspring as you possibly can, or there'll be nobody left but stupid people.

so why not go ask out that girl you've been obsessing over?

Re:Make up your minds

[houstonbofh]

Cynical me just thinks this is part of a plan to reduce your freedom and anonymity on the internet.

If it was just "a" plan, I would be so happy. Seems like they have several.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Everything is allowed, unless it harms somebody.

I have found a problem with this common suggestion by many people. Once you start having the government provide things for you, such as healthcare, suddenly "unless it harms somebody" ends up meaning nothing. With say government healthcare, your drinking 32oz Cokes may cause you diabeties and will harm me by my having to pay extra taxes to cover your health care costs. So at that point there is nothing you can do that wouldn't harm someone else.

So it seems to me a more important rule, say rule #0, should be "I will not depend on the government for my basic needs" or the rest of what you wrote is meaningless.

Re:Make up your minds

[mug funky]

i think the point is that Tor is meant for places like China, Burma, any of the arab spring countries, etc. they can and will pull the plug on the entire internet if it comes to that, but if there's one easily detectable network that all the dissident traffic uses, they can pull the plug on that without hurting the rest of the net.

Tor is not illegal in the USA, or any other "freedom loving" country, but neither is free speech. so the idealist purpose of Tor is not needed there, and the criminal purpose of Tor gets all the traffic.

our governments might wish to monitor us completely, but right now it's still prohibitively expensive and very politically dangerous to just jump in and do so. hopefully it stays that way.

Re:Make up your minds

[BlackSabbath]

Tor is not illegal in the USA, or any other "freedom loving" country, but neither is free speech. so the idealist purpose of Tor is not needed there

Some might disagree with you.

Re:Make up your minds

[Dunbal]

Except, it's the tyranny of the minority. How many laws have you written, personally? If you are going to tell me you agree with every single law of your country (I bet you don't even know them all, I sure don't), I think you're a liar.

Re:Make up your minds

[jaymemaurice]

Exactly what you say, but additionaly:
Where tor is illegal for all citizens, all citizens using tor are commiting a crime. Detecting tor users is simple. You may not know why they are using tor, but does that matter? I mean you can just send some people to the point of internet connection and find out. Tor cannot serve the ideal purpose it was "originally created" for and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves or others.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. newb. not everyone who can't stand kids or their THINK OF THE CHILLLLLRUNNNNNN parents is a virgin. I've probably had more girls than you, for just one example.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine I'll bite. My wife and I are 28 and 27 respectively. Neither of us wants kids, and while I suppose that might change in the future *gasp* is it really so hard to imagine that people might want to live different lives than yours? Maybe we don't need to spawn to feel good about ourselves, given the unsustainable population grown the world is going through and the rather bleak future our children would be facing? Maybe we don't believe boredom, "tradition", and crippling suburban loneliness are good reasons to reproduce? Maybe we just have better shit to do with our time. Maybe we're sterile. We don't think so but you don't know that.

No, clearly I'm a single virgin. In fairness I did obsess about her for a few years before asking her out so at least you got one thing right. Clearly no one would ever not have kids by choice. That's unnatural. Suspicious even. Shun those who are different from us. Don't trust them to make decisions. Conform. Consume. Obey.

Gaah I am so sick of you and your breeder privilege being crammed into every orifice of my body by every aspect of our society. Grow the fuck up.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with child porn. Child porn is the misleading "oh my god, we have to back this effort!" banner to help them push through the REAL intention, which is "we're the drug industry's henchmen and we have to stomp out any alternative to medication that doesn't involve going through Pharmacia & Upjohn's pocket books".

Re:Make up your minds

[mug funky]

wow, i didn't think anybody would rise to my troll :)

fragile egos? who knows? i lack the ability to understand the motivation of those who are not "baby crazed breeders", you see. i have no memory of three years ago (when my wife and I were 28 and 27 respectively).

i'll get back to that conspicuous consumption... see, having a child has made me wealthier than not having a child, and thus i spend more on big TVs and iPads than i do on... whatever that baby stuff is. i'm a man of leisure without a care in the world, and i consume to fill the void in my life.

oh, wait, we're both utterly and hopelessly misrepresenting each other. except i did it for the lulz, you seem to have done it because you care what somebody on slashdot thinks about you.

Re:Make up your minds

[mug funky]

lol false dichotomy. not everyone who has a child likes other kids, and supports THINK OF THE CHILLLLLRUNNNNNN legislation at all costs.

my politics didn't magically change last year. and i still enjoy a good troll if my karma allows it.

Re:Make up your minds

[BlackSabbath]

I'm sorry. What's you're point?

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government...except for every other form that's ever been tried.

I have written no laws. I support politicians and parties that on balance seem to give the best outcome for my vote compared to the other candidates.

Perhaps I was a bit clumsy. What I tried to say to the parent poster (who asked "what if I don't like what the majority choose") was, either accept the outcome or change the government. I didn't specify how the latter might be achieved.

Re:Make up your minds

[BlackSabbath]

Where freedom of speech is illegal Tor use is illegal. Yet there are still those that would exercise their free speech regardless of the risk. Dissidents who use Tor to get their message out or to listen to anothers' message don't do it because it is no risk. They are usually very well aware of the risks they take.

The world is replete wih people willing to commit "crimes" if sufficiently motivated.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Tor is not illegal in the USA, or any other "freedom loving" country, but neither is free speech. so the idealist purpose of Tor is not needed there, and the criminal purpose of Tor gets all the traffic.

And in the places where free speech is illegal Tor still is only used for criminal purposes.

Ideally what is illegal and what is amoral should be equal. The problem is that this is not the case, not for the U.S. and not for the "less freedom loving" places.
Because of this it is every good persons responisbility to ignore the law and do what is right instead.

Re:Make up your minds

[Opportunist]

1 is already impossible to uphold in this absolute state. Me having a job deprives someone else from having it, but he mustn't have it either 'cause then I won't have it. Deadlock.

I can see the spirit of your laws, but be wary to create absolute laws. They usually don't work out.

Re:Make up your minds

[jaymemaurice]

While I understand that, my point is that using Tor is like walking down a street towards a protest with a Guy Fawkes mask on... or walking into the bank in the summer with a balaclava in a free country and the same in a country which is not. The difference is that in the country where you are not free to do so, you're not as likely to enjoy the outcome as much regardless of what your actual intent was.

Re:Make up your minds

[drinkypoo]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government...except for every other form that's ever been tried.

I'm sorry. What's your point? (See what I did there? And there?)

I support politicians and parties that on balance seem to give the best outcome for my vote compared to the other candidates.

Yes, they seem to, don't they.

Re:Make up your minds

[progician]

I thought you can not rob a bank, with or without baclava and that is the point. The bank can demand, being on private property, that I should be identifiable. If I'm not, my entranced would be refused. Not to mention, that in some customs women cover their faces entirely, even when they go the bank.

So, covering our faces supposed to be a basic right. Now when they start with the baclava, it turns out that the "democratic" nature of some countries can be easily override by policing/security reasons, such as the ban on face covers on public demonstrations on public property. Your example is better than you originally thought, I guess. Now there's a tendency to deny any anonymity of citizens, in the name of security, moral. That way lies the complete dictatorship.

Re:Make up your minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, it goes beyond monitoring of communications, and morphs into personal restrictions. By proxy of fine first, and physical incarceration later.

Want a real time example? How about being fined for swearing in public!

Yes, it will go to court, but if you think relying on that will save you for when this goes to the extremes, you've already lost.

Re:Make up your minds

[stridebird]

Detecting tor users is simple.

Only if you are set up as an exit node on tor, no? Or can an ISP, say, detect tor usage from network patterns, even if the packet destinations are all over the place? The whole point is it's supposed to be anonymous. But I suppose the access point is the hard one to disguise: you have to connect to the internet from somewhere.

Re:Make up your minds

[jaymemaurice]

The problem with tor is that it does not look like normal traffic. It looks like peer to peer, sort of. And Skype, kind of. Identifying tor users is simple as being a tor user and tracking where you have connections... then find other users on the network that make the same connections... then find common connections between those users and other users.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because innocence kids were raped to make it you sick fuck. You've got to be fucking trolling.

Now here's what they're going to do

[kschap]

Now the great old U.S. Government is going to use this as fuel to show that privacy and anonymity needs to go away on the internet, instead of continuing to work to find these people and prosecute them.

TOR needs to clean its ranks

[catmistake]

Is it even possible? Once TOR gets a reputation for this crap, it's going to cast dispersion on all legitimate users of TOR, and further, on all who wish to have privacy for the sake of privacy, not merely for the nefarious purposes of trying to cloak illegal/immoral activity.

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[w.hamra1987]

the same argument could have been made about many other services, including the internet itself.... some people still believe the web is just a porn service, and refuse to use it, well... their problem. everything can be used for good and bad, but i get your point, tor DOES seem to be attracting more illicit usage than what it was initially intended for, what it actually needs, is more legal users to out-shadow the bad ones, most people don't even bother with tor, leaving mostly the criminals to use it.

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[catmistake]

Perhaps... TOR should be implemented at the kernel level in Linux and FreeBSD, in the network stack... that would increase its legitimate users. Or maybe at the network level, create a new standard for the Internets so everything is always, always enchrypted. If I could I would wave my hand and make it so...

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[gman003]

Criminals are going to use it. No matter what. Even no matter what it is, really.

If you want to decrease the proportion of illegal to legal users of Tor, there's two ways. One, reduce the number of illegal users. This is impossible. Second, you could increase the number of legal users. If half the country is using Tor for everyday browsing, the Feds literally will not be able to keep up - they can't interrogate everyone.

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[nbsr]

Not only possible but desirable. The fact they can't filter out the content mean the system is implemented correctly from the security point of view. You wouldn't like to put your own sensitive data in a system with backdoors, as it inherently relies on trust between you and whoever happens to administrate the system.

In a way, if bringing security to an average Joe is dangerous, there is something terribly wrong with the legal system we live in. In USSR people had to apply for permission for traveling from one city to another. The justification was eerily similar - if you give people freedom they will "abuse" it (read: use against the rulers).

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps... TOR should be implemented at the kernel level in Linux and FreeBSD, in the network stack... that would increase its legitimate users. Or maybe at the network level, create a new standard for the Internets so everything is always, always enchrypted. If I could I would wave my hand and make it so...

Gee, I seem to recall something..gosh, so hard to remember...I think they called it SSL or TLS or something like that...no, no it was IPSec, yeah. Maybe that stuff could be integrated into Linux and FreeBSD...Oh, wait...

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[Mr. Slippery]

On (rooted) Android, you can easily route all your network traffic through Tot with Orbot:

Orbot contains Tor, libevent and privoxy. Orbot provides a local HTTP proxy and the standard SOCKS4A/SOCKS5 proxy interfaces into the Tor network. Orbot has the ability to transparently torify all of the TCP traffic on your Android device when it has the correct permissions and system libraries.

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[nnull]

Wasn't the whole point of TOR to encourage illicit usage in the first place for countries with draconian laws? Seems pretty silly to encourage dissidents in another country, create a tool just for it, and then expect it not to be used for illegal means.

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[roman_mir]

Clean ranks? So how do you 'clean ranks' of say agent provocateurs, people who otherwise work for the State and are using Tor to run child porn on it in order to make a case that it should be shut down?

Re:TOR needs to clean its ranks

[azalin]

the same argument could have been made about many other services, including the internet itself.... some people still believe the web is just a porn service, and refuse to use it, well... their problem. everything can be used for good and bad, but i get your point, tor DOES seem to be attracting more illicit usage than what it was initially intended for, what it actually needs, is more legal users to out-shadow the bad ones, most people don't even bother with tor, leaving mostly the criminals to use it.

When I first heard of tor I considered it a very great idea because helping the oppressed is a good thing to do. But the more I think about it, the more I get the idea, that by hosting a node you entering a morally questionable area. Activists in "oppressed" countries will probably not run tor. While the government can't read what they said, they know you have something to hide and will pay them a visit. The traffic is easy to distinguish and even to block, so this intended use doesn't happen in reality. This leaves places where it is legal to have cryptography (so probably not very oppressed) but not legal to engage in certain activities. Most people don't feel the need to encrypt their conversations and therefore don't bother installing tor. That leaves idealists and people who indeed have something to hide as a usage base. Some of that might be political views (though not many, see above), common porn and in a higher percentage than I would still be ok with it, criminals exchanging data (drugs, cp).
So where is the point (with the current usage) to run a node? Free speech and unmonitored political discussion is important, but tor doesn't really provide that to actually oppressed people. I would have no problems with a completely encrypted unmonitored internet, even though there would be some abuse, but tor right now has a far to larger abuserbase and just feels tainted and dirty.

Working as intended then

[gman003]

Isn't it kind of the POINT of a darknet that nobody can trace who's who? Sounds to me like the system is working as designed.

Yes, it will be used to break laws. But that's when you break out the actual investigative skills instead of relying on tech work and unrestricted wiretaps.

Re:Working as intended then

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that criminals will use anonymity to instigate crimes (and that's a price that I'm very willing to pay), explain what skills they can use?

The transactions are primarily in bitcoins. Without tech-skills, you won't be tracing their movement. The communications are all online. Without tech-skills, you can't read any of their emails. Unless you know where the product is being shipped or where it's being shipped from (requiring you to have tech skills to get inside the transaction) you're out of luck there too.

Explain how you can fight this activity at ALL without having your claws deep into the tech world.

Please understand that I agree the darknet is working the way it should. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy that you can track these folks down with some good old fashion detective work.

Re:Working as intended then

[gman003]

Let's assume that the criminal group you're going after is shipping physical objects. Tracing information obviously will require heavy tech skills, but old-fashioned investigative work works well in the physical world.

Place an order on their site for the product, the drugs or whatever. Odds are they ship through an existing service, FedEx or something - it's simply implausible that they do the actual delivery themselves. With a simple warrant/subpeona, you can get the shipping info, find where it was shipped from.

Once you know where it's being shipped from, it's stakeout time. Repeat the buys a few more times, while recording everyone who ships a package from that location. You should be able to narrow it down rather quickly by process of elimination.

Now, the actual stuff you bought probably can't be used as evidence - it's probably entrapment, but IANAL so I can't be sure. But if they're shipping the stuff you bought, they're also shipping stuff to the actual customers.Catch the courier (who's most likely not a high-level guy, just a small-time crook doing the grunt job), and get him to roll over on the guys he works for. From there, it's literally the same routine as taking down any criminal enterprise.

Is it a lot more work than just serving up a subpeona and instantly getting every detail on the site operator? Yeah. But it's doable with as little tech skills as "being able to *use* Tor".

Re:Working as intended then

[kefkahax]

Isn't it kind of the POINT of a darknet that nobody can trace who's who? Sounds to me like the system is working as designed.

Yes, it will be used to break laws. But that's when you break out the actual investigative skills instead of relying on tech work and unrestricted wiretaps.

#aph on AnonOps ran into this same problem. Their solution was to continue trying to break into the sites and attack the visitors with trojans, confirm they intended to view child porn (I guess checking to see if there was a large amount of it on their machine) and exposing whoever they could, knowing they're going to miss people that are fully patched or not on a machine that the malware is compatible with or what not. The channel seems pretty dead now though, anything beyond one or two steps is beyond most of them.

Re:Working as intended then

[Anonymous Coward]

They ship through USPS because it requires a warrant, and USPS does not require senders to give their actual personal information if they pay in cash. So senders can use a fake name and ship by rotating through delivery hubs. It would still be somewhat traceable, but would require significant resources and time.

Re:Working as intended then

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but that is the definition of NOT entrapment. You offer something for sale, if a cop buys it you are going to get busted. If one cop asks you to sell something illegal for him, and another cop buys it, then you can probably argue entrapment. The whole point was the government can't induce you to do something illegal you wouldn't have already done without that inducement, not that they can't catch someone red handed. At least that's my general understanding how how that is supposed to work.

Re:Working as intended then

[elucido]

Let's assume that the criminal group you're going after is shipping physical objects. Tracing information obviously will require heavy tech skills, but old-fashioned investigative work works well in the physical world.

Place an order on their site for the product, the drugs or whatever. Odds are they ship through an existing service, FedEx or something - it's simply implausible that they do the actual delivery themselves. With a simple warrant/subpeona, you can get the shipping info, find where it was shipped from.

Once you know where it's being shipped from, it's stakeout time. Repeat the buys a few more times, while recording everyone who ships a package from that location. You should be able to narrow it down rather quickly by process of elimination.

Now, the actual stuff you bought probably can't be used as evidence - it's probably entrapment, but IANAL so I can't be sure. But if they're shipping the stuff you bought, they're also shipping stuff to the actual customers.Catch the courier (who's most likely not a high-level guy, just a small-time crook doing the grunt job), and get him to roll over on the guys he works for. From there, it's literally the same routine as taking down any criminal enterprise.

Is it a lot more work than just serving up a subpeona and instantly getting every detail on the site operator? Yeah. But it's doable with as little tech skills as "being able to *use* Tor".

FBI informants can be used for entrapment and can break the law. Honestly the FBI and others always use child porn as the excuse for mass surveillance and the children are never any safer as a result of any of these arrests.

Arresting people who have the files isn't arresting the people who abused the children. So it's not logical to believe that it's keeping children safer unless all who are arrested are proven sex offenders.

Re:Working as intended then

[elucido]

They ship through USPS because it requires a warrant, and USPS does not require senders to give their actual personal information if they pay in cash. So senders can use a fake name and ship by rotating through delivery hubs. It would still be somewhat traceable, but would require significant resources and time.

USPS could just be an undercover FBI agent. Then what?

Re:Working as intended then

[Anonymous Coward]

lol...seriously? Now, if a person is dealing over the Internet and then mailing...why on earth would they use the same service/location every time? Anyone who is smart enough to mail drugs, will not use the same. Stakeouts sound good in practice, but for this application, I doubt it will work.

Goes hand-n-hand with hacking...first rule? Be very...very Paranoid!!!

Enjoy!

Re:Working as intended then

[drinkypoo]

USPS could just be an undercover FBI agent. Then what?

My local postmaster actually believes that the USPS just throws all the data away after they scan your packages for the purpose of routing them, or at least, so he told me. What a maroon. In a world in which the government has announced they're reading our emails, you have to be a real tool to think they're not performing analysis of mailings.

Re:Working as intended then

[Stoopiduk]

I'm not sure your sexual activities are necessarily relevant here.

This is why we can't have nice things

[WarmBoota]

This is why we can't have nice things. I would LOVE to support democracy locally and internationally by running a Tor node, but I would never run one as long as the risk existed that I'd be questioned about kiddie porn. I know I'm innocent, I could be PROVEN innocent, but anyone who ever heard would always think I was guilty. It's just not worth it to me. It's Kryptonite to free speech.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[betterunixthanunix]

You could run a bridge node -- these are very helpful to people who live in countries with national firewalls that block official Tor relays. Bridge nodes are unlisted relays, which are included in short lists (three nodes if I remember correctly) of randomly selected that are sent upon request via email. Some countries (I am looking at you, China) have ongoing campaigns to compile lists of all bridges, which is why we need people to run as many bridge nodes as possible. A bridge node is not an exit, so you will not face the wrath of the FBI or other police agencies.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also simply run a non exit node.
You will increase the networks capacity while not being an exit node, thus no data leaving the tor network through you.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[walshy007]

I could be PROVEN innocent, but anyone who ever heard would always think I was guilty.

Why would you even want such people as acquintences, let alone friends?

People need to stop letting anything child related send them crazy and lose all rationality, I swear having children must make people lose part of their reasoning ability or something.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the simple reason is I have a son and a daughter. I would kill anyone that would bring harm to them without regard to the legality of my response . Many other parents feel the same way. I think we've evolved this response over time to ensure the continuation of our species.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[cheekyjohnson]

Wanting to protect your children is one thing. Reacting to every situation involving the possibility of harm to children with irrationality is another. I suppose one of those could aid in the continuation of the species, but the other doesn't help much (I can't think of an instance where not thinking rationally is helpful) and often makes the person extremely easy to control.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[DrBoumBoum]

I think we've evolved this response over time to ensure the continuation of our species.

I think this is a very bad interpretation of the theory of evolution.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[JThundley]

Why is it only CP that you're afraid of? Shouldn't you be equally afraid of transmitting terrorist information and being charged with treason or providing comfort and aid to the enemy?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe because those pics did not arrange them selves... someone took pics of minors and shared them. If no children were hurt/taken advantage of in the making of the pics then u might have a case.

HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Seed "dark sites" with child porn.

Then, stop it "for the children".

Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't mean to imply we should get rid of TOR. Responding to the poster stating that they are just pictures.

Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Anonymous Coward]

This shit has been around since TOR's inception. Gawker is a sensationalist pseudo news site that loves to report on old shit to a non nerd audience.

Let these fools keep posting pictures, every picture is a clue...

Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, or start by releasing articles like this.

There's child pornography out there and it can't be traced!

I'd be very surprised if this isn't just the beginning of the end of Tor.

Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[chthon]

Gawker may be sensationalist, but a couple of weeks ago on the news here in Belgium the same was said. I think that maybe some agencies are trying to spread a worldwide outcry against TOR.

I do not like child porn either, but it is the same as with drugs: you do not solve the problem by going after the users.

Sexual abuse of children is something that leaves traces. Like in other things, education is the key, in this case the education of people to recognise the traces and learn them how to properly make checks.

Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked through this whole slashdot thread, but is ANYONE going to say exactly how to find this place? seriously.

Could someone explain what "browsing the anonymous Tor network's hidden sites, which are viewable with specialized, but readily available, tools and the special .onion domain," means? What specialized, but readily available tools? how easy exactly is it to set up Tor, could someone give some tips.

Hint: I'm a boylover, if that wasn't already obvious.

Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Jedi Alec]

From the point of view of law enforcement it makes sense to claim these things. The executive branch of a lot of countries would like nothing more than an internet that spits out the information they need to (allegedly) do their jobs the way we see on tv shows(watch some NCIS to see the circumventing of checks and balances glorified). At the same time anything that makes it possible for us simple folk to hide what we're doing should be made illegal because, hey, if you ain't doing nothing wrong you ain't got nothing to hide, right?

Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off you idiot. I'm more offended at your idiocy and need of spoonfeeding than I am that you are a faggot child molester. What kind of dipshit needs to ask for CP on slashdot? If the kids on 4chan can do it then anyone with the capacity for abstract thought should be able to do it. Dumbass.

I can see where this is going...

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI: "There are secret anonymous corners of the internet, where people are trading illegally downloaded movies!"
Public: "So what?"
FBI: "That isn't all. They're ALSO buying and selling.... MARIJUANA!"
Public: "We don't care."
FBI: ".....AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY"
Public: "Nooooooooooooo! Here's $50 million in extra funding and new broad new powers for your agency."
FBI: "We promise only to use them for your own good."

Re:I can see where this is going...

[babthooka]

On the other hand, this could be OK. If it takes BIG ressources to catch a "bad guy", maybe they will have to set their priorities a bit more reasonably, and drop persecution of Hollywood copyrights infringers to concentrate their efforts on getting these sick bastards and the like. I wonder whom they would choose to go after, if they only could go after the one group successfully.

anon

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahaahahah so anonoymous can do with poisoned tor application and yet the fbi is stumped.

Didnt they dump all th info after the attack. wow the FBI is lame and it has some anon member in custody and yet still trouble with tor.

You're doing it wrong.

[dgatwood]

If they believe that they need to crack the encryption, that just means they're going after the wrong people. Instead of wasting time going after the darknet sites and/or their customers, they should be focusing 100% of their efforts on trying to identify A. the kids and/or B. the locations where the videos were shot. This approach has several advantages:

• It doesn't require any access to the actual transactions.
• It doesn't require weakening the security model of the Internet to do it.
• By jailing the people who make the porn, you actually protect children by getting them out of abusive situations.

In contrast, by going after other people in the chain, you *might* occasionally get an actual child abuser, but usually you just ruin the lives of people who did something stupid and probably would not have actually harmed anyone's child. It's a bit like the difference between jailing people who are using guns to kill people and jailing everyone who carries a gun in the wrong part of town because a few of them might kill people....

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Dwedit]

People are dumb enough to leave the EXIF tags on unaltered JPEGs fresh from the camera. So those might help trace the victims.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[w.hamra1987]

indeed, one way i can think of, requires some cooperation from ISPs. create some heavy load on the tor website, heavy enough to be noticeable, making the ISPs aware of the exact time this bandwidth surge is going to happen at, and they can report which users had their bandwidth soar at that period... few of them are just innocent tor relays (i'm aware some relays will be from other parts of the world), and one is the actual server, won't be hard figuring things out after that.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

But that takes, you know, WORK. And asking judges for warrants. And then a public trial. Much more fun to do it the way theyre trying. No wiretaps, no judges denying them warrants, and wrapping hiding it all in a national security letter.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[dgatwood]

And if the EXIF tags contain a device serial number or equivalent, it requires only a trivial subpoena to determine the identity of the photographer, assuming the owner registered the camera for warranty purposes. I would hope that the FBI would be quick to arrest someone in such situations, though. Presumably they wouldn't bother trying to crack crypto if they could discover the perp by spending ten minutes with a judge....

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cartoon or animated CP is illegal too, which pretty obviously shows that these people don't care about the things you care about, or they'd do what you are suggesting. The point is to jail people for thinking unapproved thoughts, even if they are involuntary thoughts. It's not about protecting victims, it's about creating them.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but going after those consuming it will lead you to those producing it.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[longk]

As others have already suggested, this is not about the porn. It's simply to introduce more laws.

How would outlawing TOR stop these CP criminals? TOR will still be legal in many other countries, where these people can VPN to before they start TOR. Not to mention that most criminals don't give much about laws to begin with. Are we going to arrest everyone with a suspicious packet stream on the their Internet connection?

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Dunbal]

How, exactly?

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[elucido]

If they believe that they need to crack the encryption, that just means they're going after the wrong people. Instead of wasting time going after the darknet sites and/or their customers, they should be focusing 100% of their efforts on trying to identify A. the kids and/or B. the locations where the videos were shot. This approach has several advantages:

• It doesn't require any access to the actual transactions.
• It doesn't require weakening the security model of the Internet to do it.
• By jailing the people who make the porn, you actually protect children by getting them out of abusive situations.

In contrast, by going after other people in the chain, you *might* occasionally get an actual child abuser, but usually you just ruin the lives of people who did something stupid and probably would not have actually harmed anyone's child. It's a bit like the difference between jailing people who are using guns to kill people and jailing everyone who carries a gun in the wrong part of town because a few of them might kill people....

If they believe that they need to crack the encryption, that just means they're going after the wrong people. Instead of wasting time going after the darknet sites and/or their customers, they should be focusing 100% of their efforts on trying to identify A. the kids and/or B. the locations where the videos were shot. This approach has several advantages:

• It doesn't require any access to the actual transactions.
• It doesn't require weakening the security model of the Internet to do it.
• By jailing the people who make the porn, you actually protect children by getting them out of abusive situations.

In contrast, by going after other people in the chain, you *might* occasionally get an actual child abuser, but usually you just ruin the lives of people who did something stupid and probably would not have actually harmed anyone's child. It's a bit like the difference between jailing people who are using guns to kill people and jailing everyone who carries a gun in the wrong part of town because a few of them might kill people....

I agree with you. They should be focused on going after the actual perps in those videos.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[DrBoumBoum]

Going after those producing it is going to be even more efficient.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Arker]

I really have no idea of the proportion of this stuff that is new and the proportion that is old - I have heard wildly differing claims. If it's mostly decades old material that just keeps getting passed around then it may be impossible to do as you suggest.

Re:You're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you quite understand just how [i]huge[/i] the internet is. Among other things, but that's a good starting point.

The more you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember kids, only use TOR to break laws the US government disagrees with.

CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[tepples]

innocence kids were raped to make it

Not under some countries' definitions of child pornography, which include drawings produced entirely without the involvement of children.

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[wvmarle]

And that is indeed/ totally ridiculous.

Child abuse (sexual or violent or otherwise) is a crime, and rightfully so.

Possessing recordings of a crime (images, video, whatever), is usually not a crime (though I'm not so sure about those "snuff movies" or whatever they're called where people are actually killed in the process of making them).

Creating or owning drawings of a crime that never took place for real, should not be a crime. That'd fall under freedom of speech (with possible limits where specific individuals or groups are targeted).

What you see in movie theatres are often rather violent movies (especially coming out of Hollywood): people being murdered is something you very commonly see. Now I assume those people don't actually die, yet they do their best to make it look as if they really die. With lots of blood and so. A crime, but the recording of it is no problem at all.

Similar for erotic movies. A bit less accepted by many people, the porn industry is thriving. And that also includes movies depicting rape and possibly other crimes. This again is also considered totally legal. Now these people are not actually being raped as in they take part in the scene consensually (consent given in return for a big enough cheque), yet again the movie makers do their best to make it look like the actual crime is taking place.

In case of porn involving minors receiving consent is not possible, so the act is illegal, and the people involved should be tracked down and prosecuted. The evidence of the crime is there: the movie, presumably shot in high resolution, good quality; not grainy surveillance camera stuff.

It'd be rather more effective for police to try to track down where this move was shot, who was involved shooting it, and prosecute those people. This should be relatively easy with the top-notch video evidence that is available of the crime.

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are not the type of images on Tor.

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[ichimunki]

Beyond that.... The legal definition of CP also includes depictions of sexual acts with minors who have reached the age of consent in their jurisdiction, but are not yet 18 years of age. So, while it might be legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year-old in many parts of the USA, it is illegal for that adult to photograph herself doing so. Similarly, in many more parts of the USA it is legal for two minors to have sex with each other, but not for either of them to photograph the activity-- they don't even have to share the images, mere possession is a crime. Finally, you can't even make erotic images of *yourself* if you are under 18! And if you do, you cannot wait until you are 18 and then distribute those images without violating the law.

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[haeger]

Supreme court in Sweden is expected to determine if manga is child porn in a few weeks.
http://www.thelocal.se/40878/20120516/

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[Mal-2]

Similar for erotic movies. A bit less accepted by many people, the porn industry is thriving. And that also includes movies depicting rape and possibly other crimes. This again is also considered totally legal.

Try explaining that to Max Hardcore.

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[wvmarle]

Child porn is illegal. He actively tried to depict child porn, albeit by using mature actresses. Yet I think what he did, from what I read in that wp entry, shouldn't be illegal - on the assumption that his co-stars knew beforehand what they were going to do, and agreed to that.

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to understand their logic. You see, porn victimizes women. No, don't start arguing now - you have to accept that premise point-blank. Because, you see, there's a point at which women can be victims of entirely their own fault and we just don't care about them any more. Oh, sure, if they're raped we'll feel sorry for them - unless they were staggering drunk and half-naked down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood, I guess. Then it's pretty much their fault again. So returning to the porn thing, grown women can decide to do porn. They're subhumanizing themselves, flattening themselves out onto a piece of paper, which will probably end up stuck to the next page with some old creep's jizz. But we really don't pity them, because they chose it. But if they're too young, well, see, then we have a problem with it, and so we put the old creep in prison.

Hope that explanation clears things up.

Re:CP produced without sexual abuse of children

[davydagger]

I agree,child abuse is terrible, and disgusting, I'd NEVER be for it.

But after SOPA, PIPA, the NDAA, the very real infiltration and setting up of anti-government protesters to do violent crimes to solicit funds from congress. and the very typical "smash-fly-with-hammer" sort of mentality US authorities have had for the past 50-60 years, I'm more terrified of the FBI using this as an excuse to get techies to help them break anonymity like tor for needed to keep dissidents from being safe.

Then once you find a way to bring down tor and darknets, or at least unmask their users, you open up Pandora's Box. It will only be a matter of time before China, Iran, Russia, etc... find out the same techniques. Do you want speech and expression WORLDWIDE controlled by the heads of nation states? In this light child molesters are small fish.

While I support the FBI in hunting down child molesters, I see this is nothing but a method of slandering the reputation of TOR to discourage use, and to justify censorship. They are going to equate anyone who believes in free speech now with child molesters.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[cheekyjohnson]

Because it's Pure Evil, and I don't like it. Not to mention that it might encourage the creation of more (and we need to arrest people based on maybes and blame them for the actions of others even if they didn't pay them a single cent). Oh, and it's far easier to catch people who look at pictures than it is to stop those who are doing the molesting.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also because, when you look at porn, don't you like to always find new stuff? There will always be new kids being exploited.

No, it is not possible

[betterunixthanunix]

Tor has two equally important goals that have motivated its design:

1. Anonymous communication
2. Defeating censorship

Both of these goals make it impossible for Tor as a system to prevent people from sharing child sex abuse images. Anything that could be done to prevent such sharing could just as easily be used by the Chinese to prevent dissidents from disseminating their information. Anything that could be done to track down people who share child sex abuse images could be used by China to track down dissidents and persecute them.

That is the trade-off: protecting free speech and dissidents who live under repressive governments necessarily thwarts the FBI's attempt to track down people who share child sex abuse imagery. This is a matter of priorities -- do we want to protect dissidents, or do we want to prevent child abuse images from being shared?

Re:No, it is not possible

[Dwonis]

This is a matter of priorities -- do we want to protect dissidents, or do we want to make futile attempts to prevent child abuse images from being shared?

FTFY.

Re:No, it is not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

If the FBI had half a clue they would setup their own TORs, monitor the traffic, and go after offenders.

Re:No, it is not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll put this out there as an idea to be debated.

Would it work for tor users to select an option NOT to redistribute CP through their node and for a service for flagging material as CP. If a credible model were available for this, and a % of people opted in, the tor network may avoid supporting CP distrubution.

Re:No, it is not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you look at tracking down the offenders purely through evidence gained through that medium. Fact of the matter is there are a lot fewer pedo's looking at CP than there are *alleged* dissidents under any repressive regime. This typically means you gather information through a variety of sources and prosecute accordingly. As long as you don't need to scale up to tens of thousands or more individuals that'll work just fine. Additionally Tor's design in no way means useful information can't be gleaned from the network; it usually means sufficiently damning evidence can't be gathered if the user doesn't screw up, even then...

Re:No, it is not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

the little 10 year old girl most certainly does NOT have a choice.

Unfortunately preventing the pictures to be shared does not prevent nor fix the harm that has been done to her.

Re:No, it is not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do you propose to identify the encrypted data as CP? Remember that TOR works with multiple layers of encryption, in case of the internal sites (.onion), only the end points (the site and user) know what is being sent. When a TOR user is accessing an open site (one that can be reached without using TOR) then the exit relay knows what is being sent (unless SSL is used on top of it).

Relays do not know what is being sent or who is sending it (there is no way to find out whether you are in the middle or at the end of the chain). There is no way of detecting CP or political information or terrorist plots. If there was such a way, then TOR would be useless, the government could just listen for "torrorist" or "CP" or "political" packets and race them to the user.

Re:No, it is not possible

[betterunixthanunix]

Would it work for tor users to select an option NOT to redistribute CP through their node and for a service for flagging material as CP

First of all, you need a way to distinguish child abuse imagery from everything else; this is not nearly as easy as it sounds, e.g. the case of Lupe Fuentes. Even if you could develop such a system, the intelligence agencies of countries like China would undoubtedly hijack that system, preventing Tor users from reading about Tibet or Tienanmen Square. You also need to deal with the fact that communications through the Tor system may simply be encrypted; all it takes is a hidden service that uses TLS, and suddenly your system falls apart.

Re:No, it is not possible

[dkf]

First of all, you need a way to distinguish child abuse imagery from everything else

Just make all cameras and image manipulation software set the Evil Bit on all images that they produce that contain depictions of child abuse. Simple!

Re:No, it is not possible

[luther349]

very true, anytime you make something like tor where its hard to track the users people will share all sorts of data legal or not. sad part is the government has not seen the pattern yet. first it was usenet then it was irc then it was Napster then it was gnutella then it still is bittorrent and now there moving to tor. point is no matter what they try to stop something else will replace it.

Re:No, it is not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately for her, if nobody watches the video, it didn't really happen.

Re:No, it is not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil bit is IP, images are JPEG.

This is crazy.

[dohzer]

I'm all for privacy, but I think they should put a 'backdoor' in the Tor system to allow the FBI to catch pedophiles.

Re:This is crazy.

[w.hamra1987]

completely defeating the purpose of the entire system, as no one will use tor again.... who are you going to trust with the keys to that backdoor?

Re:This is crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

>I'm all for privacy
Yes you are.

Sincerely,
Queen Elizabeth.

Re:This is crazy.

[dmitri3]

That would defeat the purpose of the system. Just the existence of a backdoor makes the system vulnerable and devoid of purpose - anyone, with sufficient determination, can exploit it. Besides, anything even close to such action would utterly destroy Tor and spark another service that could be even more dangerous in wrong hands.

Re:This is crazy.

[hlavac]

I think this is exactly what is happening right now. They got a backdoor in Tor and now want everyone to start using it, so they say they can not beak it.

Re:This is crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said. ever. all time.

Re:This is crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for privacy, but I think they should put a 'backdoor' in the Tor system to allow the FBI to catch pedophiles.

No, you're clearly not for privacy.

Do you want the FBI to have a backdoor into your house as well?

Nothing could go wrong....

Re:This is crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll grade: B-

Good hook, but you should make it a little longer. Too easy for targets to scroll past it, or to click reply, then cancel thinking "not worth my time". You want about 2 sentences -- short enough nobody tl'drs you, but long enough to set that hook good.

Re:This is crazy.

[Agent ME]

Tor is open source; it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide a backdoor in it.

Re:This is crazy.

[dgatwood]

Easy. You create a voting system in which at least 80% of the key fragments are required in order to open the lock, and you distribute those key fragments evenly among about a thousand random individuals spread around the world. If you can convince at least 800 of those 1000 people to help you decrypt a particular bit of traffic, you can have the data.

The hard part is figuring out a way to generate a public-private key pair without any single computer or individual ever having the entire private key during the keygen process. I will leave that as an exercise for the crypto researchers.

Re:This is crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, why don't you trust the US government? They've done nothing but good for the world, if it weren't for them the planet would have been destroyed 2000 years ago by alien dinosaurs from the North Pole.

You must be one of those crazy schizophrenic paranoids from the Bin Laden Fan Club if you don't trust the US government.

Re:This is crazy.

[Kjella]

Easy. You create a voting system in which at least 80% of the key fragments are required in order to open the lock, and you distribute those key fragments evenly among about a thousand random individuals spread around the world. If you can convince at least 800 of those 1000 people to help you decrypt a particular bit of traffic, you can have the data.

Most countries struggle very hard to get an 80% attendance rate in national elections, you think you can get that for any random piece of traffic? I'm guessing that system would either be stuffed with "can't be arsed" nodes that'll lead to an automatic rejection and if you could only actual votes then "information wants to be free" idealists that'll reject anything or "think of the children" moralists that'll approve anything. Besides in a P2P system who's going to guarantee the backdoor information has been properly added and could be decrypted? You obviously can't trust the peer itself, and you won't know until you actually try...

Re:This is crazy.

[hlavac]

Bugs. Unpublished algorithm vulnerabilities. Compromised compilers and libraries. Compromised binary packages.

Re:This is crazy.

[dgatwood]

Most countries struggle very hard to get an 80% attendance rate in national elections, you think you can get that for any random piece of traffic?

That's kind of the point. It should have to be an extraordinary situation for such an escape hatch to be used. If you can't get 80% of those people who don't care about anything to agree, then your prosecution probably isn't important enough to use the feature in the first place.

Besides in a P2P system who's going to guarantee the backdoor information has been properly added and could be decrypted? You obviously can't trust the peer itself, and you won't know until you actually try...

Require that each host compute that back-door version of the request at each step along the way (rather than including a back-door version within every layer of the onion). When you receive data from a peer, decrypt your copy of the data, and encrypt it with the back-door public key. If it does not match what you got in the request, then this means that the sending peer tried to lie to you. Shun it.

I support the FBI on this one.

[outsider007]

We need to get the child rape off the internet and back in the church where it belongs.

Re:I support the FBI on this one.

[anss123]

He's making a point. Child rape will happen regardless of what we do on the internet.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with OP. Assuming you didn't compensate the producer of the images, you in no way contributed to the market of child pornography. In saying this, I in no way condone the production of this material or in any way suggest that I like the stuff (I do not).

The problem I have is that mere possession of images should never be illegal in my opinion. The reason I say this is because it is extremely easy to accidentally download this material. I don't think people's lives should be ruined because they clicked on a bad link accidentally. The mere accusation can pretty much ruin your life, and there certainly have been cases where this has happened.

privacy is only for the rich!

[Anonymous Coward]

in the meanwhile in the vatican...

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy has a point.

It's legal to share videos of someone torturing, killing, raping the corpse of someone else and feeding it to vultures.

As long as no one in there is a minor.

This is how it starts

[Anonymous Coward]

They're always going to for child abuse as a justification for taking away liberty.

It's a tried and true tactic, and it often works.

Any anonymous network is going to be used by all kinds of people. Either you're able to accept that and use the investigation techniques granted to you under the law, or you're going to attempt to change that, and disrupt the process of liberty in favor of more laws.

It is a choice and one that should be made consciously by a majority of the population rather than a chosen few.

tor?

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't need to be protected by TOR to find that shit!!! None can track you if you browse an IP address without using DNS!
This is BS to take down TOR...

Re:tor?

[anagama]

OK, I'm no ubergeek, but explain to me how not using DNS is going to prevent your ISP from logging the IPs of sites you visit. Sure, if you use DNS then both your ISP and your DNS provider (if it is a 3d party DNS provider) know the IP you sought, but cutting out DNS only cuts out one log, not all of them.

Re:tor?

[azalin]

you do know, that you fell for a particular lazy troll?

Other routes | Be creative

[Anonymous Coward]

Is wiretapping and across-the-board privacy-invasion the only way to catch scumbags? I don't think so. A wee bit too utilitarian for sensibility's sake. As noble as it sounds to save the babies, it is not the primary motive. I cannot help but to think that if they were so passionate about the good health of children, they might do something about education and other things, like obesity. Maybe they could whisper to the CIA and tell them to stop running so many narcotics into the US too. Maybe we could stop soliciting them into stupid wars. America really, really does not quite seem to be honestly obsessed with the welfare of upcoming generations, as sad as it may be. I am also curious what percentage of the population is involved in baby porn and (also in comparison to) homicide. It better be a really fucking high percentage if EVERYONE is to be treated as if involved. But I have doubts. "You can't have any privacy because you might be a baby ****er or a terrorist.". .....You don't say!?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[houstonbofh]

It is the only situation where possession of evidence is criminal in itself. You will not be prosecuted for having a movie of a robbery. Nor of an assassination. And both required people to be harmed. Yet a manga cartoon somehow harms society more than a video of an assassination? According to a strict interpretation of the law, in the US, possession of a manga cartoon is worse than several violent crimes.

How is that a problem?

[nedlohs]

It's just bit. There is no difference to the network between an image of child porn and a manifesto to free Tibet.

If you can find the source of one you can find the source of the other.

So the "problem" is actually a case of "working as designed".

Re:How is that a problem?

[pegasustonans]

So the "problem" is actually a case of "working as designed".

Exactly. The "news" here is that the FBI can't penetrate an anonymous network.

Am I the only one that finds this reassuring?

Re:How is that a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that finds this reassuring?

This is exactly what they want you to think. They have no interest in revealing what they can't do, unless they want you to think they can't. Lower your guards. Use the software with confidence. You are perfectly safe.

Re:How is that a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't they just ask NSA?

Re:How is that a problem?

[pegasustonans]

Am I the only one that finds this reassuring?

This is exactly what they want you to think. They have no interest in revealing what they can't do, unless they want you to think they can't. Lower your guards. Use the software with confidence. You are perfectly safe.

They want you to think a lot of things.

More than anything, they probably want you to think about what they're thinking.

Re:How is that a problem?

[mdielmann]

So the "problem" is actually a case of "working as designed".

Exactly. The "news" here is that the FBI can't penetrate an anonymous network.

Am I the only one that finds this reassuring?

Sounds like the FBI have reassured CP users that TOR is safe for distribution. Next step, disabuse them after a 6-month operation so they can cast a sufficiently wide net.

Polishes some scuffs off his tin foil hat.

Re:How is that a problem?

[pegasustonans]

Sounds like the FBI have reassured CP users that TOR is safe for distribution. Next step, disabuse them after a 6-month operation so they can cast a sufficiently wide net.

Polishes some scuffs off his tin foil hat.

As far as tin-foil-hattery, I'd put my money on:

FBI suggests difficulty in capturing child pornographers who use an anonymous network.

Media jumps on board, raising awareness of the issue.

Congress acts to outlaw protocols for anonymous networking.

Activists protest the congressional proposal.

Activists branded as child pornographers by media.

Law passes.

Re:How is that a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem is, the anonymous network that FBI can't penetrate is itself involved in a lot of penetration.

Joke aside, your point is well taken, my reaction was to find it reassuring too. The last thing I want to hear about is the FBI having a back door (technical or "legal") into Tor.

Re:How is that a problem?

[elucido]

It's just bit. There is no difference to the network between an image of child porn and a manifesto to free Tibet.

If you can find the source of one you can find the source of the other.

So the "problem" is actually a case of "working as designed".

Exactly the point.

Re:How is that a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that finds this reassuring?

This is exactly what they want you to think. They have no interest in revealing what they can't do, unless they want you to think they can't. Lower your guards. Use the software with confidence. You are perfectly safe.

They want you to think a lot of things.

More than anything, they probably want you to think about what they're thinking.

In Soviet Russia, federal agent thinks about you!

Re:How is that a problem?

[progician]

You forgot:

Activists were arrested for advocating anonymity networks after the law passes. No more talks.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[houstonbofh]

So if you look at crime scene photos, are you going to become an axe murderer? And since possession of crime scene photos is legal, is murder less bad than child abuse? (Last question is rhetorical. Because to me, yes, murder is less bad than child abuse.)

The immediate result of that would be...

[betterunixthanunix]

I'm all for privacy, but I think they should put a 'backdoor' in the Tor system to allow the FBI to catch pedophiles.

Do you think that the Chinese governments does not have spies in the FBI? Any backdoor would become a tool of the Chinese government, used to hunt down and persecute dissidents.

Actually it's more the tyranny of the minority

[rsilvergun]

the trouble with democracy is that it's so easy to game. All you have to do is get one big voting block to agree on an issue no matter way (say Child Porn, Social Security, or hating Commies) and you can more or less own. The rest of us get divided up and end up counting for nothing...

The real reason?

[JustNiz]

Whilst I am of course against child pornography, I get the feeling this isn't the real reason. Instead child-porn is now the catch-all excuse the FBI/NSA/CIA/whoever will use every time to try and legislate against any and all kinds of encryption, sharing or anonymising system that they can't get into.

No politician will stand up to defend our rights if it means they also risk being perceived as possibly defending child abuse.

I'm far more inclined to believe the real interest behind this is the RIAA/MPAA who want to make it impossible to anonymously share files at all and/or the gov itself who want to monitor every email, IM and keystroke we make online.

Re:The real reason?

[longk]

I've never understood legislating against something that can be used by criminals. It's not like criminals obey the law.

Re:The real reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead child-porn is now the catch-all excuse the FBI/NSA/CIA/whoever will use every time to try and legislate against any and all kinds of encryption, sharing or anonymising system that they can't get into.

Be careful what you say. Terrorists might realize they're not the #1 excuse used anymore, and start doing whatever-it-is that freaks people out the most.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Belial6]

While the are both horrible, would you rather find out that your child was molested, or find their dead body on your front yard? No, murder is worse.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Dahamma]

No it's not. Drug possession is also a crime.

And calling "manga" illegal is about as misleadingly stupid as calling "books" or "movies" illegal just because it's possible to create child pornography in the medium. These aren't subtle distinctions, if you can't tell the difference between a comic book and child porn you are a pretty twisted person.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[dgatwood]

As horrible as child abuse is, it is utterly irrational grandstanding to say that child abuse is worse than murder. If I asked you if you would rather be raped or killed, do you really mean to tell me that you would answer "killed"? If not, then murder is worse than any form of abuse. The heinousness of a crime is directly proportional to its effect on the victim. There can be no crime more heinous, therefore, than any crime that deprives the victim of his or her existence unwillingly.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[circletimessquare]

If there's no demand, there's no supply

therefore it is valid to go after demand

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being pedantic. That's very likely what he was referring to. Prosecuting people over pictures of imaginary children is just ridiculous.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most child abuse or rapes probably do not rise to that level, but I'm sure there is a level of abuse where people would rather die than endure it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes life is the worst punishment of all. Why else would the punishment for disobeying God be increased from being snuffed out of existence to eternal punishment of some kind.

Crowd Source

[Anonymous Coward]

They should use a crowd sourcing solution. Take the photos remove the children from them. Leave the adults, where possible, and the scene. Chances are someone will recognize the adult or the location of the scene. I would gladly turn in this type of scum. They could even take it a step farther and use TOR and Freenet to post these with a link to send information anonymously. This would protect the senders from easily be found out.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the only situation where possession of evidence is criminal in itself. You will not be prosecuted for having a movie of a robbery. Nor of an assassination. And both required people to be harmed. Yet a manga cartoon somehow harms society more than a video of an assassination? According to a strict interpretation of the law, in the US, possession of a manga cartoon is worse than several violent crimes.

What's worse is that most of those poor schmucks who go to prison because they have video and photos of CP aren't ones abusing children. We could use these people to help find and arrest the slime who create this stuff.

This is not about copyrights

[betterunixthanunix]

You are correct in your first assessment: that this is not really about protecting children, it is about expanding police and intelligence powers. Yet it is not that they want to help people with copyrights; they want to ensure that their own authority goes unthreatened. We passed a lot of laws under the guise of protecting children, which have served the purpose of inflating arrest and conviction numbers and expanding the power of the police.

The FBI hates the fact that ordinary people have access to cryptography they could not crack even with all their best cryptanalysts working at it. That is why they keep asking for back doors. They bring up child abuse just to scare people into thinking that this is a pressing, urgent issue, one which will determine the safety of their children and grandchildren. The fact that, in practice, Tor is too low-bandwidth to satisfy the demands of many consumers and producers of child sex abuse imagery is irrelevant here -- the FBI is more concerned about monitoring people who do not require high bandwidth, people who may threaten the power of our current set of politicians and of course the power of the FBI itself.

Child sex abuse is just a bogeyman that conjures terror in the population and causes everyone to shut down the cognitive parts of their brains.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[houstonbofh]

And calling "manga" illegal is about as misleadingly stupid as calling "books" or "movies" illegal just because it's possible to create child pornography in the medium. These aren't subtle distinctions, if you can't tell the difference between a comic book and child porn you are a pretty twisted person.

Cartoon depictions of child sexual activity (commonly found in manga) is against the child porn statutes in many countries. So, yes, I can tell the difference, but the law can not.

WARNING "For the children" excuse = NEW LAW COMING

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The only reason why this was released to the public, was to drum up support to make programs like TOR illegal in the US.

You have been warned. Once the government uses the "For the children" excuse... or "Child pornography" excuse... it should immediately make you take notice that the government is trying to outlaw something.

In this case, its dark nets, because as we all know that is where piracy is heading, and they want to stop it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[houstonbofh]

The demand for pictures is not the same as the desire to rape. Consider that the availability of adult porn has exploded in the past ten years, but the occurrence of adult rape has not grown in the same way.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is a supply and demand issue, then maybe we should let the free market sort it out.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really going to try to tell me that if nobody wanted to see CP, those that produce CP would stop making it?

CP is a behavioral issue. People would continue to make CP because _they_ enjoyed it, not because they thought someone else might enjoy it.

Anyone in the CP market to make a _profit_ would certainly suffer, but really I bet the number of CP producers turning a profit is quite small...

Re:WARNING "For the children" excuse = NEW LAW COM

[pegasustonans]

The only reason why this was released to the public, was to drum up support to make programs like TOR illegal in the US.

You have been warned. Once the government uses the "For the children" excuse... or "Child pornography" excuse... it should immediately make you take notice that the government is trying to outlaw something.

In this case, its dark nets, because as we all know that is where privacy is heading, and they want to stop it.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of CP is free. This isn't an economic problem.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that murder is worse, but I think they can be equally punished.

same old sh*t, bigger pile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard USA modus operandi. Burn piles of money trying to band-aid a symptom and ignore the causes. *shakes head*

What are we doing to prevent the creation of pedophiles?
Fixing our very broken criminal justice system? Nope.
Making birth control free and easy and promoting NOT breeding, to help stop abusers from creating more abusers(not to mention overpopulation)? Nope.
Providing real psychological counselling and treatment? Nope.
Introducing punishments such criminals might actually fear? Nope
Working to create a more fair and just society? Nope, in fact we seem to be heading very much in the opposite direction.

Re:same old sh*t, bigger pile.

[Anonymous Coward]

"more just society"
"punishments the criminals actually fear"

So, you want girls to have liberty, be educated, and men not beable to take them as little girl wives. You want pedophile men to be castrated.

You are scum and are an enemy of the God of the old testament book of Deuteronomy, you should be killed. Your people in Afghanistan trying to free the girls and prevent men from marrying them young need to be killed and the schools they build destroyed.

Deuteronomy 22 28-29 says that a man who rapes a young girl virgin keeps her, and pay the father when discovered. Deuteronomy also says to kill those that preach against it's law.

Raping female children means you keep them. You are opposed to this law of God and need to be killed. You want males to be raped and dominated and controlled. Deuteronomy says the man is ba'al (master). You say otherwise. You need to be killed.

Read the hebrew. Christians and mainstream Jewish people have apologetics to erase the will of their forebears, they lie. Read the hebrew. It is pro-male. Christians are pro-female (die for wife as christ "died for the church").

Little girls are good wives to men.

Deut 22 28-29. 2 Samual 12. ( Numbers 31. )

For you germans: snow white was seven in the original story. America cuntrupted your folktales to help women.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7_zMdNRAmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sexually abused as a child. I wish I had been killed instead. You don't know the hell abuse at that age can do to someone.

Those are the only two choices?

[sirwired]

Is absolute tyrannical control over communications really the only alternative to pure unstoppable anonymity?

Maybe I'll take C), where the government obtains valid, reasonable, limited, warrants for the monitoring of communications, carries out those warrants, and finds the bad guys.

I can't believe this got modded "insightful"... methinks the mods (and the parent) need to read up on the logical fallacy called the False Dilemma.

Re:Those are the only two choices?

[BlackSabbath]

Define "valid", "reasonable", "limited". Describe how you would limit the expansion of those terms' meanings.
Describe for what purpose the collected information might be limited to. Define how long the data will be held for and what safeguards you would have in place to ensure your speech doesn't mark you as an enemy of the state under some future statute.
Define "bad guys".

Re:Those are the only two choices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'll take C), where the government obtains valid, reasonable, limited, warrants for the monitoring of communications, carries out those warrants, and finds the bad guys.

How are they going to do that without compromising the TOR network? It defeats its entire purpose if they can get that information. A malicious government will inevitably abuse this "reasonable" solution.

And, indeed, I do want pure unstoppable anonymity even if it means the occasional criminal will benefit from it.

Re:Those are the only two choices?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem here is that TOR is designed to thwart "reasonable, limited monitoring of communications" and requires some pretty draconian or scary stuff in order to monitor it easily.

One either has to:
1) control (or at least have full logging access to) all of the nodes in the TOR in order to monitor traffic on the network
2) Have easy to enable spyware ready to use on all home computers to identify the activities of TOR users
    2a) Or... have the unchallenged ability to install said spyware on computers at any time and without notifying the user
3) Control all servers that could connect to TOR,
        3a) or... have the ability to use a judicial means to identify them (this probably implies #1)
4) Ban TOR and most other forms of encryption outright and prevent its distribution and use wholesale
5) Accept that CP has and always will exist and start targeting the producers instead of consumers

Choices, choices...

Re:Those are the only two choices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is absolute tyrannical control over communications really the only alternative to pure unstoppable anonymity?

Yup

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Child abuse is special because it occurs when a child's personality and identity is developing. Severe mental disorders often occur due to child abuse, especially repeated child abuse. One example is borderline personality disorder which occurs more often among children who are repeatedly raped.

Severe mental disorders don't always occur, but the fact the the worst types of mental disorders occur to child abuse victims makes it a special type of crime. It elevates it above crimes like assault and rape (which also has severe mental health impacts). The psychological trauma involved in child abuse will often make a normal life and even transient moments of happiness impossible for the survivor. Some people consider this a fate worse than death (especially for the major disorders like BPD, CPTSD, and dissociative identity disorder). The suicide rates of child abuse survivors are astronomical--molestation will often lead to the death of the abused child, but only after years and years of a tortured existence and then by their own hands.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[circletimessquare]

I agree with you completely

But why do you think your observations have any relevancy to the production and consumption of CHILD pornography?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having known more than one abuse survivor that tried to kill themself as a result of the PTSD, and one that did succeed...

Yeah -- there are worse crimes. There's crimes that destroy the very fucking mind and sanity of the person leaving only the barest shell of a human being in their body.

There's things that happened to them that left at least two women lying awake at night, shrieking in raw terror for hours. That had them burst into panicked tears if they saw a man with his fly unzipped.

I know they /wanted/ death.

So fuck your analysis about grandstanding and irrational. For ten to fifteen years of their lives they would happily have chosen death. It might not always be worse -- but even if you asked them today, I'm pretty sure the wish they'd succeeded in ending their own lives just to escape the memories and issues they caused.

Good and Evil?

[hawguy]

What!? You mean a technology exists that can be used for both good *and* evil? Too bad TOR doesn't have a clear-cut legal use with no potential for abuse. You know, like fertilizer. There's no possible way to use Ammonium Nitrate for anything but nourishing crops to feed people (or fill gas tanks).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[sjames]

More correctly, if there's no demand willing to hand over money, there's no supply. So follow the money!

Thank you Captain Obvious

[sirwired]

"they should be focusing 100% of their efforts on trying to identify A. the kids and/or B. the locations where the videos were shot."

Wow! I'm going to call the FBI right away and suggest they try and find out who and where those kids are so they can be rescued! I'm sure they haven't already thought of that one!

Yeah, I'm sure it's a piece of cake tracking down the precise identity of some random abused youth locked in a completely generic concrete basement. There are only millions upon millions of generic concrete basements out there in the world.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious

[dgatwood]

Yeah, I'm sure it's a piece of cake tracking down the precise identity of some random abused youth locked in a completely generic concrete basement. There are only millions upon millions of generic concrete basements out there in the world.

You're completely missing the point. Law enforcement, like anything else that involves time and effort, is a zero sum game. Every minute they spend wasting their time chasing distributors and downloaders and other penny-ante criminals (who have almost zero chance of being actual producers) is a minute that they did not spend doing something else that might have actually resulted in an arrest of a real child molester or other abuser.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious

[Kjella]

Law enforcement, like anything else that involves time and effort, is a zero sum game.

You have no idea what a zero sum game is, so stop using it. A zero sum game is one where all the gains and losses add up to zero, like for example a poker game with no rake. All the money is simply moving around and one man's gain must be another's loss. If a criminal escaped a life sentence that's a huge gain for him but you can't say there's an equal and opposite loss for the police, it's not like they have to go to prison instead. Law enforcement like most games are not zero sum. Time is zero-sum yes, if you spend more time on one thing you must spend less on another but it'd be 24 hours per day even if all they did was sit around and eat donuts all day. If time is the "game" then that's as good a solution as any other.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious

[misexistentialist]

If they just followed up on the reports from traditional sources they would have have plenty of work. How many times have we heard about accusations of child rape that were ignored or covered up until the crimes became extensive enough that they couldn't be? The FBI agents probably know of more unpunished incidents of abuse in their own social circles than they will ever catch over their careers of hunting online criminals and abusing citizens' rights.

Re:Thank you Captain Obvious

[dgatwood]

I guess I should have been slightly more precise. The process of choosing which crimes to enforce is zero-sum, not the enforcement itself. It is clearly impossible to prosecute every crime. Therefore, any one person's loss (going to prison) must necessarily be another person's gain (not going to prison).

Fire?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing? Not shouting fire in a crowded theater?"
Try saying 'fire' in crowded theater, nothing happens. If you're complaining about the shouting, that's not free speech.

"How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?"
Billboard? Again the shouting.

In each of your scenarios, you're confusing the right to speak with the non existent right to force people to listen.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[cheekyjohnson]

Do you still wish to die? If so, do you think everyone else feels that way? I think the problem with murder is that the person is simply gone, and there is absolutely no way they can recover from that (as in, live anything like a normal life in any way).

Rape of female children == keep girl forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Deuteronomy 22 28-29 says that a man who rapes a young girl virgin keeps her, and pay the father when discovered. Deuteronomy also says to kill those that preach against it's law.

Raping female children means you keep them. You are opposed to this law of God and need to be killed. You want males to be raped and dominated and controlled. Deuteronomy says the man is ba'al (master). You say otherwise. You need to be killed. .x.

Pedophile marraige is OK by God. Women oppose

[Anonymous Coward]

Deuteronomy 22 28-29 says that a man who rapes a young girl virgin keeps her, and pay the father when discovered. Deuteronomy also says to kill those that preach against it's law.

Raping female children means you keep them. You are opposed to this law of God and need to be killed. You want males to be raped and dominated and controlled. Deuteronomy says the man is ba'al (master). You say otherwise. You need to be killed.

Read the hebrew. Christians and mainstream Jewish people have apologetics to erase the will of their forebears, they lie. Read the hebrew. It is pro-male. Christians are pro-female (die for wife as christ "died for the church").

Little girls are good wives to men.

Deut 22 28-29. 2 Samual 12. ( Numbers 31. )

Re:Pedophile marraige is OK by God. Women oppose

[Anonymous Coward]

1) By keep her, it means he must marry her.

2) Christians believe that much of the law of moses (i.e., that stuff in Deut and Leviticus) (at least the sacrificial parts and some ceremonial parts) was fulfilled by Christ. (Matt 5:17)

Re:Pedophile marraige is OK by God. Women oppose

[Anonymous Coward]

Father Pedo says: I, for one, welcome our new Deuteronomy overlords.

Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

...guess I thought Tor probably already had an FBI/CIA back door.

Re:Actually Surprised...

[wanderfowl]

...guess I thought Tor probably already had an FBI/CIA back door.

... and this article disproves that how? If the FBI had a back door to Tor, the first thing they'd be doing is running articles like this one. That way everybody who wants to do something outside of FBI purview starts logging in, and Tor becomes one big honeypot for them to skim.

I want Tor to exist and succeed for privacy and free speech, especially for people in less free countries than the US. I also know victims of childhood sexual abuse and the lasting effects it has. The FBI breaking or backdooring Tor means that kiddie porn producers get rounded up, but it also means that free speech loses one more haven. I have no idea who I'm cheering for here.

Re:Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want Tor to exist and succeed for privacy and free speech, especially for people in less free countries than the US. I also know victims of childhood sexual abuse and the lasting effects it has. The FBI breaking or backdooring Tor means that kiddie porn producers get rounded up, but it also means that free speech loses one more haven. I have no idea who I'm cheering for here.

Can't we all win?

In [REDACTED], Freenet is a tool that enables pro-democracy subversives attempting to undermine the regime (signal) under the cover of a bunch of American perverts whacking it to CP (noise).

In the United States, Freenet is a tool that enables FBI, with a little help from their friends, to identify American perverts beating off to CP (noise, processed discreetly) under the cover of providing cover for activists in [REDACTED] (signal, processed even more discreetly).

Re:Actually Surprised...

[steelfood]

The producers are not the consumers. You are rooting for free speech, because the alternative does not actually address the actual issue you're concerned about.

You're effectively asking the question of whether you want real safety or the perception of safety (and whatever amount of real safety that might come with it). Personally, I'd go for real safety. And in this case, it means doing real detective work and catching the perps taking the pictures and videos, instead of nabbing the low-hanging fruit (and consequently making a big stink about it, despite not having prevented anything or saved anyone).

Re:Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

You cheer for freedom because child pornography is always going to exist, but your freedoms might not.

Re:Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

...guess I thought Tor probably already had an FBI/CIA back door.

I also know victims of childhood sexual abuse and the lasting effects it has.

Here is the fundamental chestnut used to justify all the hoo-hah around CP and CSA general. There are two problems:

(1) There have been good studies that indicate many boys willingly engaged in sexual activity with an adult (yes, many are willing "victims") actually do not suffer any harm at all provided that the context for that activity meets certain criteria. Those criteria excluded force etc. When psychologists Rind et al collated and analyse all the data and came to that conclusion, they were attacked and pilloried by quite inappropriate bodies such as Congress. People only want to hear that it must *invariably* "ruin lives" (yet again).

(2) What actually defines both CSA and CP is now hugely broad. Way too broad. Prison sentences for merely touching a child's butt are manifestly absurd. Any photo of a child (even fully clothed) is potentially CP if a judge says it is. One US State gave some poor idiot who downloaded CP 10 years for every single image, resulting in a huge sentence (was it 300 years?) that was widely decried as inhumane and far in excess of a murder sentence. Nuts, nuts, nuts.

Society's current knee-jerk response to these issues is crazy and, manifestly, does not work.

Re:Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. The majority of people posting in this thread fail to realize that the pornography seized is used as evidence to find the perps. And that those with a pile of porn are most likely to be the offenders that are eventually going to create it. Is no one here a parent? If I catch someone raping my child. I'll kill them. If I find someone jerking off to pictures of my kid being raped. I'll kill them too.

Re:Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did, then they would be busting people on silkroad left and right. But that has never happened. (I know several people who use silk road regularly)
Which proves two things actually. Tor works and so do bitcoins. Both if used correctly provide at least a decent level of anonymity.

Re:Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they don't have a backdoor, they will want people to feel safe on Tor because the safer you feel, the more information you will share about yourself. Tor only protects against identification via IP. It does nothing against surveillance. It actually helps surveillance because it provides bottlenecks where all traffic is bundled, and any agency can control a number of these even if they don't control the physical backbones. I wonder if there aren't more rogue exit node operators than idealistic ones.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[antifoidulus]

Because people in general, and the US in particular cling to this whole "law and order" fantasy that states the stricter the punishment(and more people you arrest for it), the less the problem occurs. And have we seen with drugs, that simply doesn't work. And the paranoia and bloodlust surrounding child abuse/porn in the US probably results in MORE child rape, not less. In most places in the US psychiatrists are REQUIRED by law to report any people that come to them for help with pedophilia, regardless of whether they actually pose a real threat to anyone(and in fact may be going to the dr to help them avoid doing so, therapy has been shown effective for past offenders). So they have to essentially "go it alone" or else risk ruining their entire lives by being outed. And what often happens is that they cannot cope and end up hurting a child. And this is pretty much the only disorder that they are required to report, someone comes to them to try to avoid going on drugs or to help them with their violent tendencies nothing has to be reported unless there is a high probability the person is going to hurt themselves or others, but pedophiles are different, we somehow feel that they should be locked up for seeking help....

That is not how economics works

[betterunixthanunix]

Someone always brings this up whenever the issue of child sex abuse imagery is discussed. This argument is wrong and should not be pressed for the following reasons:

1. Supply is a matter of scarcity, not a matter of demand; in this case, the scarcity only exists for new child abuse images, since the images can be reproduced at no cost once they have been released.
2. Demand is a matter of the willingness people have to pay for something. Demand in and of itself never creates supply.
   
   In the case of child abuse images, it is not necessarily true that anyone who possesses such images actually did pay for them. Like anything else that can be downloaded, child abuse imagery can be downloaded at no cost online, and people so exactly that. Arresting someone who was never willing to pay for child abuse images does absolutely nothing to the demand for those images.
3. Child sex abuse images are extremely risky to produce, since the consequences of being caught producing such imagery include lengthy (potentially indefinite) prison sentences. People do not generally produce such images and then send them to others without being paid in some way, either with money or with some sort of barter, including swapping images of child abuse. Only someone who is not bothering to act in their own best interests would send a photo or video of themselves committing a serious crime to someone who is not paying for it.

If you want to combat the economics of child abuse imagery, you need to reserve prosecution for people who actually paid for the images in their possession. Otherwise, you are just going after the low-hanging fruit, while leaving the truly dangerous people -- the people who are abusing children -- untouched.

Re:That is not how economics works

[anss123]

If you want to combat the economics of child abuse imagery, you need to reserve prosecution for people who actually paid for the images in their possession. Otherwise, you are just going after the low-hanging fruit, while leaving the truly dangerous people -- the people who are abusing children -- untouched.

In fact, going after free pictures may actually help those that make CP for profit. CP profiteers are probably sitting in countries that the law can't get to, and by blocking the free spread of CP it drives up demand for paid CP.

However, it is possible to make a profit out "free" porn, and I assume CP is no different.

Re:That is not how economics works

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to America. We incarcerate weed possession and beat protesters because real justice is too hard.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the more it is available the more likely people start to get ideas. For example, maybe if people watch cp enough they will want to try it out with their own kids or other children. Maybe because certain people masturbate to it, the government thinks they want to do those things to children. I wonder if it is that farfetched to think this? I mean its still exposure. And maybe if you don't have cp at all available maybe it will be less likely people see and want to try those things with children. Isn't it true that when people watch porn at times they wish they could do those actions in the porn? Well maybe this is the same thing and governments just trying their best to stop it. I am not sure.

Dangerous freedom.

[Voogru]

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. Eventually these pedo's will screw up and get caught. Time to go do some real police work.

Re:Dangerous freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The vast majority of pedophiles will not "screw up and get caught". Because the vast majority of pedophiles never actually harms anyone in the real world.

Re:Dangerous freedom.

[slashmydots]

Speaking of that, last I heard, there are so many idiots with shared libraries by default on p2p networks that the user can instantly, in realtime, and persistently be traced back to an IP. In fact, typical US connections' IPs are so non-dymanic that they could double check that the IP address is still associated with 1 modem at 1 residence 10 seconds before they break the door down and arrest them. Assuming freaky pervs are as tech skilled as average people, I bet not a whole lot of them specialize in locking down a peer to peer client, lol.

Here's the kicker. Any FBI higher up has stated on multiple occassions that there just aren't enough agents to keep up with the volume of just the "easy to catch" pedos on peer to peer. Why would you go after encrypted, super high tech, utlra hard to track targets when you're short on manpower catching the 2 week turnaround type arrests?

I know individuals are seen as less valuable than shutting down an entire website and its operator but it still goes back to simplicity of arrests vs resources available.

Conclusion: the FBI and US gov just doesn't like TOR :-P

Problem?

[J'raxis]

Surveillance thwarted? Sounds like TOR is functioning exactly as it should.

If there's any actual "problem" here, that problem is the FBI.

Re:Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI: "There's a kid being raped behind this door."
You: "Glad to see the lock is working."

Re:Problem?

[J'raxis]

We're talking about information, not acts. Digital encodings, bits on a hard drive. The acts are long since gone, and may have been committed years prior and by someone dozens of degrees away. Your logic is akin to claiming that distributing copies of murder scene photographs makes one a murderer.

But I rarely expect to see rational thought on this topic.

Sounds like something we should work on...

[betterunixthanunix]

Yeah, I'm sure it's a piece of cake tracking down the precise identity of some random abused youth locked in a completely generic concrete basement. There are only millions upon millions of generic concrete basements out there in the world.

Sounds like a hard task; we should be putting lots of agents on this one...

Oh wait, most of the arrests made for child sex abuse images are for possession, downloading, or sharing -- not producing -- and most of the police officers working on these cases are going after the low hanging fruit, parading around the occasional producer they manage to find. If the police were focused on catching child abusers, they would devote the bulk of their resources to catching such people, and not get distracted catching people who just like to look at images of child abuse.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[longk]

There was child porn and sexual exploitation of children way before the Internet came around. I'll be happy to see it removed from the Internet, just so my kids don't run into it, but not for a second do I believe that it does anything significant to reduce demand or actual harm to children. Unfortunately people with these needs will simply turn elsewhere. Directly to children if they must.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Dahamma]

Cartoon depictions of child sexual activity (commonly found in manga) is against the child porn statutes in many countries. So, yes, I can tell the difference, but the law can not.

Of course it can. "The law" is not a computer program, it's interpreted by people. And the law and those people can't somehow infer that an entire medium is now illegal because someone used it to do something illegal. Movies, photos, and comics (Japanese or not) are entirely the same in this regard.

People want to pretend this is some slippery slope, but you know, it really isn't. Jeez, since when did NAMBLA have such a big following on slashdot?

Gun Control and Crypto-control

[wanderfowl]

Reading the comments on this thread, I'm realizing that likely within our lifetimes, we'll be having the same debate about strong cryptography that we're now having about guns, likely spurred on by stories like this about pedophiles, terrorists, "hackers" and all those other scary people on the internets.

Some of the same talking points are already in use ("We'll need them when the government comes for us", "Only criminals need them", "If they're banned, only criminals will have them and we'll be defenseless", etc), and strong cryptography, much like guns, are something that the governments and law enforcement fear as they can make it possible for people to break the law (just or otherwise) without the government being able to stop them.

I hope I'm wrong, and of course, you can't quite ban code so easily, but still, a scary future and an unpleasant debate may well be ahead.

Re:Gun Control and Crypto-control

[strikethree]

Reading the comments on this thread, I'm realizing that likely within our lifetimes, we'll be having the same debate about strong cryptography that we're now having about guns

Umm... you do realize why openssl was developed overseas (meaning outside of America since I am American) right? You do realize why the author of pgp was in danger of being arrested? ITAR. Strong crypto IS already considered the equivalent of normal weapons.

Re:Gun Control and Crypto-control

[Kjella]

Not cryptography - anonymity. At least in Norway in the public debate very many large forums now require full name, and those that still allow nicknames generally require that you activate your account with a cell phone - and all cell phones in the country are tied to your personal, government issued ID, both subscriptions and prepaid cards. It is practically impossible to participate in a way that couldn't be traced if the government issues a warrant. With EU's Data Retention Directive they now want to store who you've emailed with for 6-24 months, right now it's only email but everybody understands that if you can get around it by using any other form of messaging system it will be expanded to include all of them pretty soon.

For now you'll get to keep the contents private, but the government wants to keep a record of everyone you're in contact with. It's not like that has a potential for abuse or anything....

Re:Gun Control and Crypto-control

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the comments on this thread, I'm realizing that likely within our lifetimes, we'll be having the same debate about strong cryptography that we're now having about guns, likely spurred on by stories like this about pedophiles, terrorists, "hackers" and all those other scary people on the internets.

You're way behind the times kid. Strong Cryptography was considered a deadly weapon on the US "Not to be exported ever (without permit from State Department)" list. Strong Crypto was "Weapons Grade" and was restricted like other military armament.

The removal from that list was only around 1998-2000 IIRC, if it winds up back on it then that is just winding the clock back by a decade.

[The false equivocation is also annoying. Guns kill people, crypto doesn't; I'd like to see you kill someone with a "loaded crypto". Whatever you think about gun control, conflating the two is a pointless waste of time]

Re:Gun Control and Crypto-control

[Anonymous Coward]

This has already happened. Go look up the crypto-wars in the 80s and 90s when strong crypto was legally regarded as a munition. Thankfully the argument was settled in favour of the public having access to crypto, at least in part to the actions of groups of academics, techies and campaigners.

Now, go support the EFF, FSF and ORG, so in N years time you can post "Thankfully the argument was settled in favour of the public having the right to control their own computers, at least in part to my actions".

Re:Gun Control and Crypto-control

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the comments on this thread, I'm realizing that likely within our lifetimes, we'll be having the same debate about strong cryptography that we're now having about guns, likely spurred on by stories like this about pedophiles, terrorists, "hackers" and all those other scary people on the internets.

We already had that debate, 5-10 years ago, over PGP.

Re:Gun Control and Crypto-control

[k6mfw]

we'll be having the same debate about strong cryptography that we're now having about guns

what bugs me is all these gun rights activists advocating 2nd Amendment rights but typically are same that want to allow more warrentless search and surveillance, or they support politicians that want more warrentless search and surveillance. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised when liberatians stand up for both 2nd and 4th Amendment, though many times their first priority is 2nd Amendment at expense of the 4th. If the guvmint comes after you, it will not be armed troops but "we got a file on you."

My thoughts

[AHuxley]

1. The FBI does not have the cash, tech, people or access to telco hardware to seamlessly track content from one exchange to the end point in the USA.
If you sent abc to your exchange, some trip, back into the USA, back to another exchange - the message is still abc.
Could a mid budget US federal agency log all US net traffic for a few days, weeks vs a large city?
2. The FBI has the tech in the form of sneak and peek, key loggers to get down to your home and collect all data in real time.
At this time it does not want people doing strange things to nice consumer operating systems to spoil the quality of tracking.
So they talk of Tor been hard work as aspects of VoIP tech once was suggested to be.
3. The FBI recalls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore and the reaction of the UK gov.
4. The FBI recalls the number of .gov and .mil staff and contractors it might find
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pentagon-declined-investigate-hundreds-purchases-child-pornography.html
Budgets, laws and hardware will gift the US "net" as a simple network in real time soon.

gee, false dilemma much?

[Anonymous Coward]

gee, false dilemma much?

Freedom of speech until that speech does actual harm to another or encroaches on others freedoms. .

Government monitoring of communication when a warrant has been issues by a judge.

You go live in your black and white world and I'll live in my shades of grey.

Oh snap. I forgot this is /.

everyone here thinks in 1's and 0's.

Sorry 'bout that. Carry on.

Re:gee, false dilemma much?

[BlackSabbath]

> when a warrant has been issued by a judge

Seriously? We live in a world where even "after the fact" FISA warrants are not enough for some. Hell, there is currently legislation mooted in various countries that would allow corporations the same kind of powers just because you MIGHT be sharing a movie.

And you think I'm deluded...

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Z34107]

Cartoon depictions of child sexual activity (commonly found in manga)

Bullshit. Your local Barnes & Noble is filled with manga volumes completely bereft of child porn.

It'd be just as (in)accurate to say, "Graphic depictions of sexual abuse (commonly found in Spanish literature)" or "Vivid roleplaying of homosexual violence (commonly found in sports)."

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[zill]

Manga is basically Japanese comic books. You wrote:

According to a strict interpretation of the law, in the US, possession of a manga cartoon is worse than several violent crimes.

which is equivalent to saying:

According to a strict interpretation of the law, in the US, possession of a Japanese comic books is worse than several violent crimes.

which is completely false. Only the possession of manga that explicitly depict sexual activity involving children could be considered illegal. Just like how movies aren't illegal, only movies that explicitly depict sexual activity involving children are illegal.

This is the exact same point Dahamma tried to bring up. His post was pretty clear, at least to me. Maybe you should read it again.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Victims of axe murdering do not have the tendancy to grow up to be axe murderer themselves.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you didn't compensate the producer of the images, you in no way contributed to the market of child pornography.

I don't disagree with most of your points except your first. The fact others download and view the material provide validation and acceptance to the producers which probably is worth far more than money, and it also contributes to a sense of normalization of their behavior for all participants. Taking away money won't stop CP any more than taking away all CP will stop child sexual abuse but it does help discourage it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[houstonbofh]

Ooops... Your right. If I could correct my post I would. I meant "possession of some manga cartoons" and got it wrong. The point was that no one was harmed in the production of that type of cartoon.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[houstonbofh]

http://www.japanator.com/post.phtml?pk=8753

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/27/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/

And this was a few seconds on Google. It happens.

What happened to Anti-Phorm, Antiphormlite?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Tor is that it's based on erasure, invisibility, hiding tracks. It involves a second server which may or may not be trustworthy. FBI could compromise Tor pretty easily. In 2008 there was a firefox extention developed for what I call "cookie camouflage", aka "white noise browsing". The concept was to let a background browser search randomly, words from the dictionary, etc. But when I go to the developers and try to download antiphorm software, I cannot get anything to work. http://tinyurl.com/digihaystack

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Ziekheid]

You're kidding right? Murder is less bad than child abuse?
So you're pretty much saying you'd be better off to kill anyone who was abused. I'm out of words..

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[dgatwood]

Two things:

First, although this isn't an extremely rare reaction to abuse, it is by no means the norm. The sex abuse victims I've known (admittedly a small sample size) have not wished that they were dead. Such a reaction is not healthy, and can get worse with time. If you truly feel that way, please seek proper counseling from a trained medical professional. Help brings hope. You can recover from this.

Second, not to diminish your experience in any way, but what you're describing is a fairly well-understood psychological phenomenon. The problem with your argument is that the reaction you describe isn't limited to sexual abuse (or even actual abuse). A certain subset of the population reacts in this way because of bullying, physical abuse, serious financial losses, relationship breakups, and any number of other crises in their lives.

Clearly a guy dumping his girlfriend isn't guilty of something as heinous as murder, or else we're all in trouble. Yet for some people, it is just as bad. For this reason, you cannot judge a crime's heinousness based on how a particular individual is affected by the crime, but rather based on the typical effect. Most people would rather live than die, including most victims, and calling abuse a worse crime than murder is essentially claiming that even the abuse victims who do not feel that they would rather have died would still have been better off dead.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grown men who watch manga, with its thinly veiled sexualization of young girls, probably need to take a hard look at themselves.
It may not be illegal, but it's certainly pathetic.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[cheekyjohnson]

Jeez, since when did NAMBLA have such a big following on slashdot?

Yes, they're guilty by association! They must be part of that group!

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[cheekyjohnson]

but it does help discourage it.

I don't believe the fact that it might help discourage it warrants prosecuting the people who didn't even rape anyone over maybes (maybe they encouraged more child porn to be made). I think it's just a waste of time.

working as intended

[Anonymous Coward]

a picture of child abuse is information that the us government thinks people shouldn't posses or distribute
an embarrassing picture of a party official is information the chinese government thinks people shouldn't posses or distribute

no government can be trusted to control communications because anyone who seeks the power of government is an inherently corrupt person and will use that power to further his personal agenda

tor doesn't go far enough, there needs to be an ad-hoc network that doesn't rely on the internet backbone, one where the government can't take back control by cutting off a few central nodes - a network where anyone without technical skill can set up a node with a bit of usb stick software and commodity hardware

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[cheekyjohnson]

For example, maybe if people watch cp enough they will want to try it out with their own kids or other children.

I think that's about as valid as saying that someone who watches pornography will go off and rape someone simply because they don't have anyone to have sex with. I haven't seen any evidence (which I believe is incredibly important) to support such a thing.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you rather your child was molested and so badly abused that they became molesting murderer?

Tor vs. AntiPhormLite

[retroworks]

What ever happened to antiphorm? Noise, camouflage, false flags generated by a random search generator seems like an easier approach than Tor, and requires no second party server. I don't like getting ads based on my health care searches. I'd be fine if terms for child porn were omitted from the search.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[thegarbz]

I was sexually abused as a child. I wish I had been killed instead.

If you *ACTUALLY* wished for this then you would have offed yourself shortly after. The fact is that people throw the words "I wish I'd been killed instead" around so much that it actually has no meaning anymore. The only people who really wish this cease to live.

So why are you still alive?

I'm making some assumptions here. For one you're on the internet browsing slashdot, your spelling and grammar are good so it looks like you've gotten to be a functioning member of society. Why do that if you would rather have been killed?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[PopeRatzo]

if you can't tell the difference between a comic book and child porn you are a pretty twisted person.

My parents had a scrap book that had pictures of me butt naked in a kiddie pool in the back yard. By today's standards, they would be considered the most dangerous criminals in the world.

Pictures of kids used as sexual imagery is icky as hell, but let's not bullshit here: it's all an excuse to stop people from downloading movies. The entire child porn hysteria is ridiculous. And if a "child was raped" to make the porn, then the rapist needs to be arrested, for rape.

Pictures is pictures. Rape is rape. And until the FBI starts treating the ongoing sexual abuse by clergy and football coaches as seriously as child porn, it's pretty clear that the whole child porn mania is just a cover to control the Internet. There's a worldwide criminal enterprise that enables child rape and they are hiding behind "religious freedom". There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are dozens if not hundreds of cardinals and one pope that should have done perp walks long ago. Child porn my ass.

Ask those of us that have been abused.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in a support group for survivors of childhood abuse, and I'm not the only one that has tried suicide

Consistent evidence shows associations between child abuse and neglect and risks of attempted suicide in young people and adults. In the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study in the United states, Felitti et al. (1998) indicated that adults exposed to four or more adverse experiences in childhood were 12 times more likely to have attempted suicide than those who had no adverse experiences in childhood.

Quote source - http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs20/rs20.html

beat you to it...

[PopeRatzo]

My parents had a scrap book that had pictures of me butt naked in a kiddie pool in the back yard.

Of course, I was 28 at the time.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[thegarbz]

Bullshit. If you abuse and rape an adult repeatedly they end up with the same severe mental disorders. The human mind develops for its entire life. Disorders can form at an adult age, and they can also be treated.

Mind you child abuse really IS different in one respect. That is that in the GP's post you are replying to murdering a child deprives them of more life than murdering an adult.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Crash24]

From what we know, an ended life experiences no suffering past death. Child abuse potentially robs young people of mental well-being from the psychological trauma for the rest of their lives. You may consider continued existence to be above all else...but what of living the rest of your life condemned to post-traumatic misery? The numerous victims of such abuse that have committed suicide would - if they still walked this Earth - beg to differ.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[elucido]

It's just pictures. Better the creeps inside jacking off than outside doing it personally. Isn't it time to get the government out of the bedroom?

Most parents think otherwise and want to punish the creeps for thinking creepy thoughts.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[adolf]

And in other news, I'm very scared of spiders.

It's the truth, so I don't need to post about it as AC.

I can't sleep sometimes because of it. I often have horrible dreams about spiders. I remember spider encounters when I was young, particularly with some horrifically weird, big, leaf-crunching monsters of the arachnid family that were all pink and had long, tubular legs, and wouldn't die from just one well-placed blow from my mother's foot -- it took several before it stopped running, let alone stopped trying.

And the sad part is, I used to like spiders -- a long, long time ago.

It still makes me twitch uneasily, just now. Cry? No, not normally. But thanks, asshole: Now I'll be up all night wondering if my house is sufficiently poisoned, with my skin crawling in fear that something has made its way past my indoor chemical defenses and the fleet of toads that I keep around the foundation of my house as a first-tier defense.

What kind of life is that?

(And the point is that there's a lot of things that can result in recurring emotional trauma for a human being. Some of them are chemistry-related, some of them are environmental, and most are probably a combination of both.)

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[million_monkeys]

You're posting links to videos (without including any description of what's in the video) in the comments to a child porn story???

As has been pointed out above, if one of them happens to be kiddie porn, everyone who clicks on it suddenly become a sex offender (at least in the US) through no fault of their own. Maybe that was your point, i don't know.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your personality and identity do not develop your entire life. This is why psychologists don't diagnose personality disorders until you are an adult since the personality hasn't solidified. But once it has, it is called a personality disorder because the disordered parts will remain part of your personality until you die. Personality disorders can't be treated with drugs--only specific symptoms (like depression and anxiety) can be treated. Generally, only learning coping mechanisms will help a person. The same applies to identity disorders.

A woman who is raped at 30 years of age doesn't develop BPD. She may develop PTSD, anxiety, depression, etc. But her personality and identity remain intact. The same is not true for a child.

Sorry, but you are full of shit. This is an area of abnormal psychology that has been studied extensively. Feel free to look anywhere on the Internet for "personality disorder" and you will find the same information.

No it's sex

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because it's Pure Evil", well no, it's sex with a minor.

We don't allow sex with a minor because a) it has a higher risk of physical injury. b) they may not have consented and are more open to intimidation than grown ups.

I had sex aged 12, the girl was 13. It was crap, neither of us really knew how to please the other. Was it pure evil? No, it was just crap.

"Not to mention that it might encourage the creation of more"
That's the core of the problem there. We're trading off ease of prosecution by creating a substitute crime that's easier to prosecute. Now that crime threatens anonymous free speech which in turn threatens the freedom the law was there to protect. At some point we have to decide this substitute crime is doing so much damage that it's better removed.

How many dead dissidents equals one person looking at CP?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Crash24]

Second, not to diminish your experience in any way, but what you're describing is a fairly well-understood psychological phenomenon. The problem with your argument is that the reaction you describe isn't limited to sexual abuse (or even actual abuse). A certain subset of the population reacts in this way because of bullying, physical abuse, serious financial losses, relationship breakups, and any number of other crises in their lives.

If someone lit your face on fire, don't worry. The damage and pain you feel is are well-understood physiological and neurological phenomena. People experience pain like this all the time, so your pain isn't all that special and you should really just buck the fuck up.

sexual abuse (or even actual abuse)

So Sexual abuse isn't actual abuse? Boy, better tell all those rape victims out there that they weren't assaulted.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ozmanjusri]

"Vivid roleplaying of homosexual violence (commonly found in sports)."

Don't complain.

At least playing rugby keeps them off our streets and out of our zoos.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[TFAFalcon]

So once a person rapes the child, there is no reason to even consider letting the child go. After all, the punishment for murder is the same, so why increase the risk of getting caught by letting the kid go?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ed1park]

You can make a valid case for murder as some people deserve to die. (capital punishment, assassination/execution of terrorists/dictators, war, etc.)

Do children ever deserve to be violently raped to be recorded for digital distribution for others to enjoy?

Murder can be more acceptable than CP in some circumstances, so it's not so irrational as one might easily conclude.

It's not the mob, it's Craiglist.

[Fred Ferrigno]

The Silk Road works like eBay or Craigslist. They don't sell the drugs themselves, they let users sell to other users. Even if a seller did get caught, which I'm sure has already happened, the seller doesn't work for the Silk Road and doesn't know who runs the Silk Road. There's no "boss" for them to roll over on. It's just a website.

With a lot of effort, they can take down individual sellers who are basically no more than street dealers. Infiltrating the Silk Road itself is evidently proving to be much harder.

Biological Reality vs Intelligent Design

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a biological reality that children reach puberty and become fertile and their hormones want them to have sex.

So we are way down the slipper slope already. It's already like intelligent design where religion has taken a regular idea and distorted it into a good vs evil extreme idea. Now to even suggest that CP shouldn't be illegal because the damage it causes to free speech are too great, is to invite an FBI raid.

Yet to bring you back to reality, its biologically programmed into every everyone, and the definition (18 in the US?, 16 in most places) of the legal age bears no relation to the level of hormones that drive this.

It's unbelievable to me that the FBI would attack free anonymous speech in order to prosecute some tangential crime, that isn't even the crime they want to prosecute!

Re:Biological Reality vs Intelligent Design

[gmack]

Years ago a company I worked for ad a top site listing system that ended up being used by CP site owners to allow their customers to find their sites even as they changed hosting/domains and I got an eyeful that I'm never going to get out of my head.

The images weren't anywhere near puberty, in fact, they were 3,4 and 5 year old children being raped by adults. I was going to mod this whole thread down but then I realized that normally we only hear about the cases where the law does something questionable rather than what it is supposed to do. I know Canada has a CP task force and I know they spend most of their time investigating crimes against children under the age of 10 and the police use the images to find the children that are still being harmed.

Re:Biological Reality vs Intelligent Design

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, you saw some sick shit, so let the producers live and continue to produce sick shit in the shadows while attacking and destroying anyone who is so much as hinted at potential association with a group similar to the group that those producers might belong to.

Makes perfect sense.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[pegasustonans]

You're posting links to videos (without including any description of what's in the video) in the comments to a child porn story???

As has been pointed out above, if one of them happens to be kiddie porn, everyone who clicks on it suddenly become a sex offender (at least in the US) through no fault of their own. Maybe that was your point, i don't know.

A healthy dose of paranoia is good and all, but you're far more likely to run into risque material on Channel 4 than youtube.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

I guess since the thinkofthechildren crowd became worse.

Simple egoism. NAMBLA won't affect me, the thinkofthechildren crowd might. We're at the point where you could go to jail if some pervert judge gets a boner over your kid's pics that you thought were innocent.

Stressful Slashdot Headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's ridiculous, but seeing this headline on Slashdot and reading the summary brought on an intense anxiety and stress attack. I'm a boy lover who's never touched one since my best friend and I were in love when we were 12. I'm 35 now and have had to deal with the stress my entire teen and adult life, but I've never done anything to a boy, ever, and don't ever plan to (and never get married, have children, etc).

It's a major stress trigger for me when child pornography gets into the news (as it often does), because it makes me so jealous (I want to have more pr0n - just boys playing with themselves would be fine). Even though I have a decent amount already, I stopped collecting in 2007 when I lost track of the constantly-moving groups on usenet. I've looked into freenet and TOR for this reason before, but I've always been too scared now. It doesn't make sense to take the risk. But it doesn't mean I don't want it to help relieve stress in my life.

You can't imagine what it's like.

So reading the summary, I was again reminded of the ability to get more pr0n and it gave me a pretty sharp wave of anxiety and cravings (I'm an addict, too - why wouldn't I be? It helped me to ignore all of these problems). Since I no longer am on opiates anymore now that I've quit, I've had to rely on kratom, and as soon as I had my reaction to TFA, I had to eat some more kratom, even though it doesn't really help.

For anyone who reads this who is thinking that I should get some help for my sexuality/porn addiction, being a drug addict (even just kratom) and on antidepressants means that my sex drive is very low. And where would I get help, anyway? There are no legitimate support groups, telling my psychiatrist would be very dangerous, and that goes for my therapist, too. I did tell my therapist, even though it was very dangerous, so at least I have someone I can unload on. I'm on medication for depression and anxiety. What else can I do?

Really? What else? I'm not going to castrate myself (chemical or otherwise) when I haven't done nor ever will assault or touch a kid. I'm not going to kill myself because of my sexuality, although my depression has made me suicidal in the past. I'm getting medication and have a therapist. I avoid situations or places where I might be exposed (haha) to boys, treat them as the enemy. My (close) friends know I'm attracted to little boys, so they also can kind of make sure I'm not put into a situation where I might be compromised. I stay away from other pedophiles or websites related to them. What else can I do?

Anyways, wish I could get more pr0n, and I don't mean child molestation pr0n, for christ's sake. an mpeg of a little kid using his webcam by himself having an orgasm would be great... but possession of even one such video can net you 20 years in federal prison. amazing and horrifying.

I can only think of the many silent others who are like me. Child pornography should be legal because free speech is free speech. Viewing a recording of a crime should not be illegal. I believe that sex with children is immoral and damaging. Yet there are many videos of children and sex that are not damaging (like my example above, or a 12-year-old taking an erotic picture of himself of his own accord and putting it on the internet. shouldn't be illegal).

Here's another comment by me:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2841383&cid=39963075

Re:Stressful Slashdot Headlines

[DamnStupidElf]

Sadly, I imagine you are stuck until science has progressed enough to either let you alter your sexual preferences or let other adults modify their bodies into a form you find attractive. So hold out for the singularity, I suppose. Good luck.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

Yeah, since it worked so well for drugs, it will do wonders here...

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[shadowofwind]

I'm not the AC, but here's one scenario....You don't kill yourself because you hope you'll recover and have a happy life. Then when you're older you find you never healed, but its too late to kill yourself because doing that would harm other people, such as your own children who depend on you.

I'm not implying that sexual abuse is worse than death for all people, or even for most people. I'd guess that it isn't, and in some cases its probably not even that big of a deal. It depends on the abuse, how the person responds to it, and a lot of other factors. But for some people, yes, definitely, being killed would be better.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[pegasustonans]

Cartoon depictions of child sexual activity (commonly found in manga)

Bullshit. Your local Barnes & Noble is filled with manga volumes completely bereft of child porn.

It'd be just as (in)accurate to say, "Graphic depictions of sexual abuse (commonly found in Spanish literature)" or "Vivid roleplaying of homosexual violence (commonly found in sports)."

Unless a manga volume involved inappropriate sexual contact with a minor, then all manga volumes are bereft of child porn.

The End.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

What's worst is that we reach the point where raping a child and killing the child comes up with almost the same jail time. So what's the logical thing to do if you're a rapist?

Hint: A dead witness cannot testify.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

Yes. So? If it makes them happy and only keeps ONE single child from being molested when they can beat off to comic pictures, drown them in their drawn jack off material.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The suicide rates of child abuse survivors are astronomical--molestation will often lead to the death of the abused child, but only after years and years of a tortured existence and then by their own hands.

{{Citation needed}}

I wouldnt ask but you're AC.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[SuricouRaven]

Only low-budget movies, of course. If it comes from hollywood, it's exempt somehow. For example, Britain has a law against 'extreme pornography' which prohibits depictions of genital torture. Yet when genital torture was used to interrogate James Bond in Casino Royale, no police agency seemed particually concerned. I suspect that if exactly the same scene had been shot, word-for-word and action-for-action by a minimal-budget independant studio they'd have at least been forced to cut it to avoid a risk of prosecution.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's Pure Evil, and I don't like it. Not to mention that it might encourage the creation of more (and we need to arrest people based on maybes and blame them for the actions of others even if they didn't pay them a single cent). Oh, and it's far easier to catch people who look at pictures than it is to stop those who are doing the molesting.

Yesterday my wife made me watch some dumb chick-flick with her. There was a (rather disgusting) scene where they were changing the diaper of a little baby girl, and it gave us a full-on "money shot". That's apparently perfectly OK, but if you were to post a still image of that frame it would be considered child porn. So if you're really going to jump on this bandwagon, you should probably start by explaining why it's ok for person A to possess certain images but not person B.
Don't get me wrong, the stuff disgusts me as well, but the brutal truth is that the sick fucks who like kids are going to jack off to pictures of kids no matter what you do.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

A good friend of mine is serving 180 months for child pornography. Did he produce it? Sell it? Rape children? No. He ran an IRC fileserver and it was uploaded by a user. His upload directory was accessible, which is admittedly an idiotic thing to do. Some FBI agent across the country found it on his server and started the ball rolling. Eventually his house was stormed by agents and all computer equipment seized. He had deleted the files long before this point, but of course they were easily recovered.

He was charged with four (or five? Been a few years) offenses, all of which carried a sentencing recommendation of five years. All but one that is -- advertising. This charge was included as the behavior of an IRC file server (i.e. "Type !hotxxxpics to access my server") is considered by the law as advertising. The majority of the charges violate 18 USC 2252A which deals with possession. The advertisement charge violates 18 USC 2251 which deals mostly with creating and selling. Everything would've been covered with a five year sentence, but the advertisement pushed it to fifteen. The feds have been tossing this advertisement charge in wherever they can get away with it to raise the mandatory sentence. Google it. Or don't, as you'll likely be red flagged by some FBI drone.

All court proceedings occurred in the state where the FBI office is located despite the fact that there is a federal courthouse in a town less than an hour from here. A request for change of venue was denied. Your tax dollars paid to buy him bus tickets across the country, food and lodging while he was there, and bus tickets back. Upon the urging of his federal public defender, he eventually plead guilty. As noted by his PD, the 180 month sentence is higher than the sentence recommendation for voluntary manslaughter or conspiracy to commit murder.

This friend is a decent person, father of three, whose life has been functionally ruined. He left his children in elementary school, and will be released as they finish college. He did something ridiculously stupid and will pay for it for the rest of his life as he is subject to "lifetime supervised release." He's met murderers and rapists who are serving shorter sentences. My suggestion was to plead to possession, as, well, he was possessing it, but to fight this advertisement shit tooth and nail. His PD made it clear that he was absolutely not interested in doing so as it was not likely to work and he'd end up with a longer sentence than he would by pleading guilty to all of it. Your tax dollars will be paying for his incarceration for fifteen years because some jackass uploaded CP to his file server and some FBI agent noticed it. Apparently others have already tried (and failed) claiming an eighth amendment violation. This is widespread and completely out of control.

Veered somewhat off topic ... sorry ... someone mentions how CP is prosecuted and I get a little pissed. Thanks for letting me vent.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[dgatwood]

If someone lit your face on fire, don't worry. The damage and pain you feel is are well-understood physiological and neurological phenomena. People experience pain like this all the time, so your pain isn't all that special and you should really just buck the fuck up.

That's not even remotely a valid interpretation of what I said. What I said was that the fundamental problem with the argument that death is preferable to child molestation is that in the vast majority of cases it isn't. When it is, it is caused by either the circumstances being particularly heinous or the victim being particularly susceptible.

The heinousness of a crime in the general sense should not be gauged based upon unusually extreme examples of that crime. It is a crime to rob a bank. It is a crime to rob a bank by dropping an atomic bomb on it and sucking up the molten gold using a giant vacuum cleaner. Robbing a bank is not (typically) tantamount in heinousness to nuking a city.

The victim being particularly susceptible/vulnerable, as a rule, means that the victim needs more/better counseling, not that the crime was more heinous (unless the reason for choosing that victim was because the victim was particularly susceptible/vulnerable).

At no point did I suggest that anyone "suck it up". Quite the opposite. The only acceptable response to a post like that is to recommend professional counseling. Suicidal thoughts are nothing to screw around with.

So Sexual abuse isn't actual abuse?

You parsed that sentence wrong, though I'll admit that my elision of two implied words could cause someone to read it that way. Reinsert the implied words "limited to" and you'll understand the intended meaning:

...the reaction you describe isn't limited to sexual abuse (or even limited to actual abuse).

In other words, not only is it not limited to the sexual abuse (a narrow category), but it is further not even limited to actual abuse (a broader category that includes the former). Many people experience those symptoms even in some situations where they merely perceive abuse, but no actual abuse has taken place. The key point was that until the person (whether an actual victim or not) chooses to stop acting like a victim, no healing can take place, and the fact that some people react in this way to any one particular crime is irrelevant in determining its heinousness because some people react that way to every crime to some extent (and to many, many things that are not crimes).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[rrohbeck]

But dead children go straight to heaven so killing them is not so bad!
Sorry, had to be pointed out. The whole heaven and hell BS is behind a lot of legal "thinking" like the death penalty.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

More correctly, if there's no demand willing to hand over money, there's no supply. So follow the money!

If no-one ever did anytinhg without getting paid there would be no consumers.
The entire capitalistic system relies on people thinking that there are things worth more than money.
The demand/supply concept is incomplete. In a lot of fields there are hobbyists that enjoys doing things for charity/free. This is very common for the traditional art like music and paintings but if you look around on the internet you will also see that you can find a lot of work in engineering done on hobby-basis and available for free.
This doesn't completely remove the supply/demand connection but it offsets it to a position where there is a base supply without any demand at all. (And when it comes to the more common arts like music I suspect that the base supply might even cover the world demand.)

Oh please...

[jotaeleemeese]

Move to bloody Somalia then, you won't pay any taxes or will be forced to do so, literally at gun point. Win-win situation for the likes of you that love to whine about taxes in free societies.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ghostdoc]

Because the demand is a mental condition that is not caused by CP.

If you're not a pedo, you don't want to look at pictures of children being raped. If you are, you do.
The pictures don't cause the condition, so reducing the availability of the pictures is not going to reduce the demand for them.

However, reducing availability of the pictures could cause people with the condition to go and rape children because they can't get their jollies from the pictures.

So clamping down on CP will have no impact on the numbers of pedos, and could conceivably increase the occurrence of child rape. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

What the heck are you reading ? Hentai ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"child sexual activity (commonly found in manga)"

No, what is commonly found in manga is hyper-sexualisation (big breast girl and so forth) and scantily clothing. Porn and sexual action by children is not commonly found in manga. It is only commonly found in a sub type of manga readily called Hentai ("pervert"). In fact the only rare "sex" I can remember from all the manga I recall reading was with older teenager, and really never showed explicitely.

Re:What the heck are you reading ? Hentai ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not understand that even a 15 16 or 17 year old is considered a minor in the US and there fore possessing it is considered CP? So even if they are teenagers in Manga, anything less then 18 is still considered CP. Also anything that may look like they are under 18 even with the huge breasts is considered CP.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

Careful what you wish for, it might lead to a lot more dead kids. Hint: Dead rape victims can't talk.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit. I've worked with several child abuse victims and this sort of behaviour just isn't accurate. They usually have problems with sex, they're confused about it all, they have nightmares, same as a lot of other people for different reasons.

But it's not this kind of sensationalist posturing that needs to stop if we're going to have a rational debate about this.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK Barnes & Noble. All men are child predators?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/omar-amin-grandfather-barnes-noble-childrens-books_n_1571412.html

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[sjames]

There is some of that, but hobbyist music carries no risk of jail (no matter how bad it is :-).

Following the money might not wipe it out completely, but I'll bet it puts a huge dent in it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hold back... say what you really think!

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Swampash]

Chance of getting caught after committing child abuse when there's a witness: X

Chance of getting caught after committing child abuse when there's no witness: X

Easiest way to ensure your abuse has no witness: kill the child afterwards.

If the penalty for each act is the same there's no reason to leave the child alive.

Not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

A statute of limitations dictates the time period within which a legal proceeding
must begin. The purpose of a statute of limitations in a criminal case is to ensure the
prompt prosecution of criminal charges and thereby spare the accused of the burden
of having to defend against stale charges after memories may have faded or evidence
is lost.

There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes punishable by death, nor for
certain federal crimes of terrorism, nor, since passage of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act (P.L. 109-248, H.R. 4472, 2006), for certain federal sex
offenses. Prosecution for most other federal crimes must begin within five years of
the commitment of the offense. There are exceptions. Some types of crimes are
subject to a longer period of limitation; some circumstances suspend or extend the
otherwise applicable period of limitation.

Arson, art theft, certain crimes against financial institutions and various
immigration offenses all carry statutes of limitation longer than the five year
standard. Regardless of the applicable statute of limitations, the period may be
extended or the running of the period suspended or tolled under a number of
circumstances such as when the accused is a fugitive or when the case involves
charges of child abuse, bankruptcy, wartime fraud against the government, or DNA
evidence.

Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the crime has been
completed. Although the federal crime of conspiracy is complete when one of the
plotters commits an affirmative act in its name, the period for conspiracies begins
with the last affirmative act committed in furtherance of the scheme. Other so-called
continuing offenses include various possession crimes and some that impose
continuing obligations to register or report.

Limitation-related constitutional challenges arise most often under the
Constitution’s ex post facto and due process clauses. The federal courts have long
held that a statute of limitations may be enlarged retroactively as long as the
previously applicable period of limitation has not expired. The Supreme Court
recently confirmed that view; the ex post facto proscription precludes legislative
revival of an expired period of limitation. Due process condemns pre-indictment
delays even when permitted by the statute of limitations if the prosecution wrongfully
caused the delay and the accused’s defense suffered actual, substantial harm as a
consequence.

Source: Page 1, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

I'm not aware that there's a law against showing videos where you physically harm a minor? Well, as long as it's not sexually, that is. But just recently I've seen a father spank his son on daytime TV in one of those "reality shows" (to my defense, I misplaced the remote).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[GrandCow]

It's just pictures. Better the creeps inside jacking off than outside doing it personally. Isn't it time to get the government out of the bedroom?

If you've ever stumbled onto CP through any of the random image polling scripts from the image sites, what you see can be soul crushing. The looks on the children's faces are that of absolute depression and mental anguish. These children never had the option to say 'no' or reject what was happening to them... they were forced into their situation and what is happening to them will destroy their entire futures. They didn't start doing drugs and have to resort to porn to pay for their addictions, they were kidnapped and didn't know what was happening until their childhoods were irrevocably destroyed.

I support tracking down anyone who is sharing these images, since it leads to either one single person not sharing them with others, or (hopefully) maybe to the source. Yes, some people who are deprived of images will proceed to attempting abductions in real life; BUT these same people have a fairly high chance of doing the same thing with or without pictures. The larger idea of stopping these pictures from going out is to stop the BUSINESSES of child porn. There are people that kidnap and rape children just because they get paid for it. That is one of the things the government is trying to stop. Take away the subscribers and even if you can never find the source, at least the businesses stop getting paid and hopefully do less abuse to children.

TOR is awesome... it allows people in countries that are locked down to communicate freely and see beyond the propaganda that their governments are forcing on them; unfortunately though, in a system with absolute anonymity there will be those sick individuals that post and share images that society as a whole knows are horrible. Some of those will never be traceable, and that is sad but also the entire point of the TOR project. I would like to be able to trace them and shut them down, but that same ability would allow oppressive governments to shut down whatever they didn't like when they see dissenting opinions.

One other point: I have read the thread so far and it seems that a large portion of the people are complaining that Japanese hentai are what people get busted for. While that may be true in rare occurrences like someone sharing gigabytes of CP manga... I've worked with law enforcement on CP cases, and they really don't care that much about comics. Yes it's part of the law, but at least in the US, the FBI normally goes after the people with REAL CP and not cartoons. And even then, they go after the people with true collections and not 1-2 images in their cache that they stumbled into while searching random sites. Please link me to a news article that proves me wrong if people are getting busted for single images, since I am only an individual person and could have missed something. And before someone says "they don't report on small time CP busts," yes they do. Every time I've been involved with a CP case, the media is all over it as soon as they find out. They love to put the 'bad guy gets busted' stories in the news.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

Drugs are also illegal. And unlike CP, the demand for which is (at least to my knowledge) driven by the sex drive, the most powerful drive in humans aside of survival (and maybe even surpassing that), the demand for drugs is artificially created, by druggies craving it due to trying it and later getting hooked on it. I kinda doubt that pedos grow up as completely "normal" people, then decide to take a look at CP and suddenly turn into pedos. Knowing my own sex life I can say that I knew pretty early in my development where I'm heading. It's nothing I found out over night when looking at porn for the first time and going "hey, I should try that, it looks cool".

So we have a "war on drugs", substances that people have to choose to want, and we fail miserably at winning on that front. Drugs are everywhere. Even in the most tightly regulated and surveyed of places, namely prisons, drugs are easy to get.

Now, if we even fail at that where people have to willfully go out and start with the crap, how does anyone think we're going to be able to control stuff that is probably innate in the people who want it?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

So most parents think it's better that these creeps go out in the park and take pictures of their kids to wank to instead of looking at drawn pictures?

Most parents are sick fucks.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite all the mental gymnastics in the law books, children can give an informed consent to sexual acts. Mind you, I'm not arguing that their consent should be regarded, but applying a blanket presumption of rape is unreasonable.

As the 'merkins say...

[arikol]

Freedom isn't free!

This is the cost of protecting our free speech rights, and protecting free speech worldwide. As soon as we make a system that really gives us all a chance to exercise free speech there will be some abuse of that system. It's inevitable.
We must then use other methods to catch these offenders because the encryption of the free speech mechanism will always be evolved to stay one step ahead of those who wish to break it. And I hope that anyone distributing CP gets caught, but not at the cost of sacrificing anyone else's freedom; that would punish the innocent.

Re:As the 'merkins say...

[doccus]

Well, unfortunately, it's become clear to me that (especially in the "West") the majority appear not to want to pay the price it's become more about "Free" these days than "Freedom"

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the murderers' and victims' children occasionally do.

RE: untraceable child porn last time I looked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you looked (and publicly confessed), please proceed immediately to the authorities and surrender yourself.

Good luck in prison!

Captcha: campaign

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[anss123]

You parsed that sentence wrong

isn't limited to football (or even sports)

isn't limited to football (or even actual sports)

Not a native speaker, but I think it's the "actual" word that's the problem. It's what implies that football isn't a sport in this case. So adding "limited to" doesn't really fix that.

Free speech != Anonymous free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately technology is forcing us to decide -- a repressive police state that enforces your views of censorship, or a society that allows free speech. What little middle ground there ever was is rapidly vanishing.

The middle ground isn't going anywhere... That's just FUD.

Taking responsibility for what you say have nothing to do with censorship, repressive police states and/or free speech.

You have a right to free speech, but you never had a right to anonymous free speech!

Taking responsibility for what is say is hardly a repression.

Re:Free speech != Anonymous free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

With your explanation the USSR under Stalin was also a country with free speech. You could say "Stalin is an idiot" but be prepared for the consequences. You have a right to free speech, but you have to take responsibility for what you say.

North Koreans also have right to free speech, but, like with the USSR they have to take responsibility for insulting the Great and Glorious Leader.

The village idiot was omnipotent and omniceint?

[dbIII]

If the FBI had a back door to Tor, the first thing they'd be doing is running articles like this one

The first thing they would do is leak it sixteen different ways due to somebody using it in a high profile situation to leverage a promotion.
You are talking about a group that still uses "lie detectors" FFS because they still don't want to admit they were scammed by the writer of a comic book and Hoover taking kickbacks. They are all about appearance and politics with law enforcement as a very distant second.

Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeated behavior rewires the brain. It strengthens the impulses, potentially turning slight interest in to an uncontrollable obsession.

Billy is jerking it on the internet, going through image boards. He enlarges a thumbnail to discover it's child pornography. Despite having no history with pedophilia, his aroused state tells him the image is sexual in nature and therefore ok. It happens again and again. Eventually, Billy is turned on only by children. The dangers involved only make him more excited. Eventually, Billy feels he has the opportunity to live those fantasies while watching his 9yr old niece for the weekend. He starts while she's asleep, she can't tell anyone and the risk of her waking drives him crazy. Then, the next day, when he's built up the courage, he asks her in to the bedroom for a secret game. Just as he's about to take his clothes off, Samuel L. Jackson busts in to the room and shoots him in the motherf*cking face with a motherf*cking shotgun. He looks at the little girl and says "I pity the fool who don't stay in school!"

Don't be a Billy. Be Samuel L. Jackson.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marry little girls.

Snow white was 7.
Aishia was 6.

Bathsheba was... "a little lamb" (2 samual 12)
Deut 22 28-29: girl from infancy till adolecence is what they're talking about.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's also saturation therapy (I think it's called): masturbating way too much tends to make the stimulus boring eventually. This has been used as one kind therapy for sex offenders, sort of the opposite of aversion therapy.

Re:Hello?

[neminem]

Is it sad that I was totally expecting to be bel-aired, and was a little disappointed when that isn't how your story ended?

Also, I don't think that's quite how it works... normal people aren't turned on by children, would be disgusted by the thought, and would continue to be disgusted by the thought no matter how many images you showed them while they were horny and thinking about non-disgusting things. (As opposed to pictures of -post-pubescent- girls who just happen to not be 18, which most guys would be turned on by, because 18 is a totally arbitrary number. Yes, most 17 year old girls aren't exactly totally mature, but they don't become magically more mature on the night of their 18th birthday, either. I have met a couple scarily-attractive 14 year olds, not because I'm attracted to girls who look 14, but because they could easily have gotten fake ids and passed for over 21. (Until they started talking, then the illusion was broken.))

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

In short, he would have probably served a shorter time if he actually was a pedo who raped and killed his own kids without taking pictures of it.

This would be ridiculous if it wasn't so sick.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Plunky]

What is this "letting the kid go" thing you are talking about? The vast majority of child abuse happens in the home, by the parents.. Kids getting abducted and raped is pretty much the exception as far as I know. People don't abuse kids because they want to hurt them, they do it because they [think they] love them.. and killing is rarely going to be a part of that

Not to mention, that letting the kid live has other advantages.. firstly, you told them not to tell and you might get away with it (vs a dead kid is pretty obvious) and secondly, you might get to do them again (you can do that with dead kids but not for long I guess).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[anss123]

There’re also those folks that think they'll be punished in the afterlife if they kill themselves.

However, if you really prefer to die, it's _always_ an option, but if you're dead, you're dead. Saying that it would harm your children and loved ones falls into "grasping at straws" territory, as said children wouldn't exist if you died as a child, and other loved ones would still be hurt by your death either way.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the AC, but here's one scenario....You don't kill yourself because you hope you'll recover and have a happy life. Then when you're older you find you never healed, but its too late to kill yourself because doing that would harm other people, such as your own children who depend on you.

I'm not implying that sexual abuse is worse than death for all people, or even for most people. I'd guess that it isn't, and in some cases its probably not even that big of a deal. It depends on the abuse, how the person responds to it, and a lot of other factors. But for some people, yes, definitely, being killed would be better.

How depressing, I'm going to go kill myself now... ...or am I?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[TFAFalcon]

Then why not ban all violent art? Why not ban the Bible while we're at it. It describes a guy being nailed to a cross after all. Let's not give people ideas.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple places to find this information, but I'll link to one with pretty graphs and that isn't too overburdened with scientific-ese.

The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study

I'm not directly linking to the PDFs, but I'd recommend reviewing "The Relationship of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adult Medical Disease, Psychiatric Disorders, and Sexual Behavior: Implications for Healthcareï".

The ACE study has a questionnaire listing some general child abuse questions (10 categories). Some items to note:

An ACE Score of at least 7 [categories, not incidents] increased the likelihood of childhood/adolescent suicide attempts 51-fold and adult suicide attempts 30-fold

(from the findings on depression and suicide PDF--note that 7 is an extremely high score which indicates very severe abuse)

An analysis of population attributable risk (that portion of a problem in the overall population whose prevalence can be attributed to specific risk factors) shows that 54% of current depression and 58% of suicide attempts in women can be attributed to adverse childhood experiences.

In general, you might say that if you were not abused as a child your suicide attempt rate would be ~1%, if you were moderately abused it would be about 10%, and if you were severely abused it would be 20% or higher. Completed suicide rates aren't listed, but other studies have shown the correlation between attempts and completed suicides.

These are some of the results of one study. Other studies come to the same conclusion. Child abuse is strongly linked to suicide, both as children and adults.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[petman]

No, my left.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[isorox]

Stop being pedantic. That's very likely what he was referring to. Prosecuting people over pictures of imaginary children is just ridiculous.

Yet many western countries do this. They also prosecute people over picutres of adults that the court decides might look like a child, and they can also prosecute a husband who has a picture of his wife's tits if his wife is, or looks, under 18.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[isorox]

Jeez, since when did NAMBLA have such a big following on slashdot?

I'm a big fan of Marlon Brando

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true in the UK. We now have an "extreme pornography" act that makes it illegal to own images which are "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays "in an explicit and realistic way" any of the following:
* An act threatening a person’s life
* An act which results (or is likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals
* An act which involves (or appears to involve) sexual interference with a human corpse
* A person performing (or appearing to perform) an act of intercourse (or oral sex) with an animal (whether dead or alive)
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person (or animal) was real.

This isn't about child porn, mostly it's about BDSM (the law largely came in as a knee-jerk reaction to a man who killed his partner, and happened to be interested in BDSM although it couldn't be proven that that had anything to do with why he killed her).

Now for the weird part. The images are illegal even if those images were between consenting parties and even if no crime was actually committed (eg if the act was merely acted out or below the threshold required for GBH etc) and it's illegal to own the images even if they are of yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_63_of_the_Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[dbet]

So, just for argument's sake... when I was 14 I video-taped myself masturbating on camera. 12 years later, tools came out that let me convert the video to an MPG. 12 years after THAT, is today. I'm an adult, who may or may not possess images of a sexual nature involving a minor (me). Tell me who is harmed if I decide to share them.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[q.kontinuum]

I think it is time to distinguish between fiction and reality. In some states (Germany e.g.) even fictional stories without any pictures can be considered child porn, drawings without any actual minor involved are considered that way as well.

I think it is also time to remember that the transition between "child" and "adult" does not happen in the magic of the 18th birthday, but is a process. An 19 year old having a 17 year old girlfriend is perfectly normal, and if they fancy to take nude pictures of each other I find it ridiculous to consider this child porn.

However, for actual photos of actually abused children (or even really raped adults) I will strongly oppose you. What do you think, how will these wounds heal with the child still knowing that perverts all over the world are jerking off watching the evidence of their abuse? How does a traumatized adult feel, when he goes to lets say a job interview, or even just to the bank, knowing that the person he's talking to might also have seen these pictures? As long as the pictures are used and distributed freely on the internet, in my opinion the abuse and the humiliation is still ongoing. I think if we are talking of actual photos of actual rapes it makes perfect sense to ban these and to make their possession punishable by law.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Btw, I have no issue with the last two bullet points. Although they're already covered by previous laws so this act wasn't needed.

The first two are those many people object to. Firstly the act is already covered by previous laws if a crime was committed. Do the images really need to be criminalised too? Especially if they're acted not of a real event, and of yourself. The act was merely brought in to criminalise the ownership of images of acts that were already illegal, but due to vague wording criminalised a far wider range of images too.

Many mainstream films in fact make far more realistic appearing depictions than some of the images that are criminalised (I think they get away with it under the 'a reasonable person looking at the image' clause since people viewing a film are well aware that it's all acted, makeup and CGI).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

But they are pictures of child abuse. If the authorities don't go after everyone involved in child porn, it creates a much larger incentive for those who produce it to generate more by abusing more children. It's the same reason why it is illegal to create snuff films.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[wvmarle]

In most places in the US psychiatrists are REQUIRED by law to report any people that come to them for help with pedophilia,

It is really sad to hear that.

In case of a psychiatrist, they should have a confidentiality requirement like e.g. medical staff and clergymen have too: whatever you say to those people (when in function at least) they must keep confidential, even a judge can not overrule that. For that is what allows them to fulfil their duties, the person seeking help must be sure that what he says in the psychiatrist's clinic stays in the clinic.

Of course there is always the ethical issue that when you learn about a crime someone committed, should you report it or not. And I'm glad that there is still the confidentiality, which tells these people that they can not, and are not expected to, reveal criminals.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Smauler]

I was sexually abused as a kid. It did fuck me up a bit, but not too badly, and I got over it. I'm now a relatively happy, well adjusted person - currently single, but have had numerous normal, healthy relationships.

If you're seriously suggesting that I'd be better off dead, you can go fuck yourself.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Jappus]

Careful what you wish for, it might lead to a lot more dead kids. Hint: Dead rape victims can't talk.

Any good forensic examiner would like to disagree with you.

True, you should probably visit a psychiatrist if you think you hear the dead speak, but that does not mean that they can't talk.

Three guesses why the Mafia and certain other organized criminals give you concrete shoes -- or even directly cut out the watery middle-man and simply embed you completely in concrete.

Remember: In the family, the Omertà and oath of silence extends even beyond death.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

because they [think they] love them

To be a punctuation pedant, this would have been better enclosed in proper parentheses ('(' and ')'), as square brackets are often reserved for rewording partial quotes to fit the sentence structure, but not change the meaning.

To throw something positive in, as well, I believe you're spot-on about the abuse happening at home bits. It's most often a relative, almost always someone well-known to the child, and only in absurdly rare cases is it ever a stranger. "Stranger danger" was a damn dirty lie, in many ways teaching children to explicitly trust people that are in reality most often the abusers (not that trusting random strangers is a good idea, but that explicitly teaching them to trust everyone they know is a bad idea).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe it is in reverse - if the only way to see a naked child is to get hold of one and tell him/her to undress then maybe more people would do it. Now they just look at pictures.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confused. Your confusion is obvious in the last sentence of your post. "It does help discourage it" indicates not just poor expression but also a lack of clarity of thought behind the expression.

Stopping human discourse where people discover what others may think is a completely different action than limiting a market. Stopping discourse is offensive to the very notion of human freedom. This is true even when disagreeable subject matter is involved. We recognize the freedom of the KKK to rant and rave but we arrest if the KKK conspires to injure anyone. That is the line between what is free speech and what is crime. Advocating action to criminalize discourse in order to keep people from dicovering what others think is more dangerous than child pornography.

The fact that child porn can find its way into a computer's cache without any intention to view child porn on the part of the user is completely ignored in your statements. A law that only requires possession without having to prove intent is repugnant and more dangerous than child porn. We know that dishonest and abusive actors have held governmental power in the past. It is resonable to believe that such actors can hold government positions in the future or at this time. The current child porn laws make it possible for abusive officials to damage our lives to the point that child porn would seem frivolous in comparison.

FBI Hunt For Thwarted By Tor

[davecason]

This is really a fill-in-the-blank story. You could easily drop in "malware" or "criminals" or the "evil" empire of your choice and that would easily reboot this conversation. Tor is going to protect whoever uses it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Kjella]

His PD made it clear that he was absolutely not interested in doing so as it was not likely to work and he'd end up with a longer sentence than he would by pleading guilty to all of it.

Never trust a public defender who says you should plead guilty. They're constantly overworked and will recommend that in 99.99% of the cases regardless of the actual merits. He turned down a fighting chance to save 10 years of his life for what? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Your tax dollars will be paying for his incarceration for fifteen years because some jackass uploaded CP to his file server and some FBI agent noticed it.

And that jackass created, with practically no effort at all, cannon fodder that would clog the justice and prison system for years. Probably even longer if your friend had tried to fight the charges, as most people getting so extremely fucked over would. Then again this is not exactly new, I remember way back I heard of AOL banning people trying to access chat rooms that had been banned. The new sport was of course to rickroll people into going there and getting innocents banned. If you create enough noise, the signal is lost...

I've seen enough henta to know where this is going

[Anonymous Coward]

...what you really meant to say

On Psychopathy and CP

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is everywhere.
The problem is thousands of years old.
The FBI hunt on the web, will fail, but be used to expand into areas it never was meant to be
The root of the problem is deeper than people or the FBI realize.
You can keep deluding yourselves that TOR is the problem. It's not, psychopaths are
But since you can't pay attention long enough, to learn this yourself, some "authority" will come along with quack science like the DSM and guide you the way they want, if during the war the destruction of TOR happens, it's what will happen.
What we have to start doing is recognizing these people and telling them no, and putting them where they can't hold power or hurt others.

http://inceptionradionetwork.com/the-stench-of-truth-welcomes-thomas-sheridan/

FBI so crazy!

[LucyMary]

Maybe they angry !

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because children were exploited to take those pictures. If they were cartoon pictures depicting children characters or they were images of adults presenting themselves as children, I'd agree with you. But if the pictures depict real children, then somewhere, some time, a child was in front of a camera, probably not of their own volition, and allowing this depiction of minors to continue, and allowing there to be a customer base for it, simply allows this exploitation to continue.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ArsenneLupin]

Because to me, yes, murder is less bad than child abuse.

Even if the child survives?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ArsenneLupin]

I was sexually abused as a child. I wish I had been killed instead.

It's not too late yet. Go find a bridge and jump!

the real Problem is the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Outlaw children and their making of. No more children, no more child porn. Kill everyone under 18. All good thereafter. Not to mention this solves global population explosion.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you see bonds genitals? - No
Do you know they're acting and it's all fake? Yes /end

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ArsenneLupin]

As noted by his PD, the 180 month sentence is higher than the sentence recommendation for voluntary manslaughter or conspiracy to commit murder.

So, why then didn't he just off the asshole pig from accross the country that got him into trouble? And the expert witness too, who "recovered" the incriminating pictures from his PC. He would have gotten a lesser sentence, and made the internet safer for the rest of us.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ArsenneLupin]

Stop being pedantic.

Stop calling innocent people pedantic. You might get them into more trouble than you bargained for...

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ArsenneLupin]

The Canada link is especially shocking. Apparently the goons are specifically targeting visitor to this comics' convention, so it's not even a case of "reasonable" custom agents surprised by a medium that they do not yet know enough.

They go out of their way to rifle to people's books and possessions.

It's astonishing that the convention organizers haven't yet moved it to a safer location. Canadian tourism industry doesn't deserve the convention visitors' dollars, if they can't convince their customs to be more reasonable.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[gatkinso]

You must realize that half of Slashdot's readership is into kiddie porn, hence the vitriol.

Everyone wants to hate guilt-free ....

[Anonymous Coward]

And we've run out of options. You can't openly hate people of a different race, creed or gender anymore, and a good thing, too. But it's politically correct and all fine and dandy to hate, hunt, imprison, torture and kill suspected pedos, however broadly they may be defined.

Geeks @ HQ != Agents smashing down doors

[sirwired]

The computer experts at FBI Headquarters are not the same ones that go smashing down doors trying to find abused children.. In fact, the local "smashing down doors" bit is usually done largely by local law enforcement personnel. That means that anything useful the computer experts contribute is a bonus to what local law enforcement (or those in FBI field offices) were doing already.

And cracking open distributors is a very good way to find those that created the images... they had to be uploaded from somewhere. If the authorities are busting a drug dealer, they use that information to go after the bigger fish upstream. In addition, many articles about this topic have pointed out that admission to the most complete networks often requires the uploading of unique images. I'll leave it as a chilling exercise for the reader as to where those images might come from.

Re:Geeks @ HQ != Agents smashing down doors

[dgatwood]

And cracking open distributors is a very good way to find those that created the images... they had to be uploaded from somewhere. If the authorities are busting a drug dealer, they use that information to go after the bigger fish upstream.

The problem is that, unlike drugs, (electronic) porn is something that is not destroyed when it gets consumed. A person who uploaded something is orders of magnitude more likely to have previously downloaded it than created it, and determining that (while ruining that person's life) usually gets you no closer to the original source.

For example, assume that person A downloads it from site A, uploads to site B. Person B later downloads from site B and uploads to site C. Person C later downloads from site C and uploads to site A again because it has been purged from that site. Or whatever. As soon as you have a loop in the graph, you are no longer making progress towards the source because discovering the original source requires resources that no longer exist (e.g. server logs from a decade ago).

By contrast, a drug dealer knows from whom he or she purchased the drugs, and that person is always closer to the original source. Arresting the purchaser, however, is not particularly useful (except perhaps as a means of compelling him or her to testify against the dealer), and as a rule, actually sentencing that person to jail time is a complete waste of resources.

In addition, many articles about this topic have pointed out that admission to the most complete networks often requires the uploading of unique images. I'll leave it as a chilling exercise for the reader as to where those images might come from.

That's the way I would expect any FBI honeypot to be run. It would eliminate almost anybody who didn't hurt an actual child. From there, you wait, gather information, and eventually begin providing files that require a custom tool to extract them—a tool that surreptitiously phones home. You've now caught thousands of actual sexual predators.

That's also the sort of site that any smart criminals would be wise to avoid for precisely that reason. Merely being a member of such a club is very nearly proof of guilt, which is several levels of risk higher than a typical site containing illegal content.

Put another way, you wouldn't join a movie piracy club that required you to rip a new movie and upload it. Why would any remotely sane person do so for a type of illegal content where the punishments are even worse?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[dimeglio]

"Obscene" depictions of children, even if drawn, is wrong and has no place in a civilized country. I hope the convention moves elsewhere.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

And neither did the adults who were also put in to slavery and human trafficking.
What point did you have again?

There is absolutely no difference besides the ages of them.
Why is nobody thinking of the adults?
Both of them suffer mental anguish, both have lost a life, both have been corrupted.
What makes an adult so special over a child? There is literally no difference between, say, 17 and 18, besides a number.
They have barely any more experience with life, with making decisions or whatever else, IF ANY.
Schools certainly don't teach people how to logically analyse a decision and take in to consideration the repercussions of it. They just batter you down and turn you in to a drone and it works most of the time, and the others are labeled "problem childs". (And sadly I am not even kidding with that part)

You aren't committing a murder when you look at a beheading.
You aren't torturing an animal.
You aren't banging a child.
Images shouldn't ever be illegal, even if looking at it crashed your brain or whatever other weird sci-fi images have existed in stories.
Quantities should be illegal. Nothing else.
Fair game if you investigate some dude because he has a TB hard drive filled with gore pictures, he is probably unstable as high-hell. But just because they pop on to whatever is the best gore site of recent years doesn't mean they want to go around murdering people. Same goes for CP, abuse and whatever else.
Hunt down the people producing, not consuming.
You can't realistically go after all consumers, and barely even the larger consumers of it.
And scare tactics have never worked, see every pirate in the world who doesn't give a damn about stupid letters from media companies.
I've seen far dodgier things written in plain text than I have in images. Discussion is far worse than some bits arranged in to a picture.
Go after those actively discussing stuff related to the topic at hand. Those are the possibly dangerous people.

Child Porn == Bogeyman Of Surveillance Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

The Surveillance Industry and Coppers Without Jobs (CWJ) use "Child Porn" so that they can justify big fat government contracts and their very existence as a CWJ. There are actually tons of CWJs and they could get laid off, if they did not make up new tasks for themselves ALL THE TIME.

Gun control vs Crypto

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, the key difference between a debate on encryption and a debate about guns is that you can't use encryption to kill anyone.

Re:Gun control vs Crypto

[PPH]

Encryption is more like a bullet resistant vest than a gun. Body armor and armored vehicles are illegal for civilians to posses in many jurisdictions.

I don't have to define any of those things

[sirwired]

Just because I didn't define all those words (that is what we have legislators and courts, however imperfectly, for) doesn't mean you didn't present a false choice.

There are laws that define the permissible scope of warrants that answer all of your questions, and the answers vary depending on what is being monitored, what state the laws are written in, etc. It's reasonable grounds for discussion. compromise, and a solution (that's how that whole democracy thing is supposed to work.)

Saying that your only choices are 100% tyranny or 100% freedom is not a valid basis of discussion. Hence the name for it: Logical Fallacy. Real life is usually not an either/or question.

Can we apply the same tactics to cars and make...

[3seas]

...everyone walk instead?

Attaching TOR to child porn or any other unethical or illegal activity is no different than doing the same with cars. So how come the FBI isn't claiming FORD is a vehicle of illegal drugs? Why don;t they attach the internet to lying politicians?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I assume you are going to ban every image of children entirely, then?

Because people who masturbate to children ARE going to find pictures of them in whatever way they can.
Whether it is a shopping magazine for kids clothes or online.

If they can't? Thanks, you just made millions of pedos in to possible rapists. Well done you fucking genius.
Your naivety just made a harmless masturbatory act in to a full-on nightmare to police.
Now what do you have to say for yourself?

You "for the children" freaks are making the problem worse.

The RightThingToDo(TM).

[TapeCutter]

Yes, we all agree it's bullshit to be prosecuted for owning a nude Bart Simpson, but I'm guessing not a lot of people jack off to cartoons, even less are arrested for it, and one or two may have actually been convicted for it. I for one seriously doubt the voracity of some of these stories simply because a more rational explaination is sensationalisim by a journalist eager to attract eyeballs, for example I tried to find court details for the Bart Simpson case when it was reported here in Oz but came up empty handed? Was he really prosecuted for the nude Bart, or was it just one image in a vast collection?

A common tactic used by pedophiles is to trivialise the offense by broadening the definition until it becomes meaningless, for example the congressman who was caught sending sexually explicit texts to 14yo boys engaged in work experience was also instrumental in broadening the scope of sexual offenders list to include things like public urniation and nudity. The tactic is not new or confined to peopdophiles, the Bard wrote about "protesting too much", now I'm not claiming that this is what the journalist is doing but if you assume for a moment that the story is sensationalisim then it certainly becomes a possibility.

Bottom line is I think the nude Bart Simpson case is tabloid bullshit that belongs on snopes, but if you (or anyone else) have a link to some primary sources for it I would be both gratefull and humbled.

Personally I used to think that the right to free speech trumped the victims right to privacy. However that was when I was younger, since that time I have learned ideologies are supposed to be guidelines for wise choices, not a rule book for a dogmatic life. Having 'flip flopped' on the issue over several decades I now firmly believe it should be a offence to knowingly posses what the GP described (images of pre-pubecent child rape, or for that matter any rape). Yes that opinion puts a limit on free speech but it does not have to limit the visual and theatrical arts. Yes it's debatable if jacking off to CP is harmful/helpful to society, but contrary to popular opinion around here we do in fact live in a democracy and the vast majority of the population (including me) think prosecuting these people who jack off to rape videos is The RightThingToDo(TM), like me they are not going to change their minds just because someone, somewhere, (allegedly) abuses the justice system once in a blue moon*.

* - Unlike the (alleged) abusive prosecution above, I know "blue moons" exist because I've seen them first hand on several occasions. Prosecuting the prosecuters who knowingly abuse the justice system is also The RightThingToDo(TM).

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[TheCarp]

"I now firmly believe it should be a offence to knowingly posses what the GP described (images of pre-pubecent child rape, or for that matter any rape). Yes that opinion puts a limit on free speech but it does not have to limit the visual and theatrical arts. Yes it's debatable if jacking off to CP is harmful/helpful to society, but contrary to popular opinion around here we do in fact live in a democracy and the vast majority of the population (including me) think prosecuting these people who jack off to rape videos is The RightThingToDo(TM), like me they are not going to change their minds just because someone, somewhere, (allegedly) abuses the justice system once in a blue moon*."

A couple of things....

First, I feel bad for pedophiles. I didn't used to really, in fact I never really thought about it until I was hanging out with some friends and ended up watching that train wreck "to catch a predator". The biggest alcoholic in the group had one of those clarity moments and said "boy, for all my bad addictions, I am so glad I don't have that desire" (though, admittedly I have seen them claim people on that show were going to meet "kids" as old as 16, which, is getting into those fuzzy areas...shit 16 is legal here...)

You know...I am glad I don't either. Yes, as much as I want to be against law in all cases, its good to stop the rape of children, and dealing with the people who do that is a good thing, and justified. The ones who just jack off to kids... yah maybe they are a danger and need to be dealt with too but... there is a difference in action and, arn't these people sick? It seems like, prison isn't exactly the right answer, though, leaving them be is probably not a good idea either.

Now that said... "but contrary to popular opinion around here we do in fact live in a democracy and the vast majority of the population (including me) think prosecuting these people who jack off to rape videos is The RightThingToDo(TM)"

No, its a constitutional democracy, and actually a republic. The point of a constitution is that majority opinion is great for many things but, is not the right way to decide civil rights, because it really means not having them. It takes a lot more than majority opinion to take those away, or it was supposed to. Turns out the system can be pretty well gamed when few understand and less care.... and has been.

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[bobcat7677]

I disagree to a degree. While CP is despicable stuff. And those who watch/make/distribute it deserve an especially painful spot in hell. No laws should be enacted in such a way that the only way to catch people who violate the law is to trample everyone's right to privacy on some governmental witch hunt. Doing so just invites other less moral people to abuse the system and innocent people's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be taken away. Especially there should be no law against possessing it, since it's way too easy in the electronic age to have it present on your computer without your knowledge. And once it's made, the damage is done. Punishing someone for their deviant interests is getting into the "thought crime" realm. The focus should be on preventing the stuff from being made in the first place...which means PARENTS being INTERESTED in their kids and knowing what's going on with them. If more parents actually had some relationship with their kids they would find out when these things happen and turn in the offender (the way it should work, as opposed to FBI witch hunts).

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[BronsCon]

The fucked up part is it's worse than you describe. If you're a pedophile, you can't even seek help; if you mention your desires to a counselor, it is immediately to be considered as though you have described a planned crime in detail and to be reported to police immediately following the session. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what happens after that.

So, if you have ever find yourself sexually attracted to a minor, you're kind of screwed. If you don't see anything wrong with it and you act on it, you're probably going away for that. If you do see something wrong with it and seek help, you're probably going away for that.

Prison is an eventuality for a pedophile. If you seek help, you will be reported and arrested; if you don't seek help, you will eventually act on it.

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[Anonymous Coward]

The focus should be on preventing the stuff from being made in the first place...which means PARENTS being INTERESTED in their kids

I'd be less than surprised to find out a lot of it is actually made that way...

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[BronsCon]

Enforcement doesn't seem appropriate, let along not being enough.

Let me try on a few hats, here (and make it clear that I am wearing a hat, that all that comes with that hat goes away once I remove it). Let's just suppose, for a moment, that I'm a drug addict.

Now, I recognize that using drugs is destroying my life, so I seek help. I go speak to a counselor and tell them I have these urges and I need help ot figure out why I have them and what I can do to essentially make them go away. They help me and I no longer feel that I need to use drugs.

Now, let me remove that hat and let's suppose, for a moment, that I'm a pedophile.

Now, I recognize that actually doing anything with or to a child would irreparably harm them, so I seek help. I go speak to a counselor and tell them I have these urges and I need help ot figure out why I have them and what I can do to essentially make them go away. Later that day, I am arrested, my home raided, all of my family photo albums and computer equipment confiscated to be searched for images of child porn. A thumbnail of a girl of unverifiable age is found in my browser cache, I'm tried and convicted on charges of posession of child pornography and face 5 years in prison.

Why? I never touched a child, the girl in the image (a thumbnail, with no accompanying full-size image found in my browser cache, indicating that I likely never even looked at it or knew it was there) may well have been over 18, and I was seeking help so that I would not harm anyone. I did nothing wrong. So, why?

Now, let me remove that hat. I rather enjoy my freedom and situations similar to the one I describe above have happened in my country.

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[scot4875]

A common tactic used by pedophiles is to trivialise the offense by broadening the definition until it becomes meaningless, for example the congressman who was caught sending sexually explicit texts to 14yo boys

That's not pedophilia. It's still wrong, but it's absolutely *not* pedophilia. Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent (or pre-pubescent-looking) children. If you're attracted to tits and shapely hips, you're not a pedophile. If you're attracted to fully functional penises, you're not a pedophile.

The reason I piss in the wind to point this out is that misusing the word 'pedophile' cheapens its meaning. Calling someone who has a relationship/flirts with teenagers a pedophile lumps them in with people who molest 4-year-olds, when reality is that the things are *completely different*.

--Jeremy

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[TheCarp]

I didn't know that part....yah thats not a recipe for dealing with issues, its a recipe for letting them fester and get worst. It puts a clear evolutionary pressure on abusers to get better at not being caught... it ...wow...

But yes prison. Ugh. My sister is a prison gaurd. Its disgusting the extent to which prison has become the hammer which turns all problems into nails. Pedos are hardly the only mentally ill people who end up there more for lack of any other infrastructure for dealing with them.

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[Cazekiel]

The ones who just jack off to kids... yah maybe they are a danger and need to be dealt with too but... there is a difference in action and, arn't these people sick?

They are, and the problem with that sickness is that in most cases, they escalate. Many, if not the majority, of sexual offenders start small (peeping into windows, stealing women's underwear) and move on to do much, much more (violent rape, murder). I'm not saying we should give a person 20-to-life for peeping, but more needs to be done with a peeper, or in this case, someone who likes looking at naked children.

And what about the kids IN the pictures/videos? They aren't fictional, they're real people who are being victimized. I agree with the idea that using fictional people/characters doesn't hurt anyone and there's nothing illegal about it (I myself write fiction involving 16-17 year old high school characters, some of it sexual), but the fact is, if you're someone who likes actual, real kiddy-porn, you're the reason it's being made. You're their market. Those kids are being hurt and degraded because someone out there wants to watch kids being raped. And while I don't want to say that watching child rape unequivocally leads to committing child rape, the chances that it WILL happen are much more likely. It's already an unhealthy, dangerous start, and after a while a pedophile needs something more.

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[davydagger]

unless your a celebrity, and then its the puritanical backwards American legal system oppressing you.

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just wow. I had no clue about distinctions in deprivation.
Apparently, on Wikipedia (which I am guessing is following a US point of view here), in the article on pedophelia, there exists three levels of "adults sexually involved with below-the-age-of-consent-people".
I never encountered such distinctions before (hooray for me on that score, btw), and find them actually disconcerting.
The fact that a child has pubic hair in no way lessens the crime.
There are plenty of children who are about 12 when they develop their primary and secondary genitalia. Would you see them easily standing up to adult pressure?

Anyway, it gives me the ickies to even think more about this. There is an age of consent for a reason.

Re:The RightThingToDo(TM).

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still under the impression that pedophilia is in any way related to age of consent, or "standing up to adult pressure".

It's not.

Pedophilia is what it is: sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Sexual attraction to partly- or fully-developed but underage "children" is not pedophilia.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Opportunist]

So we'll soon see a lot of dead and burned kids?

Being the statistician and cold hearted bastard that I am, I'd guess the logical thing to do when you rape a child is to kill and burn it if, and only if, the sentence is the same for rape and murder. The chance of the kid yelling "that's the guy" is still much higher than you finding anything useful in a heap of cremated bones.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[TFAFalcon]

So why not create two crimes. Abuse of a child from a position of authority and a rape/kidnapping? That way you can have different punishments, which might persuade the kidnapper to let the child go.

Sure, letting a child you know and have intimidated is probably less risky then killing him/her, but I doubt a randomly abducted child will keep quiet about the bad man who hurt him/her. So why let the child go and give the police your description, when the punishment will be life in jail either way.

Having all crimes carry extreme penalties removes the inhibition from performing them, once you've done one of them. What are they going to do? Execute you multiple times?

Just imagine if robbing a store meant life in prison. Who in their right mind would give the clerk a chance to get away? They'd walk in, shoot the clerk, then start robbing the place. Less risk of him fighting back AND less chance of getting caught then if you let him live to serve as a witness.

Redefining "involved"

[tepples]

Unless a manga volume involved inappropriate sexual contact with a minor

Some graphic novels originating in Japan do depict inappropriate sexual contact with a fictional minor. The problem comes when child porn laws are written to redefine "involved" to include any depiction of abuse, even if no abuse was actually performed during production.

Re:Redefining "involved"

[progician]

Precisely. Or shall we start arrest people for torturing animals and people in books, comics and films, while during the production there were no dogs shot, neither people decapitated.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy is KILLING the music industry. Perhaps more distribution of child pornography will kill the child pornography industry?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[pantaril]

One other point: I have read the thread so far and it seems that a large portion of the people are complaining that Japanese hentai are what people get busted for. While that may be true in rare occurrences like someone sharing gigabytes of CP manga... I've worked with law enforcement on CP cases, and they really don't care that much about comics. Yes it's part of the law, but at least in the US, the FBI normally goes after the people with REAL CP and not cartoons. And even then, they go after the people with true collections and not 1-2 images in their cache that they stumbled into while searching random sites. Please link me to a news article that proves me wrong if people are getting busted for single images, since I am only an individual person and could have missed something. And before someone says "they don't report on small time CP busts," yes they do. Every time I've been involved with a CP case, the media is all over it as soon as they find out. They love to put the 'bad guy gets busted' stories in the news.

If they don't care about comics, why are the comics illegal. There is no harm in sharing even gigabytes of hentai images and the law that allows busting people for possesing/sharing virtual child porn is clearly bad. And yes, there are people who had problems just for small amount of hentai images, see here: http://www.animenation.net/blog/2010/08/02/sweden-fines-translator-for-having-hentai-images/ (arrested for one scanlation) or here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.175488-Hentai-Collector-Sentenced-to-Jail-Over-Obscene-Material?page=1 (arrested for six books)

It's history repeating itself again. We saw similar nonsense when Lolita from Nabokov or Howl from Gingsberg were initialy published. How many people will need to be busted for lawmakers to get the the idea that the illegality of something must be based on it's level of social dangerousness and not on some false and ever-changing morality? The proponents of those bans often say that hentai/Howl/Lolita/whatever has no artistic value and is obscene, so it should be illegal, but who are they to judge the artistic value of something? And even if something realy has no artistic value, is it enough to justify its ilegality if it is otherwise harmless? I don't think so.

I agree with the rest of your post (creation and sharing of child porn involving real children should be prosecuted, maybe with some exceptions to cover cases like 17 years old partners e-mailing nude images of themself to each other).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not a pedo, you don't want to look at pictures of children being raped. If you are, you do.
The pictures don't cause the condition, so reducing the availability of the pictures is not going to reduce the demand for them.

However, reducing availability of the pictures could cause people with the condition to go and rape children because they can't get their jollies from the pictures.

I think this is the crux of the issue. But, I don't think that it is a settled matter. IMHO there is a good argument that through conditioning, the use of this material could increase the likelihood of a person offending.

Sexual satisfaction is one of the most potent psychological rewards, so there is no disputing that it has a powerful conditioning effect. If someone gets off sexually on images of children frequently, then I would expect that he will begin to develop a strong sexual reaction to the sight of children, not just in pornographic images, but of those he sees every day. So, perhaps such a habit could make a paedophile more dangerous. But, I think that it goes further than that. So far as I know, the condition of paedophilia is not a result of any neurological defect. I assume that it is a behavioural pattern which is developed through conditioning. If that is the case (I don't know if it is), then it could be possible for a 'normal' person to become a paedophile through frequent exposure to this sort of material.

Regarding why any 'normal' person would be using this sort of material, well I don't think that he would necessarily go looking for it. But, just about any free porn website you look at will contain material in which an effort is made to select the youngest looking women and to depict them as being under-age. And some few sites will contain genuine CP alongside legal material. I think that could get the ball rolling for some people.

Having said all that, even if I'm right (and I admit it's a big if) that CP can be a dangerous influence on some people, that does not necessarily justify treating anyone who is found to have accessed it at some time, whether intentionally or not, as a criminal. The idea that the remnants of one deleted image on a hard drive could justify a jail sentence is absurd IMO.

They want you to think tor has thwarted them

[DarkOx]

My guess is its not Tor that is preventing them from finding the distributors and downloaders of CP. I would hazard its other priorities. There are well know vulnerabilities in Tor's secrecy all you need to do is run enough exit nodes.

Tor does two things with regard to finding pedophiles.
1. It makes it a little more complex than just setting up a honey pot collecting IP address and then phoning up the ISP. So not just any agent can do it, it has to be folks with real technical skills, and supply is no doubt limited.

2. It creates a little chilling effect on actions against perps. If they can't make it look more likely they were discovered through other means, it exposes to what degree the three letter agencies actually monitor and have compromised Tor. That might lead to a loss of intelligence access about higher priority targets. Frankly if I were running a terror network or large organized crime ring I'd be very tempted to have some low level (expendable) gang members send each other CP. Knowing just obsessed our government is with finding anyone who has gone anywhere near it. Seeing if the expendables get picked up our not would be a good way to know if the, secrecy and to a lesser extent the integrity of my communications channel was solid.

McEwen v. Simmons & Anor

[tepples]

I tried to find court details for the Bart Simpson case when it was reported here in Oz but came up empty handed

According to this Wikipedia article, the case is McEwen v. Simmons & Anor [2008] NSWSC 1292: "In my view, the Magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the Commonwealth and the New South Wales offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters".

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[misexistentialist]

Censorship regulations are always selectively enforced. That movie probably would have got noticed if it were a female being tortured, since the point of the law is intended to "protect" women and lock up men. Doesn't apply to Barbie Broccoli abusing Daniel.

Court Details

[way2trivial]

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2008nswsc.nsf/6ccf7431c546464bca2570e6001a45d2/ef4625a9db3003f1ca25751500066d48?OpenDocument

TLDR-

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

>At no point did I suggest that anyone "suck it up"

With respect, only a second ago you suggested retrieving molten gold exactly like that.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's what implies that football isn't a sport in this case. "

It isn't. It's a bit like Rugby for sissies.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever stumbled onto CP through any of the random image polling scripts from the image sites, what you see can be soul crushing. ...
I support tracking down anyone who is sharing these images,...

Dear pervert,

You are going to jail for looking at Child porn, and you are going to jail for creating a program (aka polling script) to help you find more Child porn quicker.
Watching child porn is punishable by jail (and in some jurisdictions decapitation) so you better be really careful about where you go on vacation.
I would also like to point out that manga pictures are classified as child porn in Europe. (google simon lundstrom sweden manga child)

Enjoy your new bunk mate.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AlamedaStone]

If there's no demand, there's no supply

therefore it is valid to go after demand

Worked great for pot. We started imprisoning potheads in Federal pens, and no one grew weed anymore! *dusts hands* Mission accomplished.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not make murdering illegal immigrants legal? They're not people, anyway.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[progician]

"Obscene" depictions of children, even if drawn, is wrong and has no place in a civilized country.

Bollocks. In a civilized country people should not interfere in other people business unless they actually did something that hurts other people freedom. In some countries, the obscene depiction of Muhammed is forbidden and yet we don't agree on persecution of caricaturist on this one. There are plenty of movies, books, paintings where children are abused, not just sexually, but eaten alive. Slippery slope my friend...

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AlamedaStone]

I agree with you completely

But why do you think your observations have any relevancy to the production and consumption of CHILD pornography?

Increased availability of porn is positively correlated with a reduction in sexual violence. Why exactly would his observation NOT have relevance?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...puts it on the internet in one of those TOR's. I wont buy it but I will damn sure enjoy watching you get your asshole reamed and get aids."

You just admitted that you like actual rape videos, which are also illegal.
Stay where you are, we are coming to get you.
You may even be able to star in one of those videos.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AlamedaStone]

I bet the number of CP producers turning a profit is quite small...

You're dead wrong there, I'm sorry to say. For-profit CP producers are often human traffickers, who enslave children as part of their predation - and human trafficking is a booming industry. There's no question that sexual abuse is a behavioral issue, and I'm very unhappy with the current solution of prosecuting owners of Very Large Numbers as though they were rapists, but there's a lot of money changing hands, within the US, on the backs of abused children.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Arancaytar]

killing ... the corpse

Well yeah, because fuck zombies.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be nice if children were not harmed in the creation of it, but they are horribly harmed by it. You might be ok with the Fact that children are raped and hurt to make these photos, but sane people are horrified by it.

I am thinking that you have some strange disillusion that there that CP is created in a nice fluffy and safe environment. I also think that you are also dilusional in thinking it's all 17 year old girls. There is a lot of nefarious CP that ranges from infants up to 17.9 year olds. I'm thinking that you have zero clue at all as to what you are talking about, and you make yourself look like a evil person because of it.

You are OK with an 8 year old being sodomized to make this CP that you think is Ok? That is what a LOT of us are hearing from your statement. Just giving you a chance to clarify your position, because it seems really bad.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[pantaril]

Of course it can. "The law" is not a computer program, it's interpreted by people. And the law and those people can't somehow infer that an entire medium is now illegal because someone used it to do something illegal. Movies, photos, and comics (Japanese or not) are entirely the same in this regard.

People want to pretend this is some slippery slope, but you know, it really isn't. Jeez, since when did NAMBLA have such a big following on slashdot?

How can bet parent rated +4 informative? Comics or drawings of virtual (nonexistent) minors in indecent poses are clearly illegal in many western countries including USA, Sweden or Britain. Many people are prosecuted for its possesion even if no real children were harmed in its creation. See http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.175488-Hentai-Collector-Sentenced-to-Jail-Over-Obscene-Material?page=1 or http://www.animenation.net/blog/2010/08/02/sweden-fines-translator-for-having-hentai-images/ for examples.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[progician]

You can make a porn movie about rape without actually commit a rape. A lot of people have fantasies about rape so jerking off on such a material make them happy. And no one get hurt. Would you arrest the people for watching it?

Same goes for any graphical depiction including child pornography. As long as nobody gets hurt, nobody approach any child sexually, or any other way abusively, there's no case for persecuting and harassing people about their fantasies.

If you do, you basically violate one of the most basic freedom: the freedom of thought, the freedom of imagination. Police people thoughts and you will soon find that you don't want to live in such a society.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Lumpy]

So your fetish of ax murder photos spreads and scumbags start axe murdering people to make new videos for you. You are supporting the murder of innocent people.

DUH, again, you think the meterial is made out of magical fairy dust? Look up "Snuff Films" for your murder fetish, You dont have people lining up to be willfully murdered for your films.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AmiMoJo]

and we need to arrest people based on maybes

While I generally agree with your point I do think there are times when punishing people who have not actually harmed anyone else yet is right. The most obvious example is drink driving. Even if that person doesn't hit someone it is so irresponsible and dangerous we choose not to allow it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think every single image on that site was of "imaginary children"?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Jesus_666]

That argument falls flat on its face once you consider drawn CP. Porn involving fictional minors is just as illegal as real CP in many jurisdictions. In which way does attempting to reduce the demand for drawn CP stem the supply for real CP?

I'm all for stopping real CP. The laws tend to be on the rabid side (cf. teenagers getting arrested because their girlfriends sent them pictures of their breasts) but actual CP involves sex with people who can't give informed consent and who will probably take lasting psychological damage from the ordeal. We should be more careful when prosecuting it so as not to create victims where there are none (such as in the teenager case) but the basic idea of prosecuting it is valid.

Drawn CP, however, is another thing. Yes, there probably is CP that was drawn using real sexual intercourse as a template but I'd estimate that that's the exception, not the rule. After all, any semi-talented artist with a basic understanding of human anatomy can crank out smut with any given fictitious character without any template at all. And there are plenty mostly anatomically accurate smut drawings that obviously have no counterpart in real life so if you really want to and are capable of drawing realistic-looking CP you don't need a template other than perhaps a few perfectly legal art reference books.

The "treat fictitious characters as real persons" type of prosecution seems more driven by outrage (or, as others have noted, a desire for power) than by actual reason. It looks good to the "think of the children" crowd and thus it's done, whether it makes sense or not. The question is whether this blind moralism might actually harm society more than it helps.

Re:Free speech =~ Anonymous free speech

[moeinvt]

I disagree. By your argument you have "free speech" as long as your expression itself isn't impaired. That's hardly possible, even for the most repressive regimes. Sew your mouth shut and cut off your fingers?

The whole point of the principle of free speech is that you can express yourself without fear of consequences (or as you say, "responsibility") or reprisal, especially from government. To the extent that one needs to fear reprisal above and beyond logical counter-argument, they should have anonymous speech.

The viewer/reader/listener should weigh any unattributed speech with skepticism, but banning it through the power of the state? No way.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Child abuse potentially robs young people of mental well-being from the psychological trauma for the rest of their lives.

And it potentially has little to no effect. That's a pretty broad spectrum compared to murder victims.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Access to these sites are usually gated by supplying them with pictures. You provide new pictures, and you get access to their libraries.

Accidental infringement

[tepples]

[Unlike child pornography,] hobbyist music carries no risk of jail

No risk of jail per se, but there's still a risk of financial ruin if some major music publisher sues you on grounds that your song is too similar to an existing song that you might have heard ten years ago on the radio. Compare Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Jawnn]

I simply can not believe that this has to be explained, but apparently it does...
The mechanism by which crime scene photos are created is entirely different than that of CP. The photos of, say a murder scene, are created after the fact. There creation is utterly independent of the act or acts that caused the death. It should be obvious that the same can not be said of CP images.

Re:WARNING "For the children" excuse = NEW LAW COM

[cpghost]

I guess he really meant piracy, even though privacy is correct as well. Because let's face it: in the eyes of the US government, there ain't not crime more heinous as sharing a couple of files with your friends. They'll abolish all basic freedoms in the blink of an eye to stop piracy... if they could get away with it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

.He did something ridiculously stupid

Debatable. Hard to anticipate the rest of society being that evil and stupid at the same time.

Re: untraceable child porn last time I looked.

[Nursie]

For looking at freenet portal pages and noticing most of the links were for child porn pages?

You don't think I actually visited the pages or viewed any images do you? Christ no, I've no interest in that.

It's the camel's nose - don't give in

[Ora*DBA]

Once a mechanism is in place to penetrate Tor, every asshole in law enforcement will manufacture a reason that they, too, should be allowed in. This is a place to defend our civil liberties in the US. There has long been an adversarial relationship between the police and the public. My parents taught me that the police were our friends; boy was that illusion shattered when my ex-wife had me arrested for some made-up b.s. to get me thrown out of the house when she decided she wanted a divorce.

It is true that slimeballs will take advantage of Tor; but they tend to cluster among themselves. Why let the slimeballs with badges in? I say "No".

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[kenh]

One word - "Child"

If Child Porn could exist without actual children being sexually abused I could see your point of view (for the sake of argument), but when actual children are in the child porn, it is evidence of sexual abuse of a child.

Cartoon Child Porn is obviously different since no actual children are involved in the production of the porn.

I'm sure we can both agree that is wrong.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[kenh]

You are ignoring the fact that sexual abuse of a child is illegal and child porn is evidence of that crime being comitted.

I'd like to hear more about your allegation that "It's legal to share videos of someone torturing, killing, raping the corpse of someone else and feeding it to vultures."

This is why I won't run Tor at home

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that material like this could run through my home network bugs me. The bigger issue is that a judge or prosecutor might not understand what it is.

They are lying

[Anonymous Coward]

TOR is a transparent proxy people
look up what it means and if the fbi are whining its to get someone to do something rash
you can be seen and tracked so dont kid your selves
FBI ARE LYING
let me repeat FBI ARE LYING

Re: untraceable child porn last time I looked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ no, I've no interest in that.

Completely irrelevant.

If you have any such pictures anywhere on your computer (most likely in your browser cache) then you are in possession.

Any intent, or lack thereof, on your behalf is inconsequential.

Yes, this particular law is broken.

And yet, the mass media oogles over teenage girls

[sakari]

Child Pornography is Illegal, and yet, at the same time, the mass media wants us to oogle at young girls dressed in skimpy outfits, singing some songs produced by five different hit song makers and oozing of sexual innuendos. Think about Britney Spears.

But oh yeah, as long as they are 18, its all rightyo! No wonder people are lusting over underaged girls, we are being forcefed this crap ALL THE TIME. This is stupid bullshit that big companies with enough money can advertise with SEX all the time, and Porn can be found everywhere with adults in it, and then at the same time we are prosecuting child porn distributors like they are murderers, while these advertisers and big media companies get paid big bucks.

We are being fed the image of "young and sexy is good, buy this!" and then we wonder why we have so much people interested in child pornography.. it's sad really that our lust for money overcomes everything in our modern world. Good thing it's crumbling to pieces as we speak!

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful what you wish for, it might lead to a lot more dead kids. Hint: Dead rape victims can't talk.

Any television forensics drama writer would like to disagree with you.

FTFY. There's a lot of silly hype about forensics, nobody I've ever met who actually works in the field would disagree that a live victim is infinitely more informative than the tidbits of supporting information they can find. Without a suspect to match to or lucking out with finding DNA that matches to a database, you're screwed. Bones and CSI might tell you otherwise, but forensics doesn't solve crimes, it provides proof.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the difference is, normally murder is done for a reason. Either people feel they have been wronged and want revenge, or something similar. Most people choose their victims for a specific reason, and then carry it out. Most normal people know that killing is wrong, and even criminal generally need some impetus to commit the crime.

Rape on the other hand, people do on a whim. They feel the urge, and grab some poor girl off the streets and rape her. There's no real reasoning why they chose her, and they probably don't think they did something as bad as murder. It's probably closer to serial killing then just straight up murder.

A murderer who did what he did with a reason probably has more of a chance to be rehabilitated than a rapist who probably is closer to a sociopath.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[kenh]

Possession of your own videos of you yourself masterbating as a child hurts no one, but when you decide to share that video of a masterbating child you are feeding into the child porn website is fueling the desires of child abusers that could lead to abuse of a child down the road.

Child abusers have "something wrong" in their heads, they don't handle things the way other people do (I do not claim this as a clinical certainty based on studying child porn sharers, it is something I've read from reliable sources)... Feeding their desires could cause them to want to "up the stakes" and try to return the favor by taping actual child abuse to share.

The real concern is how are you going to prove it's your 12 year-old penis in the video?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[sorak]

Oh, and it's far easier to catch people who look at pictures than it is to stop those who are doing the molesting.

Right...You have to update your passport, and the Vatican is so far away. Airfare is just too expensive.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[kenh]

by the parents?

I think you've collapsed the fact that most children that are molested are molested by relatives, that includes parents, siblings, relatives (aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.) into "parents". Child abuse by strangers IS rare by comparison.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

His PD made it clear that he was absolutely not interested in doing so as it was not likely to work and he'd end up with a longer sentence than he would by pleading guilty to all of it.

Never trust a public defender who says you should plead guilty. They're constantly overworked and will recommend that in 99.99% of the cases regardless of the actual merits. He turned down a fighting chance to save 10 years of his life for what? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Except it was pretty clear that he'd met the legal requirements of the "advertisement" charge, what he was doing met the legal definition of "advertising", and that prior FBI cases have established precedent for using the advertisement law in those cases. While you're right that, in general, you shouldn't just blindly take a PD's advice about pleading guilty, you're missing that there isn't really a defense there in this specific example. He'd have to fight precedent and try to change the law, not prove he didn't break it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just pictures. Better the creeps inside jacking off than outside doing it personally. Isn't it time to get the government out of the bedroom?

Except the pictures are usually created by actual abuse. If there's demand there will be supply (as we've learned with narcotics). If you have lower demand perhaps you can lower the creation of the supply.

Perhaps if the images are CGI or we're dealing with fictional stories, then we can talk about people doing stuff in the privacy of their homes without huring others, but generally the images that are referred to in these types of news articles are ones of human beings, and so harm is being done to someone.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[kenh]

"Your tax dollars will be paying for his incarceration for fifteen years because some jackass uploaded CP to his file server and some FBI agent noticed it."

You forgot the most important part of this equation:

"His upload directory was accessible, which is admittedly an idiotic thing to do."

If he hadn't had a wide-open fileshare the jackass couldn't upload the CP for the FBI agent to notice it... Not defending the sentence of 180 months, but he created the environment that led to his arrest/conviction (as you noted, he did "posess" the images).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[circletimessquare]

where do you deluded naive people come from?

you really think it's that simple?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[miknix]

It's just pictures.

Are you nuts? How is this just pictures? Are you telling me the children being exploited in those pictures are actually fake? Are they computer generated imaging?
- OF COURSE NOT! They are very real and some of them are actually kidnapped and abused. Even those children that are actually paid to do that on their will, should be prevented from doing that because they are (probably) not mature enough to make those decisions on their own.
Repeat after me: ALL UNDERAGE CHILDREN SHOULD BE PROTECTED

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know the comics aren't illegal. WTF. Did this country go even further downhill that fast?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[elucido]

So most parents think it's better that these creeps go out in the park and take pictures of their kids to wank to instead of looking at drawn pictures?

Most parents are sick fucks.

A lot of parents want to give the death penalty for anyone who thinks like a sick fuck.

I don't think that makes children any safer and until there are some actual scholarly studies on the subject there is no real evidence that sick thoughts correlate with sick behavior.

Re: untraceable child porn last time I looked.

[Nursie]

Completely irrelevant.

Completely failed at reading comprehension.

If you have any such pictures anywhere on your computer (most likely in your browser cache) then you are in possession.

Any intent, or lack thereof, on your behalf is inconsequential.

Yes, this particular law is broken.

Did you read the part where I don't click links to child porn?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[stdarg]

There's no reason why it should be tied to drinking, and someone who is just a bad driver can be as dangerous as a good driver who is drunk.

So if we take that back to sexuality, we should also arrest people who look at rape and incest porn? How about people who take it past pictures and actually engage in bondage, rape role playing, etc? Adult women don't like to be raped any more than children, why isn't "harmful" porn about that considered illegal?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy has a point.

It's legal to share videos of someone torturing, killing, raping the corpse of someone else and feeding it to vultures.

As long as no one in there is a minor.

Vultures probably are minor.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Hatta]

taking away all CP...does help discourage it.

How do you know this is true? Is there evidence for this assertion? Availability of adult porn is associated with decreases in sexual assaults. I don't see any reason to assume that this would be different for child porn and sexual assaults of children. Do you have any data to support your assertion?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[betterunixthanunix]

The fact others download and view the material provide validation and acceptance to the producers which probably is worth far more than money

I think you are seriously overestimating how valuable it is for a child abuser to know that there are people who like watching what he is doing. Producing and distributing child sex abuse imagery is one of the riskiest things a person can do -- almost no countries would hesitate to imprison people for it, and the jail sentences are often long or indefinite. Emotional validation is nowhere near sufficient to justify taking such risks; money or some other form of trade (e.g. one abuser trading new pictures with another) is basically a necessity.

Sure, there is the occasional idiot who produces child abuse images for the reason you stated; such people are sometimes caught when the police are going after low-hanging fruit i.e. people whose only crime is possession of child abuse images. The really dangerous people are the ones who are not so stupid, the ones who take real precautions and who demand some form of payment for their images/videos. My understanding is that most of the child abuse imagery out there today was produced by that second category, by the people who are turning it into an enterprise of sorts. Those were the sort of people involved with Dreamboard (for those who do not remember, this was a truly depraved website for trading images of child abuse that was recently taken down), the sort involved with Yardbird (a group that used anonymous remailers and Usenet, which had escaped notice by the police until one of their members was inadvertently arrested), the sort who run "modeling" agencies in Eastern Europe, and so forth.

The problem, of course, is that the sort of people I described above are not doing the sort of stupid things that allows the police to catch "low hanging fruit." These are not people who share their images on Kazaa (the FBI has an ongoing program to catch people who do), they are the sort of people who know how to mitigate and manage risk and how to use opsec to protect themselves. Catching them is a challenge, which is why it only happens rarely and only after years of investigative work.

Of course, law enforcement agencies need to keep up their arrest numbers and need to remind people that they are catching "pedophiles." Thus you see efforts to catch low-hanging fruit, e.g. honeypot websites, efforts to catch people who download sex abuse images from peer-to-peer networks, arrests for possession of such images. These efforts do little to combat the production of child abuse imagery, and only catch idiots and people who were either curious or who just wanted to satisfy some bizarre urge. People who produce child abuse imagery have no way to count how many people are sharing those images on peer to peer networks, so even if your point were valid, such efforts are pointless.

The original reason for making the possession of child abuse imagery illegal was the assumption (which at the time was valid) that anyone who possesses such imagery must have purchased it. That assumption is not valid in this century; I would be willing to be that the majority of people who possess child abuse imagery did not pay for it or in any way contribute to its production. We may find the images disturbing (and I would be suspicious of someone who does not), we may have difficulty understanding why anyone would want to masturbate to such imagery, we may not understand why people who collect and create detailed categories of such imagery, but we should not allow our disgust or our poor understanding of psychology lead us to assume that the low-hanging fruit represents a serious threat to children. There is a difference between someone with perverse fantasies and someone who is actually harming children.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[DaFallus]

Take away the subscribers and even if you can never find the source, at least the businesses stop getting paid and hopefully do less abuse to children.

That logic didn't work very well during Prohibition, and it isn't working in the War on Drugs either. Granted, my examples have a lot more moral ambiguity than child pornography, but historically, chasing the recipients of an illicit good isn't as effective as hunting down the source. Its just easier.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this comment insensitive and lacking in empathy.
The human survival trait is a strong one.
I see no contradiction in living a life full of suffering and wishing you were dead, but not actually taking your life for whatever reason.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Meeni]

If it is pictures of real kids being molested, real harm has been done to the kids. If you let consumer pay for watching kids being molested, you can bet that more kids will be molested to feed that "market".

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[trenien]

It isn't all that surprising.

After all, not so long ago, it was pretty standard in fiction to talk about rape as "a fate worse than death".

I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people still feel the same, although they mostly won't admit it openly.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your authoritarian delusions have no place in a civilized country.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are basically two types of crime defined by society. One is a direct action with well defined consequences. This is theft, murder, etc... Then there's the things society has decided will have broad consequences even though the act itself has no defined victim. This is where the regulation of alcohol or drugs or pornography comes in. Often the objective is simply to regulate morality but sometimes there's a direct link to a rise in secondary crimes. With CP, the thinking is much like it is for drugs. If it's available, then more of the potential addicts will become real addicts and this places children in danger as the demand for it increases.

I think the biggest danger from it is that children can be manipulated in ways adults can't. Someone who has trouble with women may prey upon children once he begins incorporating the images into his fantasies.

Irony: Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it was the CIA that first developed TOR I find this truly a hilarious idea.

Captcha: guilty

Re:Irony: Re:HOW TO TAKE DOWN TOR FOR AMERCIA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Naval Intelligence. But? Same smell, different orifice,

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AlamedaStone]

As horrible as child abuse is, it is utterly irrational grandstanding to say that child abuse is worse than murder. If I asked you if you would rather be raped or killed, do you really mean to tell me that you would answer "killed"? If not, then murder is worse than any form of abuse. The heinousness of a crime is directly proportional to its effect on the victim. There can be no crime more heinous, therefore, than any crime that deprives the victim of his or her existence unwillingly.

I can't speak for the GP, but I would answer "killed". It is a grave misjudgement to take for granted that your experience of the world is universal. Consider the suicide rate among victims of childhood sexual abuse.

"The lifetime prevalence of having at least 1 suicide attempt was 3.8%. Adverse childhood experiences in any category increased the risk of attempted suicide 2- to 5-fold."

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=286&issue=24&page=3089

Is it worse to take away a life, or risk leaving a survivor who wants to die? Some people might consider a lifetime sentence like that a fate worse than death.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I have always found odd about this rule is that two consenting teens can be married as young as 15 (iirc) in some states in the US, and as a married couple they are entitled to engaging in acts of "physical slipperiness". ... but if either of the couple take a video or picture of anything they do, they are child pornographers and can be sent to jail for life.

Welcome to the United States of Batshit Crazy.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for this. Teenagers are having their lives ruined by their (naturally exploratory) activities. Their bodies are changing and they're doing things to explore and share with their freinds and their being charged for it.

A few years back two florida teens were reported by their PARENTS and are now permanent registered sex offenders. Something tells me that database is going to grow until they just register you at birth.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html

Lord hell. Here's my google search for the original story. Look how many hits there are for teens arrested for child pornography:
https://encrypted.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=florida+teens+charged+with+producing+child+pornography&oq=florida+teens+charged+with+producing+child+pornography&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...975.19495.0.19712.78.69.4.3.3.10.466.8662.14j44j4j0j2.69.0...0.0._gGXhnRF2aE&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1596&bih=847&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

So once a person rapes the child, there is no reason to even consider letting the child go. After all, the punishment for murder is the same, so why increase the risk of getting caught by letting the kid go?

And that's the problem with seeing imprisonment as punishment. It's not a deterrent. It's not a punishment. It's protection for society. Now what do you want that person to be when they're released? The US prison system produces criminals. The Canadian system is (for some retarded reason) trying to emulate the US system.

If prison isn't about rehabilitation, then you may as well have the death sentence for every petty crime under the sun. Yes there are criminals who should never be released. I think it was Paul Bernardo who said to never release him as he'll re-offend[citation needed]. That doesn't mean that he can never be a productive member of society. It just means he needs to make his contribution from behind bars.

re: friend serving time for child porn

[King_TJ]

Unfortunately, this is one of the problems we've got today, with politicians realizing the popularity in taking an anti sex crime hard-line stance. There are few things more universally accepted than the idea a child molester deserves harsh punishment. The problem, of course, is that true child molesters really aren't very common. Certainly not common enough to sustain a division of the FBI devoted to nothing but capturing them. They need better "performance metrics" than that! So what you wind up with is all of this vast over-reaching....

Child porn is one of those convenient "value added" crimes easily attached to the pursuit of child molesters... After all, the producer of it is clearly abusing the kids involved, and it's not hard to get the public to buy into the fact that anyone obtaining that sort of material is just as guilty, right? Except no, they're very OFTEN not!

Many years ago, I ran a computer bulletin board system, and on at least 2 or 3 occasions, people uploaded child porn photo collections, zipped up into archives and incorrectly described as completely different types of files. (I recall catching one, one time, that simply said "Great OS/2 screen saver collection!") As soon as I discovered such things, I immediately deleted them -- but what if I hadn't caught it before someone else did who reported it to authorities? Yep, you can bet I would have been arrested and charged with possession and intent to redistribute, or at least something along those lines!

And perhaps some would say, "Well, you ARE guilty if you found the stuff and didn't report the person who uploaded it to you!" But again, I'm afraid I don't agree. MANY times, people using the BBS's used to download a file from source A and immediately re-upload it to destination B, without ever looking at it first. Most people just assumed the descriptions stated were accurate and they wanted to earn upload credits, so they could download something else they wanted. There's a good probability the uploader of those files had no clue what was in them, and maybe the site THEY got them from wasn't aware either.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA suggests runaway copying ends media industries. Most people think otherwise. Or are different economics in play here where the CP industry is self-fulfilling while other media creation isn't? Recently a soldier photographed women's remains after an explosion while another photographed girls playing (naked as is normal there). The second soldier has CP charges against him. CP isn't pure evil, war is.

I'm sure everyone already knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure everyone already knows, but I'll say it anyway. Tor has plenty of legitimate uses; it's meant to give people freedom to access and post whatever they want without fear of being tracked down. The fact that people can upload illegal material is merely an unfortunate byproduct of this.

Smells like a fake

[Applekid]

Is this a real article? Or is it just an attempt to make pedophiles feel safe using Tor so they can be swept up?

Surely if investigation efforts weren't progressing they wouldn't be publicizing them.

how does that even work?

[slashmydots]

I know I'm wondering and I think it'd be beneficial for everyone if someone could perhaps explain how a website can be hosted completely within the Tor network. It just sounds impossible but obviously they're doing it. Does it bypass DNS and go straight to an IP? How would people find it in the first place if it's not in a Google search because it's not on the open and indexed internet? How does anyone's web browser navigate to a page on a server without knowing the end point? You can't just send a request down the Tor network that says "I want to get to a page called this, go find it." That seems to violate every rule of how the internet works on a basic level. It seems like someone attempting to host a website like this would have to expose themselves at some sort of level that would make them as easy to catch as any other website. Anyone know how this is possible?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it would be a lot easier to catch the producers of this crap if they made possession illegal. I recall reading a while back about a guy who turned in a videotape containing CP that he claimed to have found in the desert. He was arrested for possession, and his life was destroyed.

That story has ensured that I will NEVER turn in any form of CP that I should happen to stumble across, EVER. Fuck, I won't even turn someone in for making the stuff with some neighborhood kid, lest I be accused of being a member of some fucking pedo ring.

Even talking bluntly about this makes me feel the need to post as AC. Fuck these dumbshit reactionary laws and overzealous prosecutors.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[defaria]

Actually I don't know of any western country that prosecutes people for pictures of adults who simply look young. You're lying.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because making things that people want illegal never increases the violence and exploitation involved in their production.

If someone finds CP on you, you might as well kill them. The punishment is practically the same.

Fuck you and your psychobabble normalization bullshit. That argument is tripe, and you should feel sick for having made it. You are doing nothing but contributing to the violence involved in the production of illegal porn. If you want that shit to disappear, make possession legal. Then you will get 100X the leads to find the producers. Nevermind that making that shit harder to find means more pedos are walking around with full sacks, and are thus more likely to do something stupid resulting in a lifetime of pain or the death of a child.

No, it's not

[davidwr]

It is the only situation where possession of evidence is criminal in itself.

Possession of state secrets is evidence that someone leaked them. Never mind "innocent until proven guilty," the burden of proof is on you that you didn't knowingly possess or acquire them.

To a lesser degree and depending on the attitude of the police and prosecutors, the same frequently goes for possession of marked bills that the cops know were used in a crime, possession of counterfeit currency, possession of stolen goods, etc.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[psiclops]

i thought it was pretty clear(though probably a logical fallacy). widespread availability of depictions of one particular activity have not lead to an increase in related activity. therefore widespread depictions of another activity should not lead to the same.

yelling out child porn in the middle of your arguments doesn't change facts. you would make a better point by correlating 'illegality, social acceptance, & instances' of other activities.

better yet, point out that 'adult porn' is generally always not rape, whereas CP always is. if this was the point you were trying to make, you should have been clearer about it. English is not the first language of everyone reading this, nuances in language differ between English speaking cultures (even in the same countries) and to me that read kind of like 'no rational discussion is required on the matter because it's CHILD PORN'. which is essentially a worthless non-argument.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[tmosley]

Supply and demand indicates that it would actually increase the price of such materials to the point from free to something much higher than free, creating an economic incentive to harm children. You know, sort of like drugs.

Sentencing variations

[davidwr]

In at least one US state, penetratively-raping a preschooler will just about guarantee a multi-decade-before-parole or possibly even life-with-the-possibility-of-parole sentence unless you plea down.

Killing the same child will just about guarantee life in prison without parole or death unless you plead down.

If the case is high-profile, the prosecutor is unlikely to offer a plea unless he has a weak case, you've got something very valuable to offer, or there are extenuating circumstances demanding compassion, such as a mental defect.

In that same state, mere possession of small amounts of child porn that is prosecuted at the state level will probably get you 5-10 with parole likely after about half of that, and possibly deferred-adjudication-probation on a non-sex-offender charge if you have something to offer as part of a plea bargain or if circumstances such as "I'm 19, she's my 17 year old girlfriend" make you look very sympathetic.

Re:Sentencing variations

[Opportunist]

A 19 year old fucking a 17 year old commits a crime? What fucked up state is that?

Re:Sentencing variations

[Anonymous Coward]

A 19 year old with pornographic pictures of a 17 year old commits a crime. Fucking her is perfectly okay in most states.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/father-jailed-for-child-porn-possession-554915.html

"24 of the 27 images were virtual images – no actual children were used to create the images. They were a form of Japanese animation know as “hentai”."

Not the US but still

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[tmosley]

I love it when people make shit up on the internet.

You might as well claim that alcohol should be illegal because the mob was a major seller of alcohol during Prohibition and they also participated in sex trafficking, therefore alcohol==child rape.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like make work for the FBI. An obscure site with minimum advertising, and the fbi just happen to stumble on. Luckly the fbi is not know for fabrication of evidence or hiding of material facts.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your last point undermined your position.

Raped, maybe, killed, no

[davidwr]

In short, he would have probably served a shorter time if he actually was a pedo who raped and killed his own kids without taking pictures of it.

The person in question got a 15 year federal sentence for "advertising" child porn. If he gets 15% off for good behavior, that's 12.75 years of time.

If he murdered his children, he'd probably get 25+ years, life, or death in state court. At best, he wouldn't get parole for well over a decade and likely would serve much longer.

If he raped them with penetration, he would probably get a nominal 10-20 year sentence if they were teenagers and much longer if they were younger, but would likely be eligible for release after 50-75% of the sentence. If he merely fondled them the sentence would be much lower.

Bear in mind that if the feds charge you with ONLY a handful of counts of child porn and there are no aggravating circumstances, you'll probably get a sentence of 5-10 years, not the 15 years this guy got.

I do agree, this guy got screwed. He's not innocent but the charge should be something like "through gross negligence and without taking reasonable and customary steps to prevent or report it, allowing others to use a computer under your control to transmit, receive, and/or advertise child pornography" with a sentence of no more than a few years in prison and confiscation of the computer equipment. The key phrases being "gross negligence" and "not taking reasonable and customary steps to prevent or report it" - we don't want to turn computer operators who make reasonable good faith efforts to keep this stuff off of their servers and/or report it into criminals.

Re:Raped, maybe, killed, no

[Opportunist]

Are you serious? I can see a financial fine, but prison time? For what? Keeping his computer unsecured?

Boy, if that gets punishable with time I'd guess it's time to invest in prison stock!

Re:Raped, maybe, killed, no

[davidwr]

The poor guy actually GOT 15 years in federal prison, minus maybe 15% for good behavior.

The issue for me is: Was he grossly negligent? If he did what was customary for someone in his position to do, I agree, he shouldn't be criminally prosecuted.

However, if it was common practice at the time for operators of IRC sites to protect their sites, clean up their sites, or report crimes occurring through their sites, and he didn't do it, then I would feel differently. This is especially true if he turned a blind eye ("willful blindness" in legal-speak) to what would likely happen if he didn't do these things. If he was just totally naive then I'd cut him a break over what I would give someone who was not naive.

Re:Raped, maybe, killed, no

[LienRag]

it's time to invest in prison stock!

Indeed...

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ArsenneLupin]

I'm a vegan bridge troll. I only eat corpses that wished to die. Yum!

The United States tried

[davidwr]

The courts tossed it. Since that court ruling, if the person in the picture is over 18 and is not a minor in the eyes of the law, that's pretty much an absolute defense to CP charges.

Ditto if the picture is not of a person.

However, if the person in the photo looks real and looks under well under 18, the burden of proof is on the defense to prove otherwise. I expect this to change once computer-generated imagery becomes so good that a court will say "it used to be that 99.999% of pornographic pictures that looked convincingly like a kid well under 18 were of a kid under 18, but now that is no longer the case, so the burden mush shift to the prosecution."

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that FBI agent dies a horrible painful way.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[gorzek]

I think where things go a bit astray is that authorities view child pornography almost exactly like they do the drug trade. You have producers, dealers, and users.

Producers of drugs and child pornography fill the same basic role: they create a product for which there is a demand.

Dealers are a little different. Drug dealers, of course, take money in exchange for the drugs. Child porn "dealers," on the other hand, would be those running websites, most of which are free. I think very few people are making any actual money from it.

Then you have the users/consumers. When it comes to drugs, users consume the drugs themselves (usually.) Since child porn has gone almost 100% digital, though, there is no "consumption" in the sense that a person uses up a finite product. People who view child porn can also share it (read: make copies) so they can also be "dealers."

Authorities try to go after all three tiers in the child porn market, just like they do with drugs, seemingly failing to realize that money is not a key factor in child porn the way it is with drugs. It makes the most sense to focus on the producers of child porn, and those who operate websites distributing it, rather than people who may have downloaded it. In other words: attack it the way copyright infringement is generally attacked, by going after those who make the infringement possible rather than trying to hunt down large numbers of individual infringers. (This is not meant to draw any kind of moral parallel between copyright infringement and child porn, nor between drug use and child porn, it's just about enforcement strategy.)

On the other hand, I can kind of see why they go after individual users: publicly embarrassing people either due to their drug use or taste for child porn could be seen as a significant deterrent. But then that's really nothing to do with any kind of justice, it's just a cynical use of the system to make people behave a certain way.

Marlon Brando

[davidwr]

If you were a small fan of Marlon Brando, then I would recommend that you steer clear of the other NAMBLA.

But since you are a big fan, I'll still recommend you steer clear of them unless you are carrying a badge and watching them to make sure they stay legal.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let us trust some random person on the internet who claims to have stumbled on CP from some random website to tell us all about how each and every child felt, and that yes, they were ALL kidnapped. Surely none of them were ever molested by a friend of the family, a family member, or the parents themselves. Let us further trust his "gut" to tell us what statistics doesn't (indeed, his gut tells us the polar opposite of what statistics tells us). Yes, let us trust this random person who claims that there is some gigantic industry that makes billions, no TRILLIONS of dollars an hour abducting children and raping them SOMEWHERE.

Surprise, surprise that this same idiot claims to have "worked with law enforcement on CP issues". Yes, he must know what he is talking about!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s06e11-child-abduction-is-not-funny

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[davidwr]

Some products simply should not be allowed to be produced.

Products that require molesting children for others' entertainment are high on this list.

Motivations

[davidwr]

I can't speak for child porn, but I have given photographs that I have taken to others simply because I know it brings them pleasure and in giving them pleasure, I get pleasure.

I imagine the same motivation drives many teenage "sexters" sharing images of their own bodies.

I also imagine that this same motivation drives many adults whose risk-assessment skills are so lacking that they don't appreciate the risk they are taking by 1) making child-porn pictures, and 2) letting them out of their own hands / out of their control.

Re:Motivations

[betterunixthanunix]

I can't speak for child porn, but I have given photographs that I have taken to others simply because I know it brings them pleasure and in giving them pleasure, I get pleasure.

You do not face life imprisonment for those photographs, and I seriously doubt that whatever pleasure you might get from knowing you brought pleasure to others would be work that sort of risk. Sexually abusing children is a serious crime, and no rational person would send a photograph of themselves engaged in such a crime to anyone else without receiving some level of compensation or some assurance that the counterparty will share in any liability (e.g. if the other person sends a photograph of themselves abusing children). While people do make irrational decisions, there are people out there who have been abusing children and producing photos and videos of that abuse for years -- and they would not have evaded the police for so long if they were not making at least some rational decisions.

I imagine the same motivation drives many teenage "sexters" sharing images of their own bodies.

Which is not even close to the kind of child abuse that is depicted in some of the photos and videos that I am referring to.

I also imagine that this same motivation drives many adults whose risk-assessment skills are so lacking that they don't appreciate the risk they are taking by 1) making child-porn pictures, and 2) letting them out of their own hands / out of their control.

I am sure that such people exist, but as far as I know they do not produce the bulk of child abuse imagery that is out there. People who lack risk assessment skills are people who will be caught relatively quickly, because they make stupid mistakes. There is no way that such people could be responsible for the kind of things that the police have found:

1. Series of photos or videos depicting a child being abused over the course of many years, clearly showing how the child is growing up in an abusive environment.
2. Photographs produced by the same set of adults over the course of many years, depicting new victims being abused.
3. Underground networks of anonymous pedophiles who share photos and videos of themselves abusing children, demanding new, never-before-seen imagery from people trying to join their groups.

These are the people who pose the greatest threat to children, because they are organized, methodical, and ruthless, and they encourage and demand that others to behave similarly. These are where the most depraved photographs and videos come from -- photographs depicting bestiality, photographs depicting infants being abused, photographs depicting children being tortured, and so forth. They are not sending their photographs to people who are not willing to trade or pay. They are sophisticated and they know how to manage risks, and most importantly they know how to protect their own identity from people within and without their groups.

So no, it is not unreasonable to say that in the absence of evidence that a suspect paid for child abuse imagery, that the suspect did not contribute to the production of that imagery. There are some people who will just share it because they know others want it, but that represents a minority of both the material itself and the danger to children.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Zed Pobre]

This has happened at a minimum in England, New Zealand, and the United States. There are still easily findable references to a U.S. pornstar named Melissa Bertsch having to testify in court several times (once in England involving a military officer) about how old she was in a set of pictures.

(The English military officer in question was found not guilty, IIRC, though I can't find the outcome online. In another case in the U.S. the prosecutor wanted to keep prosecuting even after it was disclosed that the images were of a 20-year-old woman because the defendant thought it was child porn.)

In New Zealand, there was a recent (within the last few years) case of someone convicted for having had a collection of pictures of a model who was over 18, but looked younger. I can't find the reference. It was of interest because it was clearly presented that the model was over 18, and the court decided that it didn't matter. I don't remember the sentence, I'm afraid, though the Wikipedia page on the general laws implies that it may have just been a fine in that situation -- but note the relatively large number of countries on the list.

This is part of freedom

[bobbutts]

It's not something I like in this case, but freedom for everyone means freedom for some criminals too. It's delusional to pretend that there's any way to actually stop this kind of thing. The technological cat is out of the bag. If they get TOR, the criminals will move to whatever other technology, and they'll have to go for that, and we get stuck in and endless loop of cat and mouse.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[mhajicek]

A video of a murder is not illegal, but a snuff film is. The distinction is that the first would be a recording of something that was happening anyway, while the action in the second was performed for the purpose of recording it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not a pedo, you don't want to look at pictures of children being raped. If you are, you do.

No we don't, not any more than heterosexuals want to look at pictures of women being raped. Unless you include the bullshit definition of "statutory rape" which means you lack "informed consent". Well, let me tell you that it's the informed bit that's missing not the consent and by informed they don't mean if the kids are informed but an arbitrary age limit. I could show you children who are smiling, laughing, grunting, groaning and having orgasms and clearly enjoying themselves and I don't mean just poorly acting for the camera. Girls that like to show off, like to masturbate, like to have sex but what they want isn't good enough for the law.

That said, yes I have seen stuff where children are raped, as in forced, non-consensual sex. I hate it and I hate the people doing it with a vengeance, but what can I do? They're just as anonymous as me, there's no "internal justice", no way we can stop them spreading their disgusting shit any more than you can stop us spreading our movies. Nothing hurts me more than when I see a little girl called slut or bitch or fuck toy, I want them loved and cherished not hurt and abused. Unfortunately we can't help but teach them anonymity and safe surfing as we teach ourselves, even though there are producers I'd love to see in prison - or worse.

As for the availability of CP, I'd say 99% happens without being recorded and 99% would happen anyway. The same way horny boys are horny with or without Playboy, I was attracted to little girls before I looked at CP. Most of the trade happens between producers not for money, the rest of us are a table scrap market that occasionally picks up some goodies because they're traded or sold or leaked so we have no real impact. As for the general availability it's not like looking at gay porn is going to make me gay, nor is looking at pedo porn going to turn anybody into pedos. I'm really not sure if CP works as a safety valve or a pressure cooker for held back sexuality, it seems to me everybody gets sexually frustrated over time. Most people would over an involuntary celibacy or an unsatisfying adult cover relationship.

P.S. Posted over TOR + some other safety arrangements, let me just say there was anonymity before TOR and there will be anonymity after TOR even if they should shut that down. It just happens to be the tip of the iceberg that's poking up right now.

increased availability has + and - sides

[davidwr]

As you say, increased availability "could conceivably increase the occurrence of child rape" among those who would be satisfied by "mere" imagery.

But you are ignoring the other side:

Many people - perhaps more than 5-10% of adult males - have a small part of them that finds such imagery sexually stimulating, but their moral code, social conditioning, fear of damage to their marriage or reputation, and perceived difficulty in getting such images without getting caught prevent them from even trying. If such images were widely available or available with less of a stigma, more of these people would seek out such images. A good percentage of them would wind up hurting their marriages and ability to be a full-time father. A few of them might find that the images are "not enough" and they might go on to rape their own kids.

There are a lot of "mights" here, both in your statement and in mine. Obviously, no controlled, reliable, large-scale studies have been done on this.

The bottom line:

We can't say definitively whether making child porn more widely available and less socially unacceptable will increase or decrease the overall number of children who are raped or otherwise sexually exploited. We CAN reasonably say that if it is increased, SOME children who would otherwise become victims will be spared harm and that SOME children will be harmed who would otherwise not be.

Oh, and this completely ignores the psychological harm to those whose images are circulating: By far most victims of child pornography would rather that the images be seen by only a relatively small number of people vs. them being seen by a relatively large number of people.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[BronsCon]

Even moreso, let's say I'm browsing porn and I come across a huge archive of CP. What would my reaction be in the current legal climate? Back up all of my documents and license keys (specifically excluding any browser caches), buy a new hard drive *IMMEDIATELY*, and, while reinstalling my OS and all of my software onto the new drive, remove the platters from the old drive and: If glass, shatter then and put them in the blender until reduced to dust; if metal, place in a bucket of thermite and ignite. From there, simply hope and pray that my IP is purged from the site's logs before they're raided (if ever, since... who's going to report that they foind such a thing in the current legal climate?).

If simply having a thumbnail in my browser cache wasn't enough to land me in prison for years and get me branded as a sex offender and pedophile for the rest of my life, my reaction would be to simply report the site to the proper authorities, clear my browser cache, and get on with my life.

That is the problem with posession laws. If you find it by accident you're just as screwed as the guy seeking it out. If you report finding it, you're admitting that you have it (in your cache at the very least) and you're just as screwed as the guy who ignored it and was simply unlucky enough to have his IP in the logs when the site got raided. You should be able to report finding it, where you foud it, and how you found it, without fear of prosecution for posession (which is a foregone conclusion if you found it on the internet). Until this becomes a reality, the FBI is going to have one hell of a time tracking the stuff down; once it becomes possible to report it without landing yourself in prison, many people who come across it will do their part to make the FBI's job easier.

Ooh, you just gave me a great idea

[davidwr]

Seed "dark sites" with filenames that imply child porn videos.

Then LMAO when the horny old men get rick-rolled.

OK, that's just a thought experiment. I would advise against visiting such sites for any reason. If the feds ever do figure out how to monitor who is visiting those sites, you don't want to be on their suspected-pervert list.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[RobertLTux]

the biggest problem is the abuse of kids that is a part of the production of the porn.

we have Kidnapping
physical abuse of the kids
Drugging the kids
selling people

and thats not even getting into the whole thing of an adult having sex with a kid half his size.

Are you male?

[davidwr]

Are you male (in an era of same-sex weddings I have to ask)?

If you are you need to cover your legal butt by immediately reporting this film, along with the point in the movie the offending image can be found, to the FBI, your local police, your local sensationalist news outlet (or a one in a nearby city or state if your local news outlets are reasonably rational).

Failure to do so can get you branded as a kiddie-porn-lover and no amount of hiding behind an "AC" nick will protect you.

---

I exaggerate only slightly, for effect. Seriously, you make some very good points.

Re:Are you male?

[TriezGamer]

... The fact that you lead this with a question about gender bothers me.

With Japanese doujinshi and hentai artwork, I know several females who are really into 'shotacon', which is essentially art depicting underaged males in sexual situations.

And yet I've never seen anyone criticize 'shotacon' anywhere near as heavily as 'lolicon' (underaged females).

It's just another case of strange double-standards.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not arguing against your points in general, but using the word "pedo" broadly and casually tends to obscure the ethical issues rather than clarify them. "Child rapist" doesn't have that ambiguity problem as a term.

To be literal about the correct definitional usage of "pedophile":

A person who feels uncomfortable and conflicted about their attraction to a 10-year-old, and never mistreats or is inappropriate with one in their entire life, -is- a pedophile.

A person who rapes and kills a 13-year-old, is -not- a pedophile.

The term addresses only the presence of an attraction to prepubescents, and says nothing about any action or lack of action about it. I don't think that's the overall point you were looking to make.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[BronsCon]

"depicting or apparently depicting a minor" to paraphrase the current US law (I'm not going to Google it, but if you want to find yourself on that particular watchlist, you're more than welcome to look it up).

Piracy and the music industry

[davidwr]

Piracy is killing the for-profit music industry and that part of the non-money-oriented industry that requires money to exist (e.g. artists who sell album and videos for just enough to cover the costs of producing their art).

It is not hurting artists who give away their stuff for free because 1) they don't need the cash and 2) the cost of production is small enough to eat. Just look at all the free stuff by non-professionals out there on YouTube and elsewhere.

Child Porn production can roughly be divided along similar lines:
* The stuff that is made for profit
* The stuff that is made for barter, or given away with the understanding that those receiving it will eventually "return the favor" as part of an implied social contract
* The stuff that is given away because the "artist"/producer gets to feel good knowing others are seeing his work.

Piracy (distributing copyrighted material without permission of the copyright owner) will encourage, not discourage, the last group.

Interestingly, since it's considered evidence of a crime, I doubt most child porn is copyrightable. That doesn't mean it is in the public domain, only that the creator has no right to control its distribution. The exceptions might be images that were created either at a time or in a country where they were legally produced, or images such as medical images which, while it can be used as porn, was created lawfully and can still be used for a lawful purpose. In such cases the producer or his successor-of-interest likely has an enforceable copyright. Yes, folks, a medical doctor or forensic photographer can probably use the DMCA to force CP sites to take down pirated copies of his legitimate medical photographs of children's up-close-and-personal private parts.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AmiMoJo]

There's no reason why it should be tied to drinking, and someone who is just a bad driver can be as dangerous as a good driver who is drunk.

That's why there is a driving test.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[dgatwood]

But without that word, it misses the key point of the sentence, which is that it is not limited to actual abuse (i.e. that it can also be caused by the mere perception of abuse where none exists). It's an awkward concept to get across in one sentence. Perhaps I should have worded it as:

...isn't limited to actual instances of sexual abuse (or even actual instances of abuse in general).

*shrugs*

Obscentity is illegal

[davidwr]

The definition of obscenity is a very high and somewhat flexible bar, but yes, some sexual images involving consenting adults are nominally illegal in the United States. They are hard to prosecute but there have been successful prosecutions in the United States even in the last couple of decades.

Soldiers

[davidwr]

The military rules aren't always the same as civilian rules.

If he had been an American who was over there on vacation, and was charged, AND if he had enough money for a good lawyer, he could probably beat the rap PROVIDED the camera angle was "normal" for photographing a similar child in a bathing suit - e.g. not aimed at or zoomed in on the privates.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just admitted seeing CP, and still have some "traces" in your hard drive. According to the current CP laws, it's highly probable that you'll get a decade of jail and an entry in the sex offender's register if you get "busted".

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

As you said, maybe that's because Hollywood could take the case to court and they have the money to have it dragged out for years, forcing the police and the prosecution to either drop the case or waste millions of tax payers dollars and risk going into the red.

Also since we're talking about Hollywood here, they could simply bribe the prosecution to not prosecute, or bribe their bosses to fire the prosecutors, I'm sure it's happened before several times.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ArsenneLupin]

The "actual" was meant to exclude chess, not football. He elaborated that in his response: "In other words, not only is it not limited to the football (a narrow category), but it is further not even limited to physical sports in general (a broader category that includes the former). Many people experience excitement even in some activities where they merely work their brain, but no actual muscle has been exerted. The key point was that until the person (whether performing a physical sport or a brain sport...".

Of course, the problem is, in the original message there was no mention of chess, that angle was only brought up in his reply...

This is a problem

[davidwr]

Minors should be allowed to film themselves for documentary purposes, and parents should be allowed to film their children for documentary purposes if the films are held closely to those involved until all actors are and age when most adults are emotionally mature (typically low-20s), financially-independent (typically living on their own without parental support for several months), AND legal adults (typically 18, unless mentally retarded) and at that time the actors are given control / veto power over further use of the images.

I recognize that, like adult pornography, the existence of pornography or of non-pornographic photos which are commonly used as pornography taken of people when they were children is harmful to society. However, this must be balanced against the rights of people to document their own lives and the rights of adults to disseminate such documentary photographs or videos even if they were taken before the now-adult was of legal age.

In the decaying remains of Soviet Russia

[davidwr]

In the decaying remains of Soviet Russia...

Zombies f*ck YOU!

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[HapSlappy_2222]

I think we often miss the point of why relatives are so often the perpetrators of child abuse. It's a proximity and trust thing. If "strangers" could get that level of trust easily (say, with candy, videogames, music, fancy vans with no windows, or anything else you might warn your kids about) I think child abuse by people the victims don't know would be far more common.

Another key point is we often lump all child abuse into one grouping. A whopping 84% of all child abuse is done by a child's biological parents, but 60% of child *sexual* abuse is done by people known to the child but who are not family members (babysitters, teachers, family friends, neighbors etc). People completely unknown to the child only comprise about 10% of sexual abuses, most of the rest are family. You were close; family members are FAR more common perpetrators than strangers, but that third category of abusers - non-family members in authority positions - make up the majority of sexual abusers.

Sources:
http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/70/~/who-typically-abuses-children%3F
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx

Of course, all of this explains why child abuse in any form is such a violation of the kids in question; these are the people who are supposed to be teaching kids about and protecting kids from the world, but instead these people are harming them. These children tend to learn there IS no safe place or person, and that's a tough lesson to learn that young.

As a brief anecdote (feel free to skip if it's TL;DR. It only serves as a personal example proving no statistics, just how it sometimes happens):

My "inappropriate touching" guy was my piano teacher when I was 9. He had all sorts of "games" to play when I did well on the lessons. I knew the guy; he was from our church ward, and he was always sort of antisocially creepy, like the house the kids don't want to trick or treat at kind of thing. Shit started to get WAY creepy though. That's a difficult spot to be in as a kid; my folks PAY this guy to teach me piano one hour a week, and I really was learning the piano, and he was a nice enough guy when he wasn't being creepy and pushy as fuck, so what was I supposed to do? I mean, some of the stuff was sorta... oogily nice at the time, I guess, but when I thought about it after the fact it was just half guilt (shame? shrug) and half gross. I didn't want to see the guy in jail forever, or whatever; just to get him to knock it off and not feel... responsible for any of it, I guess. I just ended up quitting piano, instead of dealing with it directly. Looking back, I wouldn't say it damaged me permanently or anything, but it was an odd and emotionally complicated way to learn how to "make the white stuff come out" (admittedly, certain specifics got burned permanently into memory). Last I heard, some 25 years ago, a different kid DID tell his folks, and the guy ended up getting arrested. Not sure what happened after that. To this day, I don't have any hate for the guy; it wouldn't serve any purpose. OTOH, I do sure as *hell* keep tabs on who watches my little girls a lot more closely because of it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[cheekyjohnson]

While I generally agree with your point I do think there are times when punishing people who have not actually harmed anyone else yet is right.

I realize you replied to a part of my comment that mentioned "maybes," but I don't think that applies. In one situation, someone is putting others' lives in danger (which has been proven), and in the other, they're not (or, at least, it certainly hasn't been proven in this specific case). Not only that, but I view it as a complete waste of time to go after someone looking at pictures, and believe that the ones doing the raping (the ones hurting the children) should be the ones punished. Actually, in this case, the rapist is indeed the one doing the damage (like a drunk driver might), not the person looking at images.

NOT funny

[davidwr]

Interesting or insightful perhaps, but definitely NOT funny.

I say this on behalf of everyone who was raped in a church or by someone acting under the church's authority or color of authority.

Re:NOT funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting or insightful perhaps, but definitely NOT funny.

I say this on behalf of everyone who was raped in a church or by someone acting under the church's authority or color of authority.

Hey, it got a smirk out of me. Admittedly I've grown a thick skin over the years.
AC for obvious reasons. Being a plaintiff in a Crown court was definitely srs bsns.
Also I like Tor.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, assuming ZERO criminal history and he was a clean as possible, the 180 months of imprisonment is less than the maximum under the sentencing guidelines that he most likely would have gotten if convicted. If you are curious, that would come out with five level 18 offenses and one level 22 at best for the advertising, but both of those are without any aggravating factors.

If the gov't wants to monitor TOR

[davidwr]

They should do what China is probably already doing:

Set up enough TOR nodes that look like they are run by average-joe volunteers that heavy TOR users will, sooner or later, wind up sending at least some incriminating traffic "end to end" through government-controlled TOR servers.

Once the government knows that Joe American with a specific IP address is using TOR to visit site xyz that carries mostly kiddie porn, they should have no problem getting a warrant to not only wiretap the guy but install other surveillance as well, including video cameras so they can see WHO is accessing the site and WHAT is showing up on the computer screen.

Once China knows or suspects that one of their citizens with a specific IP address is using TOR to visit site abc that carries mostly dissident material, they can do what they like with him and those around him. After all, they are the government of China, they don't need warrants.

Re:If the gov't wants to monitor TOR

[PPH]

Mod parent up.

That's how to nail the pedos (and other criminals online). But that's not the primary argument behind wanting TOR gone. It interferes with private industries' attempts at assembling their own private Internet police force to be used for tracking down online piracy. That's something Big Media has been lusting after in the form of ACTA and PIPA. The nearly official status that takedown notices will achieve, bypassing law enforcement's priorities and need to demonstrate probable cause can't go forward if the only means to act on a suspicion lead through the courts and judicially issued search warrant process. It wouldn't surprise me if the anti-TOR talking points have been handed to the FBI by private industry and they (the FBI) just doesn't see (or care) how they are being manipulated.

There are ways to pursue pirates and other criminals through the TOR system. But all of these lead, in this country, to the court system to obtain further evidence. And if the RIAA has to file civil suits and get law judicial/enforcement resources committed to execute them, odds are that the courts will prioritize child porn and shove all the illegal Lady Gaga video downloads to the bottom of the pile.

If TOR is shut down, it makes it easier to do all end to end evidence tracing privately. Right now, I'm not certain what the liability of a non law enforcement entity running a phony TOR node would be. Should an RIAA's investigator happen upon my legal (non pirated, non kiddie porn TOR) traffic, it could easily be a DMCA violation. But without TOR, is just 'deep packet inspection' of the type many ISPs practice unhindered.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AlamedaStone]

Because alcohol is to sex traffickers as porn of sex slaves is to sex traffickers? Did you mean to reply to someone else, because this post makes no sense in relation to what I said.

Or, at all.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[s0nicfreak]

The manga section at Barnes and Noble isn't exactly a great representation of manga as a whole. And I'm not sure how much mature manga is actually at Barnes & Noble, but let's not pretend here. America (and other countries) has stretched "child" to mean anyone under 18, or anyone that looks under 18 and doesn't show 2 forms of ID. America has stretched "sexual activity" to mean something as innocent as showing a boob when getting into a bath. Manga characters frequently look young, and usually don't have pubes (though there is probably not much nudity in the books at Barnes and Noble, I would guess). Since saying "she just LOOKS like a child, she's actually 30" usually doesn't fly in America (and other pedo-witch-hunt countries), by many Americans' definition of the words, yes; there's a fuckton of "child" "porn" in manga.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Endo13]

Canada does.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/27/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/

Relevant quote from the link:

"Presumably based on Canadian statutes that treat any sexual images of characters that appear to be under 18 as actual child pornography, the images they discovered were deemed child porn and the man was charged accordingly."

In this case, the pictures weren't even of actual people. So you can even be prosecuted for possession of images of cartoon adults that appear to be under 18.

And what if you were browsing porn and didn't realize one of the images was actually a 17-year-old who looked like she was over 20? I don't approve of child porn, but there's a VAST difference between a sexy nude photo of an older teen (and good luck actually telling if she's 17, 18, or 19...) and an 8-year-old being raped.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough, but I don't think that someone looking at pictures will harm anyone no matter how long they look, the same cannot be said of the drunk driver.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[scot4875]

you really think it's that simple?

Yet you seem to think that it's as simple as "eliminate child porn, kiddie diddlers will disappear".

--Jeremy

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[dwye]

Aside from drugs, stolen property, freshly dead bodies in shallow graves, cash in excess of a certain amount ($10,000 I think) without an easily obtained license, lock picks (unless you are a registered locksmith), yeah. Oh, and a movie of a robbery or assassination if you are on film as a participant. And probably a few other cases that I can think of, if given more time.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[desdinova 216]

just one Pope?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Prune]

> they can also prosecute a husband who has a picture of his wife's tits if his wife is, or looks, under 18.

Citation needed.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost the exact same thing happened to me. Almost exactly, except it was 2001 and I was 19. The images were also NOT recoverable. I had discontinued the fserve before the party van because people kept uploading CP. There was NO CP found nor recoverable. However, amount the 25 or harddrives, and 50 or so CDs they found one CD witch contained a straight, unedited dump of some newsgroups. It contained over 3,000 imagines. Six had imagines of females believed to be between 15 and 17, (which they determined by judging by the size and shape of their hips.) $35,000 and one of the best 1st amendment lawyers in the country managed to skate by with "only" 5 years probation, no access to ANY pornography durning the probation verified by TEAMS of LEOs trashing my house any time they felt like it, and a with-hold of adjudication I could have sealed after sentence was served. Except you can't have these type of records sealed ever, because they are considered violent crimes. ( With hold adjudication means that the case was neither dismissed, nor was I found guilty.)

The entire story is required to told every time I apply for a job as it will always show up in a background check. I have been denied employment because of it.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[melikamp]

The fact others download and view the material provide validation and acceptance to the producers

Bullshit. By your logic, people who downloaded and viewed Collateral Damage provided validation and acceptance of the producers: the armed forces, and so endorsed targeted killing of civilians and of people who came to aid the wounded.

Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, mothers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbours; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases. In over one-third of cases, the perpetrator is also a minor. ~wikipedia

Stop equating visual representation of child abuse with child abuse: you are helping the actual child abusers by keeping them out of sights. Thanks to people like you, the public thinks that sexual child abuse is a fringe activity of ultra-perverts in child-porn rings. But this is nuts. Most child abusers do not give two shits about child porn, and they certainly don't make it. Most children are abused by people who know them personally and have unrestricted access, and that is true everywhere in the world, including places like rural Mongolia, where pornography is non-existent. Why would a child abuser need pornography when there is a naked kid running right if front of him all day?

I am firmly against commercializing child porn, and I don't want to look at it either. But I believe just as firmly that the images themselves need to me made legal to possess and to share in a non-commercial setting. May be then the public will realize that child abuse is not a Grimm fairy tale, but something really ugly and commonplace.

I'm pretty sure more than TOR blocks the FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it; more than 100,000 kids go missing and get traded. Likely the real culprits are as much a part of the establishment as the billions laundered for Drug money at major banks. Surely someone at the NSA and CIA knows exactly what is going on with every user of TOR, but they don't help investigations unless it leads to greater power for themselves.

If the FBI tracked the people exploiting the kids, they'd then find the people who SOLD the kids. Baptist church groups who were trying to adopt kids in Haiti and "import them" to child slavery friendly latin american countries comes to mind, as well as pedophile friendly Vatican. I do remember the Bush administration stopping a measly statement of Condemnation of Saudi Arabia for importing child sex workers -- and all the NeoCons seemed to donate to charities related to "missing children hotlines". Anyone remember that former white house page who was whisked away from a sex crime charge in Japan because he admitted to molesting JonBenet Ramsey? As soon as the Bush administration got him into the USA -- his admission of guilt became a "mistake" and nothing further about it was mentioned.

Who knows what we find if we actually went down that particular rabbit hole. The number of world leaders connected to the NeoCon and Globalist agendas who end up caught in a sex crime is too statistically high to ignore. There is no better way to control people than evidence of a dead woman or a live boy. I'm pretty sure the great carrot and stick of diplomacy is the child sex trade.

Does anyone REALLY think that the FBI is stopped by some do-gooder free speech organization? They have handlers that can follow psychotics for 5 years until they plant a bomb, they can break down any door they want. They just don't WANT to break down doors that have gold door knobs.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, I'm not arguing about this specific example (child pornography), just making a general point.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, exactly. It's a bullshit made up association backed by nothing. Show me where money is changing hands based on CP. It doesn't happen on a significant scale. Maybe some sex tourist makes a video, but he is paying for the sex, not the video, and no-one pays him for the video.

Why would someone selling sex slaves also make porn with them and expose their much more lucrative human trafficking business? You are just a reactionary making shit up to justify your worldview.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[PopeRatzo]

just one Pope?

Well, there's only one pope alive at the moment.

The last several popes (at least) have been in on protecting serial child rapists, however.

When cartoons are child porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet there is a picture in the Minneapolis Institute of Art called "The Little Girl" which features a naked little girl painted in a gaunt fashion displaying full frontal nudity. And the people responsible for it's display are not charged for any crimes.

Thank you for supporting my point

[davidwr]

If you didn't notice, the post was a bitter commentary on the very double-standard which you speak of.

About myself

[Anonymous Coward]

I have gigabytes of porn of willing children. How does that make you feel?

You should believe I do have it because it's easy and safe to get it on Tor, Freenet, and I2P.

All 50 states

[davidwr]

The 17-year-old was in the paragraph about child pornography.

In the eyes of the feds, porn involving a 17 year old minor is a felony.

As to your original question:

Only a few states have an age of consent of 18. Many of these have close-in-age exceptions that would make the 19/17 situation legal.

Here are a few that don't:

In California, it's a misdemeanor for for someone to have sex with someone under 18 if the age difference is less than 3 years. It's a misdemeanor for both minors if both minors are under 18 and within 3 years in age.

In North Dakota, an adult having sex with a close-in-age minor commits a misdemeanor.

Virginia is similar.

In Wisconsin this could be prosecuted as a felony or misdemeanor.

Source. Caveat reader - I didn't fact-check this information, but the odds of ALL of these examples being wrong is very low.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law, look it up. its in black and white. are you to lazy to google it?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Carnildo]

...any more than taking away all CP will stop child sexual abuse but it does help discourage it.

Studies show that the opposite is true. Denmark and another European country (I think it was Czechoslovakia) both accidentally legalized possession of child pornography, and in both cases, the rate of child sexual abuse plummeted. Japan had a boom in the market for cartoon child pornography in the 1980s, and again, the rate of child sexual abuse plummeted.

(In case you're wondering how you can accidentally legalize child pornography, it's simple: First you have a law that outlaws all pornography. Then, you repeal it.)

Set up a Honeypot? Are you serious?

[sirwired]

That's the way I would expect any FBI honeypot to be run. It would eliminate almost anybody who didn't hurt an actual child. From there, you wait, gather information, and eventually begin providing files that require a custom tool to extract them—a tool that surreptitiously phones home. You've now caught thousands of actual sexual predators.

Are you seriously suggesting the FBI solicit unique child pornography?

Think about that for a minute and get back to me if you don't realize why that is a pretty bad idea.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should arrest all the Teachers, Ministers, Babysitters, ect. because they work with Children every day and therefor are exposed to children and will develop tendencies towards liking children more then oh, their wife/husband, boyfriend/girlfriend?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[KZigurs]

On the other hand, I can kind of see why they go after individual users: publicly embarrassing people either due to their drug use or taste for child porn could be seen as a significant deterrent. But then that's really nothing to do with any kind of justice, it's just a cynical use of the system to make people behave a certain way.

The system exists ONLY to make people behave a certain way. If you have any other delusions please share, but let me make one thing for clear - you are not free. You are a person that system tries to behave in a certain way (not always sane, btw).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Carnildo]

better yet, point out that 'adult porn' is generally always not rape, whereas CP always is.

Except it isn't. From talking to someone whose job is to investigate suspected CP, the vast majority of the stuff that crosses his desk is either "clothed children posing sexually" or "non-sexual nudity" -- in short, stuff that wouldn't even be considered pornographic if the subject were an adult.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet there are still bad drivers on the road. This test you speak of does not seem to work all that well.

I know the FBI doesn't, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I would try wiretapping the entire Internet. You could use voltage converters and single-purpose processors to get the kind of bandwidth that you'd need.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, epidemiologically speaking, which is worse? Raping or Killing

Is not Tuberculosis worse than Ebola because it does not kill and therefore it's effects are lasting and possibly communicable?

It is also easier to identify an Ebola outbreak because of the deaths. Similarly John Wayne Gacy was caught before he could have the impact of many of the recent serial child rapists found in religious circles... not to mention BSA, Boys and Girls Clubs... etc.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[thegarbz]

You said it yourself just now. The human survival trait is a strong one. People wish they were dead but don't actually take their life.

This further strengthens the GPs argument that murder is worse than rape.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Pseudonym Authority]

LOL

Liar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. No sane studio would distribute that.

Re:Liar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you called him a liar:

The Change Up, unrated edition
0:01:55, not even past the opening credits

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[UnresolvedExternal]

Ya really.... you expect me to click links in this thread?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pics or it... nevermind

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

a) You are fucking paranoid
b) You give your government too much credit. They can't get their act together on such simple issues, you think they are actually monitoring you specifically 24/7?
c) If you are convinced that you can get in troubles for clicking on a random link, move somewhere that doesn't suck.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[freedumb2000]

The problem is not that the patient may have already committed a crime. Psychiatrist have to report a there mere fact that a patient has pedophile tendencies, no matter if they are acted on or not.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[wvmarle]

Even worse.

Anyway afaik a psychiatrist is normally not allowed to report on anything a patient tells him. Even if that is about crime committed.

FBI's normal wiretapping thwarted by Tor

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt majority of Tor users are pedophiles. I think FBI is dealing with normal software pirates, people downloading illegal music and movies and occasional people searching for tips how to grow marihuana.

I hate it when any organization just says "Please, think of the children!" and you are automatically labeled a pedofile just for opposing restictrions, limitations in privacy and giving up your legal rights.

I have children myself. I could see me trying to kill a person for abusing my children, and I a totally wish to support the effort to catch child predators, but I doubt whatever FBI wishes to do with Tor isn't just about that..

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[wcgOtt]

Although not a severe as your example, it's crazy witch hunt era we live in. A friend's son downloaded something that was likely a CP sting file (as in they were watching for the file to be downloaded.) He was 14 and didn't know what it was. The police stormed the house and broke the door down with guns drawn to a shocked and scared single mom and three kids. This is was in a low crime suburban Canadian city (this is not just a US problem.) Total over reaction and abuse of power. Luckily she has been able to get her son cleared of charges and is looking at pursuing excessive force. There is no excuse for this nor can it be justified.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument is that "Society is harmed". You might be harmed if the video somehow is used to blackmail you, but law enforcement will need to connect only 2 dots: 1. it is a 14 year old boy performing a sex act; 2. You are in possession of said evidence. Matter not that it was you. There are a LOT of videos out there where kids have either used laptops or web cam or video cameras to record themselves, sometimes with friends or boy/girl friends. There is a case where a 13 year old girl videoed herself stripping and then masturbating and then sending the video to her 14 year old girlfriend, also her sex partner. Both were arrested, houses were trashed and all kinds of stuff confiscated, parents originally arrested for "facilitating child pornography production". Both girls were prosecuted and are serving time incarcerated in a juvenile facilty until they are 18. Now, tell me who was the victim here? Oh, and they were both "A" students.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's such a pain to log in every time so this thing doesn't call me a coward. My name is Andrew, and I can tell you a few reasons why child pornography should be illegal, and I can't believe that this is even a topic. 1. It's vile. 2. The child is injured in the process. How is the child injured? Well, like Smauler just said, it messes with your head for a good period of time afterwards. It also puts the child at risk of being stalked, but most 14 year olds end up with a social networking or at least AIM/SKYPE account these days, and they often put themselves out there in some risky business too. The point in busting these sites is because it puts children at risk and their parents. The fact that it goes on so much is acceptable among some circles of people puts me at risk also. We also have a problem with sex trafficking in the USA, believe it or not. This can help track down decent parents kids who got eaten off of the web. This is a serious problem, and it is not acceptable nor comical

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents definitely need to get a grip about what goes on and not let their kids skype to everyone and their brother and sext too. You should definitely think about the unintended consequences of what children do at times also. Anyone who argued against bringing these sites down is a real sicko.

How To Get Around the Constitution of the USA

[bencook2]

How To Get Around the Constitution of the USA 1. Say it is Terrorism 2. Say it is Copyright Infringment 3. Say it is Child Porn

Why smashing up anonymous networks won't solve it

[Anonymous Coward]

It will not undo the abuse that has taken place.
It will not help abused kids to cope and deal with what happened (Not that I want to imply that this is even possible at all).
It will not help the parents of these children.
It will not prevent other sites and perverts from continuing what they are doing.
It will not prevent rapers from raping and dealers from dealing.
It will not bring all those involved to justice.

Networks don't create problems. As almost with anything, people do. If it wasn't for psychos, this world would be a much nicer place to live in. What we need is a gene that wipes out every psycho on this planet.

TOR is a good tool for people to express their opinions. Just like anything good, it can be used as a weapon and to harm innocents.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ghostdoc]

Hmm, yeah, I see where you're coming from... but Dude! NO!

A young teenage girl may well be making all the come-ons, noises, faces, etc. That doesn't mean fucking her is the right thing to do. Kids going through puberty are unsure of their sexuality and will act out situations that they're actually not at all ready for. In other words, they're incapable of deciding on 'informed consent' because they're dealing with a completely new, strange hormonal territory and don't have the experience with those emotions to be informed about them yet.

I don't really understand the problem here. I understand you like young girls, and want them to be loved and cherished, and so that includes fucking them how? Surely some kind of non-selfish, adult, empathic understanding kicks in here to say 'woah, she's just a kid, let's not go there'?

The points about CP being always there, and 99% of abuse not being filmed are well made.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[ghostdoc]

While I agree with your points, actually in my post I was using the term 'pedo' in the same sense that you mean (someone who is sexually attracted to children).

I wasn't drawing a distinction between someone who is sexually attracted to kids but who doesn't consume CP, and someone who does. Maybe there should be a distinction there (non-practising pedophile? that almost sounds worse)

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Fned]

is wrong

Why? Serious question.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Fned]

IMHO there is a good argument that through conditioning, the use of this material could increase the likelihood of a person offending.

Sort of how increased availability of porn via the internet increased the number of rapes occurring? Except that, inconveniently, that isn't what actually happened?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Cazekiel]

Assuming you didn't compensate the producer of the images, you in no way contributed to the market of child pornography.

If I create a product, any product--let's say a new toothpaste, and no one buys it, I don't make it anymore. I don't pour my money into a fruitless venture.

To make child porn, you need money. Even just a little. To distribute/sell it, you need money. You make up for what you spent in how many people buy it. If no one bought it, you couldn't continue making it. You might still sexually molest kids, but perhaps not as many, and in private. Therefore, if someone go to a website and pay them to download child porn material they produced, they're not just contributing to that market, they ARE that market. They're the reason it's being made. In the end, it is the people who are there to have it sold to that hold a shitton of responsibility.

But yea, I'd hope that someone's history is looked up before assuming that *one picture* means they're a pedo. I'd think that investigators look into the entire person, and would be able to tell that it was an accident.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[pyrothebouncer]

Eh, I feel I must make my opinion known here as it may shed some light on the CP topic...

CP is in the eye of the beholder. What this means is that CP is not JUST images or movies of innocent kids being raped. CP could be anything. Images or movies of young kids in nearly any situation.

There are whole sections of the internet dedicated to the "soft porn" of non-nude young boys and girls. These images and movies are often simply suggestive in nature but don't contain anything which would actually be considered to be CP. Many of the sites are disguised as "Modeling" sites and some are even run by the parents of the children who are featured. There often isn't ANY nudity at all on the sites, but the sites charge memberships for access to photo sets and videos. The problem with these sites though is that pedophiles can get their jollies off with these "legal" images and movies. Sure, they aren't CP to the authorities, but they are images of boys and girls of a young age which pedophiles can use in place of their typical nude images.

Most pedophiles aren't much different from any other "porn addict".

Sure, there are pedophiles out there who don't want to live a fantasy life and go out and try to contact children and have sexual relations with them. But I would assume most are just "closet" pedophiles who never leave the fantasy realm.

CP will NEVER go away. Not as long as the digital realm is around. Just like the idea of smothering the pirated music, movies, and software industry. It will always be with us. If the FBI really wants to stop CP, it needs to find a way to prevent the perversion that occurs in the minds of the people who think that CP is not wrong, or it needs to quit shoving it's "Judeo-Christian beliefs" about what is right or wrong in sexual relations between two parties down the throats of the American people (and the rest of the world too). Since they will never find a way to fix the perversion, and they will also never stop trying to tell the American people what their version of right and wrong is, the CP will never go away.

I'm not suggesting that the FBI give up in it's pursuit, but that these bumps in the road they are experiencing are nothing new and they will continue to have difficulty, no matter what angle they use.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Please link me to a news article that proves me wrong if people are getting busted for single images, since I am only an individual person and could have missed ?
> something

Breaking: Canada drops charges in manga case
March 15, 2012 By Brigid Alverson

As manga readers are well aware, Canadian customs views all comics, and especially manga, with great suspicion. Two years ago, Ryan Matheson was detained at the Ottawa airport and ultimately arrested and charged with criminal possession of child pornography because of a manga image on his computer. Today, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund announced that the Crown has dropped all criminal charges in the case. Check out my article at CBR for all the details, and I’ll be back tomorrow with the regular roundup.

http://mangablog.net/2012/03/15/breaking-canada-drops-charges-in-manga-case/

See also: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=37552

The total cost of Matheson's defence was in excess of $70,000, of which $30,000 was covered by donations; this leaves him on the hook for the remaining $40,000.

FBI hunting for CP!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have thought after the Columbian Prostitute Scandal they would want to publicize they were now looking for CP!

Re:Set up a Honeypot? Are you serious?

[dgatwood]

Why not? From a legal perspective, the police solicit prostitutes, and that's on the right side of the law when it comes to entrapment; there's really no difference. And from an ethical perspective, the people who do these things are going to do them anyway. At least if the FBI is doing the solicitation, it puts the child abusers one step closer to getting caught.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

An excellent well-balanced view. Thanks

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets just say they are both horrible crimes that deserve severe punishment.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather find the potential molesters dead body. NO pedifile deserves to breath air

Let me spell this out then...

[sirwired]

Your comparison of Prostitutes vs. Pedophiles are not the same at all! Not on a legal or ethical perspective.

When a cop hints to a prostitute that he would like to take advantage of his/her services, he/she offers, and he/she gets arrested. Nobody gets hurt, and the offered services do not take place. Note that the cop cannot actually explicitly request illegal services, as that would be entrapment. (This works in real life because many actual johns are shy enough that they don't directly ask for what they want, so hookers can't use "not directly requesting illegal services" as a cop filter.)

If you request that pedophiles submit unique content to a honeypot, and they don't happen to have any on hand at the moment, an actual violent crime must take place before the criminal dutifully submits the incriminating evidence. And what do you do if you can't trace the evidence? Ask for more? When do you give up? How much crime do you actively solicit from a single perpetrator?

And no investigator in his/her right mind is going play the "would this have happened anyway?" game. That's a question that's impossible to answer.

Re:Let me spell this out then...

[dgatwood]

I never said they should trace the evidence. I said they should try to infect their computers. (Well, I did say they should try to trace the evidence, but that was in the much broader context of porn that they find online, not in the context of an FBI-run honeypot.)

As for requesting fresh evidence versus not, you're assuming active solicitation. That's not the way anything like this would ever be run, FBI or otherwise. You don't just go up to somebody you think is a mobster and ask for a hit on somebody. Making connections for illegal acts requires a slow, careful process of hinting around the issue until you are certain that you're both talking about the same thing. I would expect an FBI child porn honeypot to attract members through a similar vetting process.

During their online conversations (in a chat room or whatever), the FBI agents could determine with a reasonable degree of certainty that the people were probably harming kids already. Then and only then would they ask for photographic evidence as a requirement for admission into the "club", whereupon they would impersonate the club only as long as necessary to gain the trust of the people in question sufficiently to convince them to install the piece of spyware that reveals their location and identity.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed, that is obviously bullshit. Marriage is too well documented for that to pass muster.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cannot grasp that having sex with a 10 year old girl or boy is DIFFERENT than watching it then quite frankly two can play this game and I think YOU should have your brains blown out - and I'd gladly watch the video of it happening.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are of comedians that are of age. It's all safe.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your local Barnes and Noble abides by your local law stupid!

And actually 'a manga cartoon' is what he said.

That's like me saying 'possession of a video will get you more time than doing the real thing', except the entire artstyle of Manga makes people look younger than they are (typically to overstate the fact that japanese people tend to look younger than the average western person at the same age due to their typically diminutive size and small frame). This makes any sexually oriented Manga (in Japan half a Manga bookstore will be dedicated to the stuff) eligible as prosecution evidence unless the characters in the manga explicitly state their age, and even then that only offers protection if the court judges that to be original intention of the author.

Stop picking hairs for the sake of picking hairs. America is saying Manga R Bad, it was specifically amended into law a few months ago to keep the private prison industry climbing.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in context thats completely true.

"According to a strict interpretation of the law, in the US, possession of a Japanese comic books is worse than several violent crimes." Thats not what he said.

He actually replied to a CP post with....

"Yet a manga cartoon somehow harms society more than a video of an assassination? According to a strict interpretation of the law, in the US, possession of a manga cartoon is worse than several violent crimes."

Notice the lack of the word 'any' manga cartoon.

Let me show you that with manga cartoon swapped for... hmm, book.

"Yet a book somehow harms society more than a video of an assassination? According to a strict interpretation of the law, in the US, possession of a book is worse than several violent crimes."

Thats true too.

See the problem here is that sensationalist papers have been using language like that to trick you into beliving something that isnt the case becasue its easily misinterpreted If they put a headlin of... say, 'KKK are back!' for example, and then assert something along the lines of 'According to our sources, in the town of kiluwah, possession of a white outfit and pointy hat are commonplace'

Sure, the KKK wear white outfits and pointy hats, but then so do The Smurfs.

Be smart.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Druegan]

Many years ago I had a conversation with a lady in her mid 20's who had been the "victim" of incest by her father. This young woman was 9 years old when the "abuse" began, and it persisted up until she was 12 or 13.

At the time of our conversation, she'd only recently come to terms with the whole situation, after having spent probably 10 years receiving various forms of counselling and psychotherapy.

What she told me about her experiences was unexpected, until I really thought about it. She said that nothing was forced on her, and that the whole thing was a very loving and positive sexual experience, until she happened to let slip to one of her friends that it was going on.

The friend said something, the police were callled, her father arrested, and she was inundated by a veritable army of child advocates, social service people, counselors, school officials, police, etc..all *insisting* that something absolutely horrific had happened to her and that she needed all kinds of services to "recover from the trauma."

So imagine this, if you can.. You're a 12-13 year old girl.. you're enjoying (her words) an admittedly non-standard sexual relationship with your father.. everything is as fine as the life of a 12-13 year old can be.. and all of a sudden, one of your "friends" causes your father to be arrested, your family broken up, you dragged through "the system", confronted by dozens upon dozens of people all insisting that something horrible and evil has happened to you, and that you're all f**ked up, you just don't know it...

Your previously happy life has been turned on its head, your father, whom you love and respect, has been imprisoned and turned into some kind of of evil monster at the insistance of a bunch of "child welfare" advocates, your family life and the stability of your environment has been totally shot to hell during a time in your life where you're facing all sorts of uncertainty about your own identity, place in the world, etc, and you are painted to be the victim of this horrible evil man by everybody you come into contact with.

To sum it up, the young lady in question said that she was horribly traumatized by her incest experience and it took her 10 years to recover, because of the actions of *society* in relation to it, not because of the actual sexual conduct itself. To quote her..

"They made me feel like some kind of a freak, because they insisted that this thing I had experienced was so horrible and awful and evil, but I had enjoyed it."

Admittedly, I cannot assert that this is anywhere near a "standard" sort of view.. but it did make me pause and ask the question "Where is the real "abuse" happening here?" While I do not condone incest or the like, I certainly have to wonder about the wisdom of painting with as broad a brush as society does when it comes to sexuality.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Germany that is not true. They also have to report you there is an imminent danger to your life (suicidal).

Re:And yet, the mass media oogles over teenage gir

[Anonymous Coward]

and then we wonder why we have so much people interested in child pornography

I don't believe there are that many people at all. And you don't just turn into a pedophile one day, either.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[networkBoy]

I have to disagree.
I do not think that someone who is interested in children will overstep a social norm because of the lack of pictures/movies. I am sure there is room for outliers who may, but there are likely outliers in the other direction who would have but without pictures never went down that road. The numbers are likely to be close enough to be a wash.

My point is that either a person is willing to cross that line or they are not.
-nB

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[networkBoy]

there is a revenue stream, it is not free.
It is either paid for by swapping (barter), or by advertising/data mining.
-nB

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[davydagger]

"Of course it can. "The law" is not a computer program, it's interpreted by people"

As we've seen earlier, the courts often interpret laws in ways which boggle the mind. The court system and government in general is operated by people who are willfully ignorant of technology and are their granted positions by politicians who behave like children. Most people understand that if the law has a potential to be abused, it will, to the maximum extent possible. Did I mention that 99.99% of all judges are ex-lawyers? Do you trust this group of entitled scum to be in the slightest bit fair?

Of course the best part of this knee-jerk lynch mob mentality is that everyone who is even slightly opposed or even so much as hesitant of competing to take the position to its most logical "extreme", is a traitor to the cause and sympathizer to the enemy.

While I certainly argue that molesting children is vile, I fail to see how the extreme sentencing, draconian statues(offender registry list, and lifetime of harassment, intimidation, and disenfranchisement that comes with it), for the sole crime of possessing image files on a computer will stop child molesters, or is in any shape or form the sort of justice a free society seeks. None of them actually touched a child.

your argument is everyone not in the lynch mob supports child molesting. That argument is just as insane as the laws themselves. How many good men rot in prison for this madness? There is a post a few back that describes the all too common debacle of "clicking on a wrong ling somewhere" and winding up with serious amounts of jail time you won't get for raping someone in real life.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[davydagger]

If you've ever stumbled onto CP through any of the random image polling scripts from the image sites, what you see can be soul crushing.

I agree. If the FBI ever searches your computer the 10 years of prison you will get for having such images in your browser's cache will be just as soul crushing. The laws are very explicit in there is no "accidental circumstances" with child porn laws. Your just as guilty in the eyes of the law as a hardcore pedophile.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[davydagger]

I think it is also time to remember that the transition between "child" and "adult" does not happen in the magic of the 18th birthday, but is a process. An 19 year old having a 17 year old girlfriend is perfectly normal, and if they fancy to take nude pictures of each other I find it ridiculous to consider this child porn.

The real sick thing about this is this so called "age of consent". minors are NOT allowed to consent to anything by law. age of consent means your parents are allowed to consent. If you 18, and six months older than your 17 year old girlfriend, sleeping with her is only OK if her parents allow it, otherwise they can press charges. Same with labor laws. They can litteraly force you into sex/work, but you cannot make the choice yourself? All in the name of "protecting the children". Many states also have exceptions for marriage. While a 15 year old sleeping with a 35 year old will land the 35 year old in jail, unless of course they are married. Then its legal. No one questions the abilities of being able to marry a child.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Just to chip in, I've been jacking off to all sorts of porn since I was 9 - sodomy included. OTOH I've never been in a relationship, and feeling suicidal (last part comes with a big thanks to my nutty parents).

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to tackle the tar-baby of CP here, nor the one of defining it. I recently was obliged to help babysit a registered sex offender, whose crime in my eyes (other than being a totally fucked up misfit) was more that he was supplying cocaine to a couple of teenage girls, rather than that he was sleeping with them, with their parents consent (for money and coke, natch.) Of course, the dumb fuck got coked up again, instead of staying on his Resperidal (sic), a while back, and did another bad thing. (no, not involving a kid) and is now back in stir. That may be the safest place for him, if you get my drift. At any rate, having to juggle all the considerations involved here makes my head spin, and I'd rather just not deal with it right now.

I am certainly four-square against harming children, however, though from what I've seen, a good number of them need a spanking now and then, in the proper parental context. I don't consider that harm, however. Quite the reverse. The nanny state disapproves, of course.

At least with Tor, those who are simply titillated by scandal or morbidly curious about taboo subjects won't help propagate distribution. I don't know how it works now, but back when I was trying Freenet out, that was exactly what happened, due to the design, which also replicated content rather than merely obscuring routing. One of the reasons I dropped it. I got tired of telling all the bluenoses and all the anti-CP people, however well-intended, "Look, just don't look at the damned stuff!"

Beyond that, you are correct. If Tor is "safe" for CP, trafficking contraband, money-laundering, terrorist plots, etc. (all the Horsemen, in other words) then it's safe for political dissent, "legitimate" privacy, state secrets, etc., and I'm encouraged. I do see the Feds have made some busts of some Silk Road (sic) pot dealers, but that seems to have involved some good old-fashioned police work rather than somehow tracking through Tor. Does seem that effort could have been better expended in other areas, though.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Selection bias. There is a quite significant portion of the manga community which is exactly what GP stated: "cartoon depictions of child sexual activity" (and a pretty good portion more that is not necessarily written about "children" but they're still pretty definitely underaged).

If you can't find these mangas at Barnes & Noble, that tells you more about Barnes & Noble than it tells you about manga.

So, do you want to pick nits and try to argue about what "commonly" means? Or do you want to concede the point?

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually makes a halfway reasonable bit of sense if you think about it.

Having lousy sex or even a lousy marriage is pretty easily forgotten about, and you can move on with your life. You break up, get a divorce, and find someone else.

Having photos of yourself floating around the internet is basically impossible to un-do, and it makes sense that we'd like someone to have a bit more maturity before they make that decision.

And then, you also realize, we don't really trust 15 year olds to make the decision to get married at their age; their parents are usually required to consent in such cases.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can prosecute if she is, or looks, under 18. And he will be convicted if she is under 18 (in the picture - regardless of whether she's over 18 now).

Corollary: His life will still be ruined if she only looked under 18 but wasn't.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes when people get depressed, they self-harm. It hurts. But it can become an addiction.

Are we following so far?

Sometimes when pedos get depressed, they watch children being harmed. It hurts. And it can become an addiction.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy you knew from highschool made a stupid mistake that seriously impacted the lives of 5 people.

The guy GP knew was guilty of the crime of allowing certain 1s and 0s onto his server.

Hardly remotely similar, beyond the fact that they were accidents.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correcting the wrong fact. He is right if you take him to mean most child abuse (not properly caring for the child) is committed by parents. You are right if you take him to mean sexual assault on children.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if we really want to stop child abuse we need to get into surveillance of the home situation, and relatives of the children. No politician wants to admit that, but they have to be seen to do something.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[overbaud]

Or 15 year olds that are sexting... seriously that is the state of play now. You can be put on a sex offenders list for taking photos of yourself. Under these circumstances please explain who the victim is, the person knowingly taking photos of themselves and distributing them? Or the recent issue in Australia of a well know artist that painted children naked but without their bits showing and all the crazies came out the woodwork completely glossing over the difference between art and porn or even nudity and porn. Or how about Japan and their comics? I bet if real doll (TM) brought out a 12 year old model all the same arguments would be made including "think of the victims" despite there being no victims. Crazies gonna craze!

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[shentino]

More like the law doesn't give a shit if it's real or not, but actually considers pretend porn equally evil with actual porn.

Newsflash: Never attribute to incompetence that which is actually due to malice.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[shentino]

True but letting kid rapists off easier to encourage them to cooperate is rather akin to paying ransom to a terrorist. And in your case, holding onto a child that you've raped just because you don't want to get caught is rather like kidnapping that child and holding them for the ransom of a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation. It's basically caving to the rapist/kidnapper's taking the child hostage. And that will only encourage it in the future.

We should not reward child rape by making it easier to avoid a stiff sentence. What we should do is step up enforcement and go after child rapists for both rape and kidnapping.

Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[shentino]

It actually gives hackers a way to blackmail people they don't like by *planting* child porn on their computer.

Oh wait, that already happened.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/disgruntled-brit-plants-child-porn-on-bosss-computer-calls-cops/

Luckily...

[steveaustin1971]

Some anonymous folks infiltrated "darknet" and exposed thousands of these sickos a couple of months ago. Anon has been outing pedo's left and right for about a year where the FBI seems to be fumbling.

Re:Why is CP illegal?

[TFAFalcon]

It's more like promising the terrorists that, if they surrender without hurting anyone, they're going to get a trial before getting executed, instead of being lined up and shot as soon as they surrender.

The end result is the same, but it does make it much more likely that the innocent will survive.