Slashdot Mirror


Police Could Charge Data Center Operators In the Largest Child Porn Bust Ever

sarahnaomi sends this report from Motherboard: Canadian police say they've uncovered a massive online file sharing network for exploitative material that could involve up to 7,500 users in nearly 100 countries worldwide. But unlike past investigations into the distribution of child porn, which typically involve targeting suspects individually, police have instead seized over 1.2 petabytes of data ... from a data center responsible for storing the material, and may even attempt to lay criminal charges against its operators, too.

"What we are alleging is occurring is that there are individuals and organizations that are profiting from the storage and the exchange of child sexual exploitation material," Scott Tod, Deputy Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), told Motherboard at a conference late last month, after speaking to a crowd of defense specialists. "They store it and they provide a secure website that you can log into, much like people do with illegal online gaming sites."

129 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. 1.2 what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1.2 pedobytes.

    1. Re:1.2 what? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      1.2 pedobytes.

      According to the article, they seized more than 4 times more child porn than the Library of Congress has.

      But unlike past investigations into the distribution of child porn, which typically involve targeting suspects individually, police have instead seized over 1.2 petabytes of data—more than four times the amount of data in the US Library of Congress

      I'm kind of surprised that all congress could only manage to accumulate 300TB of child porn.

    2. Re:1.2 what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Budget cutbacks.

    3. Re:1.2 what? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of Jimmy Carr's most Offensive jokes:

      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re:1.2 what? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      And then there is the one guy in the basement, whose job it is to decide "is this child porn good enough for Congress" and then upload it to a server for Congressmen to access...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:1.2 what? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Budget cutbacks.

      In careful consideration of this, and in light of the seriousness of the problem, I have determined that the appropriate reaction is to seize Canada. I'm pretty sure that congress will determine the commerce clause covers it, anyway. I'm writing my crook^w legislator this evening.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:1.2 what? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They probable siezed the entire contents of the datacenter, just to be sure they got everything offending. Might mean a few thousand customers will be inconvenienced, but it's the only way to be sure.

    7. Re:1.2 what? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      1.2 pedobytes.

      According to the article, they seized more than 4 times more child porn than the Library of Congress has.

      Depending on how much child porn the Library of Congress has, that might not be that much.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:1.2 what? by Shoten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1.2 pedobytes.

      According to the article, they seized more than 4 times more child porn than the Library of Congress has.

      But unlike past investigations into the distribution of child porn, which typically involve targeting suspects individually, police have instead seized over 1.2 petabytes of data—more than four times the amount of data in the US Library of Congress

      I'm kind of surprised that all congress could only manage to accumulate 300TB of child porn.

      Actually, they seized 1.2 petabytes of data, not child porn.

      The situation is that this is a data center. So that means SANs and virtual hosts. SANs mean that you don't just have a 1-to-1 relationship between a hard drive (or even a hard drive array) and a computer. And virtual hosting means you don't have a 1-to-1 relationship between a server and a website. So I'd bet my paycheck that they went in with a broad net, grabbing every SAN that they thought contained child porn. In essence, they grabbed the whole data center so that they can figure out just how much of it...and which of it...is actual evidence.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    9. Re:1.2 what? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      They probable siezed the entire contents of the datacenter, just to be sure they got everything offending. Might mean a few thousand customers will be inconvenienced, but it's the only way to be sure.

      The only thing this is "sure" to do is absolutely kill the formerly thriving data center / cloud computing business in Canada.

      With that much data, they barely have the justice / investigation capability in the ENTIRE COUNTRY to sort through it all, and it demonstrates without a doubt the capaiblity that they DO have is technically ignorant to the point of not being able to read labels and cross reference it with customer records.

      The result will be more, but more distributed hosting of such things there by people that know the CA authorities are idiiots, and less economic activity of the obvious and apparently too good to resist concentrations of all data type activity regardless of legal status because nobody wants their legit servers sized by ignorant and out of control mounted pigs.

      Some days I just wish America's Hat would just fall the fuck off.

    10. Re:1.2 what? by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Some days I just wish America's Hat would just fall the fuck off.

      Don't feel bad about that. They feel the same way about Canada's Underwear.

  2. Why stop at Operators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Charge Intel for making CPU's!
    Charge Microsoft for making computer software!
    Charge Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone!

    1. Re:Why stop at Operators? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why charge anyone? Civil forfeiture of all assets held by Intel, MS, and anyone associated with making any of the servers or owning any of the servers in this case. When civil forfeiture is used as broadly as used in the drug war, it would be ended quickly.

    2. Re:Why stop at Operators? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Funny

      Charge Intel for making CPU's!

      Charge Microsoft for making computer software!

      Charge Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone!

      Charge Al Gore for inventing the INTERNET! Now that's a crime...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Why stop at Operators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can Canadian police use civil forfeiture in the same way that American police can?

  3. Secure is now illegal by oic0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So they are guilty for providing secure online storage. Apparently you aren't allowed to supply secure storage, you have to snoop through your users content to make sure its not illegal... Also land lords much search all apartments, banks must search safety deposit boxes, storage rental owners must search their units.

    1. Re:Secure is now illegal by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Just because I know it's going to happen: Everybody, please keep in mind - Canadian police means it's Canada and not US Law that matters.

      But I had the same thought as you. Sure, 1.2 petabytes is a huge amount of data, but at ~$200/terabyte, that's 'only' $200k worth of data, and easily reachable by many commercial businesses that are 'data intensive'.

      Should a car rental place be liable if one of their customers is using their cars to run drugs? What if they're one of their bigger customers? How about they've been good enough to never return a car 'dirty', IE leaving drugs, money, or evidence of drugs?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Secure is now illegal by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      Were they aware of the contents?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:Secure is now illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Should a landlord ignore the guy he sees escorting little children into his house multiple times a week and coming out battered, upset, etc?

      If the DC wasn't aware, fair enough... but if they heavily suspected or knew and didn't inform police, then they should be charged.

    4. Re:Secure is now illegal by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      In my limited experience seeing these cases go by, no.

      It's usually hard to convict these child porn cases unless you can demonstrate that the perpetrator action's were knowing and willful. Yes, some of the laws aren't like that and are strict liability, which sucks. Yes, some unwise prosecutors indict on absolutely ridiculous cases, and that sucks. But in general, if you're going to actually get a conviction in court, you really need to be able to demonstrate that the guy did it knowingly and willfully.

      Even then, if your evidence of intent is too deeply technical, you conviction is at risk, because a jury absolutely hates any deep technical discussions (they are not, in general, technically-minded people). So Web browser data, for example, sucks. If you find CP images in a browser cache, then you've got to demonstrate that they got there by willful action and not by mistake. (After all, both the forensic investigator and the defense know full well that you can get porn in your browser cache with one accidental misclick.) So you've got to connect Web browser history (which used to be shorter-lived than cache entries) to the CP, which is somewhat technically complicated, and as mentioned, technical explanations are looked down on. It's worse if you find CP in unallocated space on a hard drive -- now you've really got your work cut out for you. But, I digress.

      Fortunately for the prosecutor, the gross majority of people they catch make it easy. They take zero of the half-assed paranoid steps that any armchair expert on Slashdot will tell you to follow. No encryption, no "download and secure erase" policy, etc. No, they download, organize, and label hundreds of gigabytes of child porn.

      Anyway, in practice, mens rea really is necessary to get a conviction. Which means one of two things here: either the prosecutor in this case is looking to make headlines and is making a bad decision (namely, they'll get their headlines but not a conviction); or, more likely, the host has knowingly harbored CP -- perhaps even specifically sought out this business, has chosen to do nothing about it, and there is substantial evidence to demonstrate this. (I think the latter is more likely not because of my faith in prosecutors, but rather because businesses providing "secure storage" but explicitly and knowingly catering to this kind of business abound.)

    5. Re:Secure is now illegal by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You are a little off track in you car analogy. The space in not just rented it is managed and redistributed to more akin to a taxi service. So if taxi drivers where driving around picking up and distributing illegal materials, are they guilty, hmm, good bloody question and one that most certainly 'NEEDS' to be investigation. Once the investigation is complete, they can then decide whether or not prosecution is appropriate and then of course guilt or innocence can be decide in court. The data hosting and exchange services with it's rather limited and global distributed client base, certainly does put it operations and targeted marketing approach in question. The big focus of course should be on those who produce that content, those that profit from it's distribution come second and those that fund it third as those that fund further content being produced need to also face the consequences for doing so, whether paying for that content directly or paying for it via advertising fees.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Secure is now illegal by Altrag · · Score: 1

      So far no, you're not required to snoop through user's content, even in Canada.

      But presumably since they were making money off of this, some or all of this content was being distributed. My guess is that the cops found themselves a way into the distribution chain and traced it back to a source large enough to warrant giving themselves a public pat on the back. You know, like an investigation is supposed to work.

      I bet Vic Toews is crying that this didn't happen 3 years ago. His warrantless wiretapping bill would have been passed without question ("Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act", which from what people smarter than me have said contained almost nothing about protecting children after the title page..) Though I'm sure someone else will step up to the plate to try and shove more warrantless wiretapping and copyright protection BS through in the name of "protecting children" now that this has happened.

    7. Re:Secure is now illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the DC wasn't aware, fair enough... but if they heavily suspected or knew and didn't inform police, then they should be charged.

      What a bullshit attempt at an argument.

      Canadian law states that if you find child pornography, you must report it. Failure to do so is a crime.

      So if by 'bullshit attempt', you mean, 'fair assessment of your legal obligations as a Canadian citizen', then yes, it's a bullshit attempt.

      Kill yourself, it is your only honorable option.

      You might want to take your own advice.

    8. Re:Secure is now illegal by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      At least in the US, the government has gone after people unwittingly hosting illegal data many times before.

    9. Re:Secure is now illegal by compro01 · · Score: 2

      Pros3cut0rz need to periodically run for reelection.

      Not in this case. Crown Attorneys in Canada are civil employees, not elected positions.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    10. Re:Secure is now illegal by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For posterity, nowhere does the article claim that the 1.2 Petabytes is all child pornography. The company claims that most of the data is not, but I guess that is a secondary issue. Holding the company responsible is idiotic unless they were complicit in the crime. Did they refuse to take action that the courts claimed they needed to with the data? Try to hide the data when cops came looking? I don't see any of those things, so IMHO this is a scare tactic attempting to get people to do what GP stated: "have companies snoop through all user data" which is asinine.

      I'm of the personal opinion that people involved in child porn should be jailed for life without parole if they are found guilty. The rule of law can not be tossed out the window because of my emotion on the topic. That is called chaos or anarchy, and we are supposed to be civilized.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:Secure is now illegal by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      "If you find CP images in a browser cache, then you've got to demonstrate that they got there by willful action and not by mistake."

      This is not correct. Real actionable CP cannot be reached by accident.

      I know of a situation where there was a complete web snapshot taken of a large East Coast (US) major name university. It turns out there were a lot of links to porn and other disreputable (drugs, gambling) web addresses. This was not because the school was a nest of porn watching drug taking gamblers, but due to hidden links being placed in third party advertising. It was a way to boost their web search ranking.

      Obviously this was a problem, because the goal was a complete snapshot for academic archiving. Additionally,going through and looking for all the problematic links would take a lot of time and effort.

      After researching the legal issues, it was determined that nothing you could find on the easily accessible internet included CP. All of that material is deeply locked up in members only sites with heavy encryption. The people engaged in this activity know how bad their behavior is, and how eager the authorities are to get them in jail. They are deeply paranoid for justifiable reasons. Someone is out to get them.

      The only way that CP ends up on a machine is because someone deliberately puts it there. It may not be the owner, or any legitimate user, but it can't happen by mistake. It's not like the porn trolls who extort money from users based on legally unsupportable IP addresses. The stakes are too great for that to happen.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    12. Re:Secure is now illegal by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      There's more to the Internet than the Web. There is certainly CP that can be accessed accidentally. It's true that it doesn't really happen all that often. (It mostly happens with people on P2P file-sharing systems who execute vague searches for porn and then mass-download everything.) But it doesn't matter -- the defense can and does make a legitimate case that it *could* be accidental unless you demonstrate intent to a reasonable degree.

    13. Re:Secure is now illegal by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      You are a little off track in you car analogy. The space in not just rented it is managed and redistributed to more akin to a taxi service.

      I stand by 'rental car' as opposed to 'taxi' because of the level of hands-on personal interaction required of the data, IE 'none'.

      I agree though, they need to go after the producers. Though at this point I can't help but think that many of them have probably already been punished, or are even dead.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Secure is now illegal by itzly · · Score: 1

      After researching the legal issues, it was determined that nothing you could find on the easily accessible internet included CP

      That depends on your definition of CP. Does a naked kid on the beach or in the bathtub count ?

    15. Re:Secure is now illegal by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I've spent a lot of time on the shady side of the internet. I've yet to find any real CP. The closest I've seen are artistic depictions - though I note that in many jurisdictions including the UK where I live, possessing even an pornographic artistic depiction of a character that resembles a minor is illegal.

    16. Re:Secure is now illegal by dbIII · · Score: 1

      In some places even a cartoon of an imaginary person counts as child porn and people have been jailed for such images.
      Personally I think that's going too far and we should be worrying about crimes committed against children instead of being thought police. Go after child molesters first - there's been more effort going after Kim Dotcom by playing the child porn hosting card than going after a convicted child rapist like Polanski.

    17. Re:Secure is now illegal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They are just leaning on them to try and scare other companies into being less respecting of privacy or building systems that don't allow them to police their own systems.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Secure is now illegal by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Even then, if your evidence of intent is too deeply technical, you conviction is at risk, because a jury absolutely hates any deep technical discussions (they are not, in general, technically-minded people).

      I'm not sure a persons want to risk their freedom if they were to ever to be accused of something and was relying on technical details as a defense. I think for the average jury all the prosecution would have to do is say "We found this horrible image of a child on their computer" and instantly they are branded a monster no matter how innocent they may really be.

    19. Re:Secure is now illegal by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Oh, no. You do not want your defense to rest on technical details. Rather, a common tactic (admittedly, among people who are guilty) is for the defense to claim that it was an accident or malware and demand that the prosecution show intent. The defense can then hammer on the prosecution's expert witness (forensic investigator) and back them in to a corner where they're having to explain technical details. This makes the jury unhappy with the prosecution.

      Displaying the images you found in court works pretty well for the prosecution, and is probably a significant contributor to their very high rate of plea bargains.

    20. Re:Secure is now illegal by operagost · · Score: 1

      Which is "hilarious", because landlords are specifically prohibited in most US states from entering their apartments without the permission of the tenant except in an emergency.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:Secure is now illegal by sjames · · Score: 1

      How about if the taxis have been picking up and dropping off nicely dressed people with briefcases full of drugs and money (that they never open in the cab)? Do we charge the drivers?

      Is it fair to destroy the cab company and put all of its employees out of work digging around for evidence based on a vague suspicion that one or two drivers might have had an unvoiced suspicion?

      I'm betting that when this all blows over, the datacenter will be bankrupt and tossed to the wolves.

    22. Re:Secure is now illegal by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm sure all of the datacenter employees and the bankrupted owners as well as the many innocent customers whose internet operations evaporated overnight will find that deeply comforting as they try to figure out what to do for food, clothing, and shelter.

    23. Re:Secure is now illegal by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now how exactly do you decide what is fair and not fair if you never have investigations? "Is it fair to have investigation" sounds exactly like the kind of questions a very guilty party asks, hmmm. A reasonable just person would only ask about the nature of the investigation and how it was carried out, not whether it occurred or not. Yes, upon suspicion of criminal activities police investigations must always occur. The nature of the investigation logically becomes far more invasive as further incriminating evidence is uncovered or stops are relatively minor levels of invasiveness if no evidence is uncovered that warrants further investigation. Now that is totally straight up logical.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    24. Re:Secure is now illegal by sjames · · Score: 1

      While there may be information in this instance we don't have access to, on it's face there is no reason whatsoever to believe the datacenter knew what the customer was storing. They generally don't unless it is specifically pointed out.

      Too many of these investigations are way too close to the old witch trial where they toss you in the river and if you drown you're innocent (but dead) and if you float you're a witch so they burn you. It's about as logical as seeing if they weigh the same as a duck.

    25. Re:Secure is now illegal by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      Except those "monsters" were not on the street... they were inside their houses, fapping to the porn.
      Now that the porn is gone they might have to go outside to get their fix...

  4. Everyone Must Police their users! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    No privacy! Every file upload must be monitored and scrutinized and reported to the authorities! This is how we will defeat terror and keep the children safe!

    1. Re:Everyone Must Police their users! by gweihir · · Score: 2

      First, the DC would not know the number of users. Second, 1.2PB is not that much. It can fit into a single rack, of which a DC may have hundreds.

      My guess would be that whoever is suspecting DC personnel does not understand the technology involved. Same as you.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Re:Good question by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because Republicans snuck a ban into a completely unrelated port security bill that they knew nobody could vote against right before an election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006#Legislative_history

  6. So what, the DC are gonna be gatekeepers now ? by ScottJermaineGuyton · · Score: 3, Informative

    “There's no proactive obligation to investigate what happens on your service," said Tamir Israel, a staff lawyer at the Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC). “If you do become aware that something is there, there's a reporting obligation. But usually data centers aren't actively looking through their stuff, so it's reasonable to say that they wouldn't have come across that." Nobody's got time for that!

    1. Re:So what, the DC are gonna be gatekeepers now ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Ignorance is no excuse." ...ahem...even if there's no possible, reasonable, or legal way of ever knowing.

      I always wondered about that line. How is it reasonable to expect everyone to know everything all the time? The government has been trying to get this capability at ridiculous cost for decades but we're somehow expected to already have it. How is that reasonable?

      The reason the police handle these things is because they have powers and exemptions. They're legally charged with the ability to perform the task lawfully - they can seize, and they can search. Trying to turn every single person into a detective-a-day snitch-a-rooney just exposes us all to legal repercussions we can't possibly avoid. We're not police. We shouldn't be trying to enforce laws as private citizens.

    2. Re:So what, the DC are gonna be gatekeepers now ? by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Ignorance is no excuse." ...ahem...even if there's no possible, reasonable, or legal way of ever knowing.

      I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." It means that if you willfully commit an act, and that act happens to be illegal, then you are criminally liable even if you didn't know the act in question is illegal. That is to say, you don't have to have to form an intent to break the law, you merely have to form an intent (and act on that intent) to commit some action, and that action has to be illegal.

      What's at issue here isn't ignorance of the law, but ignorance of the facts, and that, oftentimes, is an excuse. Although possession of child pornography is illegal in most jurisdictions, almost all the statues generally say something along the lines of "it is unlawful to knowingly possess...". There is a very practical reason for this: absent the word "knowingly", anyone could simply e-mail anyone else some images that are illegal, and the recipient could be criminally liable for possession even if they hit the delete key immediately upon seeing it. Defendants could e-mail such images to prosecutors and judges and said prosecutors and judges would be guilty of the same crime the defendant is accused of.

      So it is very relevant here whether or not the owners, administrators, or employees of the data storage service knew that they were storing child pornography.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:So what, the DC are gonna be gatekeepers now ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you don't know the full extent of the law you are neither free nor safe.

      There's plenty of laws to do with operating vehicles; when you do the theory part of the driving test you learn those. There's plenty of laws to do with dealing in real estate; you'll learn them when training for the job or to pass the necessary certificate.

      If you're not in the business of selling houses and just walking down the street then it's simple. Don't punch anyone in the nads, don't take anything that belongs to someone else and don't block other people - stuff you should have learned when you were in kindergarten.

      Don't believe everything you hear on Fox news.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:So what, the DC are gonna be gatekeepers now ? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks that tens of thousands of pages of federal laws can be boiled down into "don't steal" and "don't commit assault" is an idiot. How about "don't copy an MP3 file" or "don't create, possess or distribute a piece of software to circumvent DRM"?

      The OP is right. We are neither free nor safe because the federal government has created so many laws that we're all guilty of something.

      http://harveysilverglate.com/B...

      "Even the most intelligent and informed citizen cannot predict with any reasonable assurance whether a wide range of seemingly ordinary activities might be regarded by federal prosecutors as felonies."

    5. Re:So what, the DC are gonna be gatekeepers now ? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." It means that if you willfully commit an act, and that act happens to be illegal, then you are criminally liable even if you didn't know the act in question is illegal.

      I believe the phrase is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you're a cop, a politician, a CEO, the NSA..." It means that if you're one of the little people, you're totally screwed because you didn't spend double your lifetime reading the thousands of laws that you're supposed to follow. But if you're, say, a cop, when it turns out that you've been violating the 4th Amendment by using a Stingray device, then commit perjury/parallel construction in court to hide it, then you get to say "oops, we didn't know there was anything wrong with that, besides the politicians said we could, and no you can't prosecute them either".

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  7. Not Dumb.... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not stupid. Just clickbait.

    If you actually read the article, it says "charges will likely hinge on the degree to which employees knew such activity was taking place." Nobody is going to get charged unless there's evidence that they knew they were hosting child porn and did nothing about it.

    1. Re:Not Dumb.... by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative

      really??? you mean that the CIO should be looking at encrypted data that he has no rights to???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Not Dumb.... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      âoeIf you do become aware that something is there, there's a reporting obligation. But usually data centers aren't actively looking through their stuff, so it's reasonable to say that they wouldn't have come across that."

      Most data centers don't make a point of snooping through all of their customers' data. If you want to open a data center that does so, let us know just how many customers found that to be an acceptable practice during your bankruptcy.

    3. Re:Not Dumb.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given storage work I've done, when you're hosting that much content and that much traffic, it's almost _always_ pornographic. I do hope that the Canadian courts can be sensible about what is specifically and knowingly hosted, and what is treated in a hands-off fashion like US "common carrier" standards require.

      I'll be even more fascinated to see if any intelligence agencies know about child porn and refused to reveal or prosecute its source, due to a desire to keep their monitoring secret. We've certainly seen that in the USA.

    4. Re:Not Dumb.... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      really? I can think of a number of cases where that much data would exist and not be that. Be it acadamia, youtube, large businesses etc.

      and even if it was, that is still legal is it not??

      {tin foil} it could all be a cover for collecting other data. meaning they are using this because they figure no one will complain about it when this is the topic at hand. but if they told us what they really took, people might get angry {/tin foil}

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Not Dumb.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was referring to the various reports around 2010 and 2011 saying that over 30% of the Internet content was porn. Those numbers have been called into question (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23030090), but from network experience and dealings with bulk storage and network traffic, I'll continue to claim that it's the most _likely_ content of any single Petabyte sized archive. I'll agree that it's not the only possible content of such a large repository.

      You've a valid point that "it''s still legal" for ordinary pornography, at least in most countries. Child porn is the political leverage used to censor or filter Internet content in many countries. I'll be quite curious to see if this case actually involved child porn, or if it was merely distasteful or a means to get other traffic data for the prosecutors.

      There was n infamous case about Amateur Action BBS, a very popular porn site that was framed for dealing in child porn. The frame failed, since they did not even open the box of content they hadn't ordered, but the postal inspector from Tennessee succeeded in convicting a California couple for content that was previously ruled to be constitutionally protected in California.. The history is fascinating: there was a good thread at the time in EFF discussion groups, still available at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma... b

    6. Re:Not Dumb.... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It could be likely that one or more of the employees where account holders. But i agree, the DC has about as much right to snoop through your data as your landlord has to wiretap your phone or rummage through you closets and sock drawer just becsuse it is on his property.

    7. Re:Not Dumb.... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Not stupid. Just clickbait.

      Nobody is going to get charged unless there's evidence that they knew they were hosting child porn and did nothing about it.

      In my opinion they would have to know specifics. I'm sure that employees of the the phone company know that abusive and threatening calls are made sometimes, but that shouldn't make them liable.

    8. Re:Not Dumb.... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Not stupid. Just clickbait.

      If you actually read the article, it says "charges will likely hinge on the degree to which employees knew such activity was taking place." Nobody is going to get charged unless there's evidence that they knew they were hosting child porn and did nothing about it.

      There is a question not answered by the article - namely did the police grab, and are they hacking into, sites that had nothing to do with the website they knew hosted porn or are they hacking into everything hosted by the hosting company?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    9. Re:Not Dumb.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > Adult pornography on the internet is actually illegal in the US

      Could you provide a citation or evidence of this, please? There have certainly been attempts to regulate it, with mixed results. But even casual research leads very quickly to the Supreme Court case that struck down porongraphy provisions of the Communications Decency Act. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...) And even that unconstitutional law attempted to restrict pornography to minors, not pornography as a whole.

      There was a particularly memorable quote in the Supreme Court case, one to keep in mind when filtering Internet traffic. That includes this, and the recent blocking of ISIS traffic on twitter.

      > Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.

    10. Re:Not Dumb.... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      When did pornography become illegal in the US? I was under the impression that pornography came under the umbrella of 1st amendment protected free speech. I think there have been a number of cases won by pornography publishers on these very grounds. It has been a while since prosecuting pornographers was a big thing, but I think there was some guy named "buttman" who made milk enima porn who was targeted a couple of years back and won. Obscenity has been illegal for almost as long as the US has been a country - ill defined as it may be, but that has been a pretty high bar for some time.

    11. Re:Not Dumb.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Pornography is and always has been illegal in many US jurisdictions. This is very much like online gambling. New York or California might tolerate this stuff but some grandstanding DA in Tennesee will decide to bring someone up on charges.

      Doesn't matter where the server is hosted.

      This has been going on with online services and cable TV since the 80s.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:Not Dumb.... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. So, what's obscene? As Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it." Most current Supreme Court caselaw is Miller v. California, which has a three-prong test for ruling something obscene:

      1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
      2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law,
      3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4]

      A prosecutor has to check all three boxes to win an obscenity case. They're very tough to win, and very rarely filed. It's an open question as to how Internet content should be handled (Third Circuit disagrees with Ninth Circuit).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    13. Re:Not Dumb.... by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Not only that, they're probably not naive when it comes to this sort of thing. They know that if they don't want to be liable, they have to operate at arm's length from the data. Not only will they be able to tell their customers that they don't snoop, they're never on the hook legally for what their customers are doing because they're not involved.

    14. Re:Not Dumb.... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Articles like this cause an over reaction as it intends to on /.

      Fact is that the right expertise will be brought in to asses who was involved in making sure the illegal content remained on the servers. The court system is in place to allow each individual charged to defend themselves. After all they are innocent until proven guilty. In a case like this I would think it's very hard to point fingers at employees unless there's a data trail.

  8. Re:Pack it up, we're done here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    at least that should fix the beta.

  9. "Police have seized over 1.2 petabytes of data" by QilessQi · · Score: 1, Funny

    In this case, shouldn't that be "pedobytes"?

    I'll see myself out...

  10. don't for get google for linking to sites as well. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    don't for get google for linking to sites as well.

    why not also go after EACH ISP as well.

  11. Terms of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Start reading your
    TOSes because you are going to see clauses saying they will scan your shares.

    1. Re:Terms of Service by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes - and THAT is what is wrong with the cloud. Unless you are encrypting it independently before uploading, your stuff is going to be scanned for various purposes. All of those purposes are detrimental to your privacy. It's great that they took down a pedo ring - IF they really took down a pedo ring. But, they are going to use this as an excuse or reason to continue spying on all honest citizens.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Terms of Service by houghi · · Score: 1

      But, they are going to use this as an excuse or reason to continue spying on all honest citizens.

      First they came for the pedophiles, but I said nothing, because I was not a pedophile.

      The thing with privacy is that it is the basis of all other rights. Without it, you can throw the rest out. So if you want to protect privacy, you will need to protect it for pedophiles as well as for honest people and terrorists and children and your mom ...

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re: Terms of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Er, what?!

      Then they came for the rapists, and I said nothing, for I was not a rapist. Then they came for the axe murderers, and I said nothing, for I was not an axe murderer. Then they came for the genocidal tin-pot dictators, and I said, "Whoa there, hold up for a minute... That's something I think I might enjoy doing at some point!"

  12. 1.2 PETABYTES??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Something isnt adding up. That's the kind of volume I would expect for an aspiring XHampster and a much wider legit audience, petabytes of child porn just doesn't seem possible. That's what, a couple of hundred gigabytes for each of the accused? Potentially hundreds of thousands of hours of video? Who the hell could have produced that much????

    This sounds like BS to force datacentres to give backdoors to the feds.

    1. Re:1.2 PETABYTES??? by SumDog · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, they cops have custom password hacking software. It's more likely they just seized everything. There's probably 1TB, of actual child porn. But they got a warrant so they can go through the rest of the data...illegally...just to be sure.

    2. Re:1.2 PETABYTES??? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same here. If we assume 1GB/h, that would be 1.2 million hours of film, i.e. 140 years. That is a bit much to be credible. Seems to me some people are trying to abuse the victims even more in order to get more funding and more surveillance laws.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:1.2 PETABYTES??? by houghi · · Score: 1

      It does not say it is unique content. For all we know all the users can have a directory with all the same files. And all the users have several backups as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  13. SummaryBait by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Informative

    charges will likely hinge on the degree to which employees knew such activity was taking place

    1. Re:SummaryBait by Garfong · · Score: 1

      Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not let facts get in the way of Internet outrage.

    2. Re:SummaryBait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To add to this, they can't even look at most of it without specific warrants, so...

    3. Re:SummaryBait by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      Yes, but it's interesting it's even being talked about. Normally, when a crime is committed, you don't also immediately consider indicting the owner of the facility it happened in...unless there's specific evidence they're involved that isn't being made public.

      If this is the garden variety case where there's no reason to think the data center operators are involved, then of course this is massive overreach.

    4. Re:SummaryBait by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Riiiight! I also have oceanfront property in Alberta I want to sell you.

      I about guarantee mass arrests of the employees of the data center and 1 to 3 years unjust imprisonment for all of them until the day before the trial with maybe a few going to trial or have half of the employees get time served in plea deals, sentencing them all to have a felony record and to work for low wage jobs the rest of their miserable lives just because, well, just because.

      I hope to God that I am wrong on this!!! PLEASE let me be wrong on this!

  14. Re:Good question by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    How does that make a difference in Canada?

  15. Roads are now illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In other news, because criminals use roads, all roads are now subject to stop/search at every intersection for all traffic. This is to ensure that the government is not directly liable for criminal's use of public roads.

    1. Re:Roads are now illegal by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      yes... what reason did this officer stop you to begin with???? if you werent breaking any law, there is no good reason for it*

      * - if it were in america, i will admit i dont know canadas laws all too well

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Roads are now illegal by AJWM · · Score: 2

      You don't have to be actually breaking the law, the cop just has to have a reasonable suspicion that you might be.

      Many, many years ago as a teenager I got stopped by an on-foot cop (I was pulling out of a fast food place). Turns out he recognized the license plate because the car (my mom's) had been stolen (for joy rides) several times before (easy to hotwire, and predating ignition locks in the steering column). I wasn't breaking any law, but the stop was justified on suspicion. Since the last name and address on my license matched the registration, of course he waved me on as soon as I'd shown them to him.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:Roads are now illegal by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I was recently pulled over to the side of a highway by an officer on foot.

      Well you obviously weren't pulled over for speeding, now were you?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Roads are now illegal by operagost · · Score: 1

      We don't have many cops as smart and observant as that one anymore.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. What about the pedophiles at the Pentagon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/23/pentagon_workers_tied_to_child_porn/

    Nothing ever came of this. I guess if you work for the Pentagon it's perfectly fine?

  17. Great cause, dumb ass cops by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate articles like this.

    They say "To access the files, many of which are password protected, the cops developed password-cracking software in-house that is slowly sifting through the mountain of information."

    Uh... I'll translate this to, the files are all protected with easy to remember, dictionary based passwords and they wrote a script which uses a rainbow list to try each one which is why it's so damn slow.

    When you read shit statements made by whoever provided the interview to whoever actually performed it and realize they're both clueless, it becomes really hard to take the rest of the article seriously. It's like when you read a CV from a fry boy at McDonalds who writes "Food preparation technician", you just can't expect everything else to be embellished in order to sound more important.

    Another example of "STUPID!!!" is :
    "The volume of information is so expansive that in order to store and analyze the data safely and securely, police had to purchase storage hardware similar to what was used by Canadian military forces in Afghanistan."

    Computer crimes forensics has to be handled very carefully. If you alter the data, it's inadmissible in most courts as it's tampering with evidence. The FBI paid millions to write data handling procedures following the public beating they took on the gloves in the OJ case. So, it's important to have a backup and some way to read the data without altering it... or they need to keep a copy.

    A 1.2 petabyte SAN can be done in 16U for analysis using 6TB drives and Cisco 3160 servers. For unaltered storage, there are tape drives. They're slow and they're inefficient, but they're an accepted medium for evidence.

    So, making dumb ass statements like "we needed 1.2TB of hard drives and a workstation" as making some idiotic remark like how they've gone war zone grade was just LAME!

    Nailing the data center is a great idea EXCEPT!!! they probably run almost all that crap through Tor and use BitCoin now. So, if there is actually any real traceable information to be had, they just passed up their best opportunity to planting a proper honeypot and actually busting the people using the site. They could have put "dating sites" like "find an anonymous live show in your area" and the pervs who are using telephones can provide their locations via GPS. Then they can track and bust them.

    Instead, they've just done what the police have found so successful with the Pirate Bay and the site will be moved somewhere else next week or month and they won't have a clue what to do about it.

    Let's be honest, these fool cops probably just secured the safety of the pedophiles for a while longer.

    1. Re:Great cause, dumb ass cops by complete+loony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To access the files, many of which are password protected, the cops developed password-cracking software in-house that is slowly sifting through the mountain of information.

      So the real take away is that they have no idea how much of this 1.2 PB is actually child porn. What they have is a file sharing / web hosting service with 1.2 PB of data, provided by users, some of which they know is child porn.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    2. Re:Great cause, dumb ass cops by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      "Developed password-cracking software in-house"

      Brilliant. Have some amateur develop it, instead of using an established product written by an expert. Great idea.

      Reminds me of the time (no joke) a Secret Service agent asked me to get data off of a PC that had been used for a credit-card scam. At the time I was (iirc) a college freshman or maybe sophomore, majoring in EE, who happened to program as a hobby. At the time I felt pretty flattered - only in retrospect did I realize how crazy this was. I had full, unfettered access to the PC, there was no copy, and I was programming directly on the box I was extracting evidence from. Granted, that was a long time ago, but it serves as an anecdote to show the level of professionalism these agencies demonstrate. I'm sure they have real experts, but too often the field offices seem to be playing Keystone Cops.

      So here we have some field office taking down a whole data center. They're probably pretty impressed with themselves, they get some neat toys to play with, and they get headlines for their heroic crime-fighting efforts. Who cares about the collateral damage they've done to thousands of innocent people using the file-sharing service? At first glance, this reminds me of the Mega-debacle in the US, where they also took down an entire data center with very shaky justifications.

      Prediction: The whole case will fall apart. Either because it was all a mistake and there is no evidence, or because they screw up whatever evidence they do have. Nonetheless, the customers will be out their data and the data-center will be driven to bankruptcy. Nonetheless, the officers involved will receive commendations.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    3. Re:Great cause, dumb ass cops by zildgulf · · Score: 2

      No, these cops want to scare the sh*t out of data center employees because they can. They don't care that they probably cannot convict a single person, the process of arrest and the prospect of months of imprisonment without any evidence, and withholding necessary medical care, is enough for people to make a plea deal.

      When the police want to make your life hell they can arrest you every other week, trumping up charges and dropping them within hours, and seize your property until you can't pay your lawyer anymore. Nothing short of them being fired or prosecuted would make it stop.

  18. Second source? by Garfong · · Score: 1

    Is there a second source for this? I can't find anything outside of the linked article. E.g. In Google I can't find anything about OPP child porn busts since Sept 2014; I can't find anything about this on the OPP home page; nor in the last month or so on EFF blog (EFF provided a quote for the article).

    1. Re:Second source? by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      Sept 2014

      Yeah, that's probably it. Sounds like about the right amount of time before it would be reported on Slashdot.

  19. How many kids did they save? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the cops give a $#%@, the real question is: how many kids did they save / rescue?

    My guess is none.

    My guess is they are claiming the entire data center is CAI, while trying to get a warrant-less search of one user's files.

    It is sad.

    1. Re:How many kids did they save? by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      Butbbutbut they stopped a bunch of pedos from fapping... for the 5 minutes it takes to find a new source.

  20. Re:Good question by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

    in Canada, lotteries and gambling are typically run by government institutions.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  21. Re:Good question by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    hey wiggam.... this is canada we are talking about. I know its slashdot and noone RTFA, but at LEAST try and read the first word ITFS FFS

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  22. Will this help any victims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will this help any of the victims in any way? As good as throwing people in jail is, I'm more interested in the freeing of people from their captors. If this isn't helping that, maybe its time to take a different approach.

    From TFA: "Experts say that targeting the infrastructure used to distribute child pornography, rather than going after the individuals who download it, is a recent change in tactics for police."

    How about the next step, going after the producers and uploaders? How about saving the children? Or is our surveillance system not actually useful enough to accomplish that?

  23. Re:don't for get google for linking to sites as we by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    might as well take it to the next logical step.

    its on the internet....

    you are on the internet.....

    therefore you are guilty for possessing illegal materials!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  24. Re:Good question by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    And that makes US laws matter, because?

  25. Like illegal online gaming sites? by MobileC · · Score: 1

    "They store it and they provide a secure website that you can log into, much like people do with illegal online gaming sites."

    Or even like legal online gaming sites as they are known elsewhere in the non-US world.

    --

    Fran
    :):):)
    1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

  26. Re:Good question by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    I interpreted the question as independent of the article.

  27. Great... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These are the same fucking retards that can't even properly secure evidence when Wynns government decided to violate the data protection laws and deleted not only primary, but backup data when there was a standing warrant regarding to the massive scandal relating to the gas plants. You'll have to excuse me if I don't have any faith in the information provided at all. Hell, their general force is in 80/90's era computer technology.

    What's gonna get good is that they pulled a blanket seizure with a warrant that was for specific data. That's a no-no guys, the judge stated one thing you stupid idjits did something else. I'm going to hazard it'll get to court and the entire thing will be thrown out because they overstepped the bounds of the original seizure warrant.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  28. Willful blindness and Post Snowden by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    So they are guilty for providing secure online storage. Apparently you aren't allowed to supply secure storage, you have to snoop through your users content to make sure its not illegal... Also land lords much search all apartments, banks must search safety deposit boxes, storage rental owners must search their units.

    If they provided secure online storage, they shouldn't be guilty. If they were providing secure online storage to people whom they knew or should have known were hosting porn of underage people, they should suffer a significant legal penalty. If they were providing secure online storage to people whom they knew or should have known were hosting child porn of preteens then they should be burned at the stake.

    There is such a thing as willful blindness. The sheer quantity of data involved is going to make it really tempting for someone to infer knowledge, but network management practices may or may not show it. Maybe the hosting company was just told it was a porn site, but it is entirely possible that they knew. In a good system a responsible prosecutor or cop should try to figure out whether they knew, and then a jury will decide the outcome.

    (Plea bargaining is the problem with this scenario--there's a factual determination which should really determine the outcome of the case, but at least in the US the plea bargain system would make going to trial a very, very risky process for the innocent.)

    Interestingly, this may be one of those few examples of a case where Snowden-esque monitoring did some good. Didn't news that Canada was trying to monitor all transmitted video on the web hit the news a little while ago? The timing of this suggests that this could stem from that.

    1. Re:Willful blindness and Post Snowden by Damouze · · Score: 1

      The system of plea bargaining is a perversion of justice and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.

      --
      And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
  29. Re:Good question by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    because wires don't follow political boundaries

    your fiber is our fiber and visa versa. it's all bound up. a message you send from Vancouver to Halifax may/ probably crosses the border into the USA

    and If i am in Chicago and i send a message to Anchorage, that goes through Canada

    Canadian and American data is intertwined

    and our authorities coordinate and cooperate in managing that in ways that would make both Americans and Canadians uncomfortable if you don't want eyes from another jurisdiction seeing our data

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  30. Just because they call it pedo doesn't mean it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a file sharing site, it almost certainly is 1.2 petabytes of regular porn, movies and music. But its encrypted so they don't know.

    How do you force decryption? You play the "think of the children" card.

    So they threaten the file host to get them to install some sort of webbugs and remove the decryption. Presumably they're threatening lots of the file hosts in a similar fashion.. "remove the encryption or well find one pedo file on there and claim its all pedo and bust you with screams of 'military grade hardware' and 1.2 TB drives.. blah blah blah.

    What this means is that a file host refused to comply with their mass surveillance demands and so they're playing their pedo panic card. Perhaps the terrorist card will be played after that.

    And people like you will do your marketing (and it is clearly marketing) for this. You even talk like one " If they were providing secure online storage to people whom they knew or should have known". Right.

  31. Julie Amero did allmost did time due to pop up pro by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Julie Amero did almost did time due to pop up pron, the school being late in paying for the web filtering software, and the a sub being told do not trun off the system.

  32. Child Gender by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've always wondered... when one thinks of child porn they imagine ugly, balding guys taking advantage of little girls. Do these people ever make stuff like older women taking advantage of younger boys? You'd think there would be some interest in that sort of thing among those kinds of people.

    For the record I have no interesting in "researching" this and landing in jail for it, hence the question.

    1. Re:Child Gender by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      2 teachers accused of sex crimes in San Clemente beach trip with students

      Two former Covina-Valley Unified School District teachers previously charged with misdemeanors for allegedly supplying booze to underage students on a San Clemente camping trip were charged Monday with felony sex offenses.

      Melody Suzanne Lippert, 38, of Covina, is accused of playing “matchmaker” for co-defendant Michelle Louise Ghirelli, 30, of West Covina, who is charged with having sex with a 17-year-old boy, according to Deputy District Attorney Kristin Bracic.

      Orange County prosecutors had previously declined to file more serious felony sex charges against the two, citing insufficient information.

      But a school district-related investigation that uncovered alleged cocaine use at the party led Orange County sheriff’s deputies to re-interview witnesses in the case, Bracic said. Cell phone records also helped convince investigators that Ghirelli knew the boy was 17, she said.

      Lippert taught at South Hills High School in West Covina, and Ghirelli was an employee in the Covina-Valley Unified School District.

      Lippert organized the unapproved camping trip through a group text message/invitation to the co-defendant and five male high school students, Bracic alleged. The group camped out at the San Clemente beach Dec. 27-29 and the teachers supplied the teens with booze, the prosecutor alleged.

      Lippert was charged with one felony count each of unlawful sexual intercourse and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. She also faces a sentencing enhancement for being more than four years older than the victim.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Child Gender by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure 17 years old doesn't count as "child", so that doesn't answer my question. Ah well... one of those mysteries I'll never solve I suppose.

    3. Re:Child Gender by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It does for legal purposes in many jurisdictions.

      Sex and age laws get complicated. Here in the UK, for example, it's legal to have sex at sixteen - but illegal to supply pornography to someone of sixteen. They are only allowed to look at the real thing. And if they record their perfectly-legal sex, that's production of child pornography.

    4. Re:Child Gender by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      I can answer your question: yes, they do. You don't have to look for illegal content, you can:

      1. Look for "fantasy stories" published by "child lovers". You'll find plenty that involve female adults with male or female children, indicating a - for lack of a better term - demand for that market.
      2. Google "woman charged for creating child porn". You'll find at least a few cases of women who molested young children (preteens) and distributed the resulting material.

      You can also look up cases like Karla Homolka, an infamous Canadian woman who was charged and sentenced for helping her husband rape and murder several young girls, including her own sister.

      The depravity of the human mind is certainly not limited to the male sex.

  33. Re:Good question by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    That doesn't make a hill of brans anyways. The answer is US law does not matter in canada unless a treaty makes it matter or a US citizen in US jurisdiction is involved in violating a US law. And the later is only to the extent the US can convince Canada to enforce a warrant or extradite someone to the US or otherwise lawfully brkng the people or companies into US jurisdiction (nab them at the airport or something).

    The reason it was brought up is because organized democrate trolls were marshalled to trash the republicans online in an attemp to manipulate sentiment against them in the event of a shutdown of DHS over defunding Obama's executive action on immigration. We see it rise up here every time the republicans seem to be getting into a standoff with Obama. I suspect they haven't quite called the dogs off because of israel's priminister speaking to congress without asking Obama first.

    They will try to use anything even if it is absurd because it advances the narritive that X is evil. Soundbytes sell ideas even if they cannot sell products. This can be seen in the recent Oracle story where they insisted the corupt governor involved was a DINO and really a republican.

  34. Re:Good question by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    man you alex jones herp derps are fucking retarded

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  35. Re:Just because they call it pedo doesn't mean it by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    If it's a file-sharing site, there's always the possibility the child porn was just an excuse - the real reason being that you can't bust the doors down so easily for copyright infringement. If pressure was applied politically to get the company closed down, a search to find something illegal follows. That would explain the huge volume of siezed data: Police grabbing every server in the building in order to force the datacenter to cease operations and drive them out of business.

  36. Re:Good question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    man you alex jones herp derps are fucking retarded

    We'll start worrying about their mental capacities if they show signs of degrading to your level.

    Partisan fucktards of either major US political party, here's a clue.

    They're 2 wings of one "Party".

    The 'elites'.

    You are useful idiots dancing their choreographed dance straight into slavery while arguing over virtual Kangs vs Kodos's and if the government cameras in your home should be visible or hidden.

    Unplug your damned emotional knee-jerk reactions they use to play you like a tin whistle and for God's sake try using that lump of gristle 3 feet above your ass for something besides a hat rack.

    It never ceases to amaze me how so many otherwise quite intelligent people here who in other contexts could analyze the problem lose their fucking minds as soon as the proper emotion-based appeal to some issue/belief that, often as not, is nothing but a convenient and often fictitious heavily-propagandized issue designed for this purpose, is applied.

    Remember, the US invented the concept of propaganda, and due to recent changes in law, are now legally able to use the full power and range of their propaganda machinery domestically.

    But go ahead and keep playing Red vs Blue.

    Sleep

    Obey

    Consume

    Conform

  37. Re:Good question by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Because Republicans snuck a ban into a completely unrelated port security bill that they knew nobody could vote against right before an election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006#Legislative_history

    How is that even a legal thing that they can do that?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  38. Re:Good question by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    because wires don't follow political boundaries

    your fiber is our fiber and visa versa. it's all bound up. a message you send from Vancouver to Halifax may/ probably crosses the border into the USA

    Regardless of the physical path the 1's and 0's take the US can't arbitrarily declare things illegal and expect the rest of the world to follow suit.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  39. *sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And how much of it is real?

    Or are we talking 1.2PB of drawings?

  40. Re:Good question by internerdj · · Score: 1

    It does. Whether it can or not hasn't deterred our elected officials yet. But Don't worry: They aren't deterred by whether or not the laws they pass are within their power under US law either.

  41. Re:Just because they call it pedo doesn't mean it by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    What this means is that a file host refused to comply with their mass surveillance demands and so they're playing their pedo panic card. Perhaps the terrorist card will be played after that.

    And people like you will do your marketing (and it is clearly marketing) for this. You even talk like one " If they were providing secure online storage to people whom they knew or should have known". Right.

    They reported a hosted site where you sign on to exchange child porn. If accurate, that's a good thing for them to go after.

    Obviously if it's done with ulterior motives, like in response to a failure to comply with the NSL equivalent up there, it is a bad thing.

    As to how I talk, you have to talk that way if you want to establish the boundaries of someone's liability, civil or criminal. You need to have the possibility to prosecute someone who deliberately looks the other way while crime is happening, or else everybody can look the other way.

  42. Re:Just because they call it pedo doesn't mean it by pla · · Score: 1

    They reported a hosted site where you sign on to exchange child porn. If accurate, that's a good thing for them to go after.

    "Hosted" still doesn't mean "knew it existed". It just means that it happened to live on their servers.

    For a rare non-car analogy, my GMail account "hosts" thousands of attachments I've received over the years, many encrypted (I don't send personal info through any third party in cleartext). Anyone who "knows the password" can get in and view them. Some of them, I've even shared from my GDrive, so someone doesn't even need to know my password, just have a valid GMail account.

    How does that materially differ from the situation in TFA, other than in the nature of the content (which Google has no way to check)?

  43. Re:Good question by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    They aren't deterred by whether or not the laws they pass are within their power under US law either.

    I guess that would be un-American ;)

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  44. Re:absolutely kill ... cloud computing business by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Good point. Going cloud is inconceivable when an entirely unrelated police action can destroy all of your servers and data.

  45. Symantics by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I'm usually not one to defend this, however as you more or less say, the devil is really in the details. The Courts really rely on wording such as "Knowingly" and "Reasonable" and "For the Purposes of". I don't know the details, but there are plenty of excuses of commercial enterprises that are really illegal operations with a thin veneer of legality.

    The crux is if they can prove that they knowingly did anything illegal, and if it was reasonable for them not to know, and if the services provided were for the purposes of... All of which can be pretty difficult to prove, unless they got some pretty damning evidence (which they may have given their actions). They may also have decided that while they con't win, they can at least shut it down or cause disruption or it may lead to other leads etc...

    One of my favorite examples of this from my college days, are houses having "Keg Parties". Some idiot would always make the "legal argument" that they were not selling beer, but glasses, and the beer was free. That is utter bullshit, and wouldn't hold up for 5 seconds (Not that they ever bother to change people for this really). Same thing with Secure Encrypted Storage Service. You may say that you are simply offering a service, and what people use it for is not your concern, or that it is being used for business purposes etc... However if your site name is PedoStor and 95% of your users use the service for illegally storing that kind of material, a case could be made regarding the fact that everyone knows about it, and the purposes of the service are actually illegal, etc... Or they may have insiders, or documents, or emails, communication to that effect, etc...

    Anyway the summary has lots of stats, but little in the way of actual details, which in a case like this are what really matters. They even mention Megaupload... Can you honestly tell me that most of the stuff on there isn't illegal, what it's actual purpose is and used for, and if you can't, you might want to check in on Kim Dotcom and see how he is doing lately if you think this is unreasonable...

  46. Re:absolutely kill ... cloud computing business by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    This comment thread is so much funnier with the cloudtobutt extension.

  47. Might as well charge the electric company too by davidwr · · Score: 1

    What we are alleging is occurring is that there are individuals and organizations that are profiting from the storage and the exchange of child sexual exploitation material

    Well if you are going to charge the data center provider, you might as well go for everyone else who is merely providing a service. Find everyone who downloaded the material and charge their ISPs and their electric utility companies, because if the people weren't downloading underaged-p0rn they would presumably have a lower electric bill and would choose a cheaper plan from their ISP. Or so the logic goes.

    Seriously, unless this business was specifically "in the business" of turning a blind eye to or even facilitating activity that reputable hosting companies don't do and providing services which have no practical value to legal businesses, then leave the hosting company alone.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.