Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Takes Down 10,613 Dark Web Portals (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Anonymous hackers have breached Freedom Hosting II, a popular Dark Web hosting provider, and have taken down 10,613 .onion sites. In a message left on all Freedom Hosting II sites, the hackers claim to have found massive troves of child pornography imagery hosted on the company's servers. The hackers dumped 74GB of server files (half of which they say contained child pornography) and a database dump of 2.3GB. Security researcher Chris Monteiro has analyzed some of the dumped data. He says he discovered .onion URLs hosting botnets, fraud sites, sites peddling hacked data, weird fetish portals, more weird stuff, and child abuse websites targeting both English- and Russian-speaking buyers. Freedom Hosting II hosts about a fifth of all .onion URLs. The first Freedom Hosting service was targeted by Anonymous in 2011 and eventually shut down in 2013 after the FBI also found child pornography hosted on its sites.
Normally I would not approve, but that much child stuff...good for them. Shut it down.
The FBI will have to find a new way to entrap people into child poornography, as they operate all the child pornography websites on the Internet.
They did a data dump, a torrent, with all these sites on? Isn't that, you know, a bad idea?
The problem is one of taxonomy. When certain impulses are usually triggered by sex, they are labeled sexual, no matter whether the fact remains that they can be triggered by other neurological pathways. A lot of the social arguments are ones of taxonomy. Whether or not someone is male or female, or the less appealing classification of neuter, or whether the bonding of two or more individuals should be classified under the term, "marriage". ]
Anonymous are attacking a hosting service that allows people to host things anonymously? Weren't these guys touted as the anti-establishment pro-freedom guys? Why does "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" suddently the basic freedoms of all the non child abusers in the service?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Let's say that I do get tortured and abused, and someone gets pictures of it and puts them online, say in liveleak, or even in some "well respected" news site. Who is responsible for torturing me? The one who did it? Or the jerks who hosted the pics?
They are both responsible, provided no party is a common carrier.
I read a very interesting article recently on the law of the commons. It essentially said that knowing someones real identity in a public commons, makes for polite (read socially acceptable) behaviour. This is why facebook is generally very polite; but anonymous blog comments can be abusive.
The issue is, we have a great tussle between our valid fear of governments, and even private businesses, abusing their knowledge of you; and our need as a society to protect those that cannot protect themselves by revealing the identity of those that abuse. This is not only children, but the elderly, and those with physical and mental impairments.
There is currently no answer to this problem as the two requirements will always oppose each other.
46137
How exactly do you think this constitutes entrapment? What, precisely, did the FBI allegedly do here that forced people not already predisposed to visit CP sites to visit their sites? It seems to me that you're simply promulgating an old myth about entrapment, in that merely giving someone the means to commit a crime they were already predisposed to commit is 'entrapment', when this is not so. If that's what you think, please read this guide written by an actual lawyer.
There's a reasonable discussion of harm minimization here as to whether the interest in catching predators using the sites outweighed allowing them to continue to exist, but the idea that giving would-be criminals an opportunity to commit crime somehow constitutes "entrapment" is one of the most common myths.
Now, it is true that the standard reasoning given for why possession (as opposed to production) of child pornography is illegal is very much at odds with the idea of keeping the site live, in that they're ostensibly re-victimizing those portrayed in the CP sites they permit to live. However, that is by no means the only rationale as to why mere possession should be illegal. But if you want to argue that, you'd do well to discuss it in more detail rather than simply dashing off some ill-premised missive regarding an FBI operation that happened months ago.