Slashdot Mirror


The FBI Defends Deploying Malware From A Tor Child Porn Site (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The FBI issued a press release about the 30-year prison sentence for a 58-year-old Florida man running "the world's largest child pornography website, with more than 150,000 users around the world." But their investigation involved what Gizmodo describes as "a decision controversial to this day" -- taking over the child pornography site and running it "for almost two weeks while distributing malware designed to unmask its visitors." Thursday the FBI described it as "a court-approved network investigative technique" which led to more than 1,000 leads in the U.S. and "thousands more" for law enforcement partners in other countries, leading to arrests in the EU, Israel, Turkey, Peru, Malaysia, Chile, and the Ukraine. Those 1,000 U.S. leads led to "at least 350 U.S-based individuals arrested", as well as actual prosecutions of 25 producers of child pornography and 51 hands-on abusers, while 55 children were "identified or rescued" in America, and another 296 internationally who were sexually abused.

Though Motherboard describes it as hacking "over 8,000 computers in 120 countries based on one warrant," the FBI calls it their "most successful effort to date against users of Tor's hidden service sites," adding that the agency "has numerous investigations involving the dark web." Though they'd soon became aware of the site's existence, "given the nature of how Tor hidden services work, there was not much we could do about it" -- until a foreign law enforcement agency discovered the site had "slipped up" by revealing its actual IP address, and notified the U.S. investigators. The FBI also says the investigation "has opened new avenues for international cooperation in efforts to prosecute child abusers around the world."

The site's two other administrators -- both men in their 40s -- were also given 20-year prison sentences earlier this year.

34 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Not a problem by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It isn't "malware". It is software designed to figure out where these users are.

    1. Re:Not a problem by Highdude702 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      under normal circumstances i would be upset. but children were involved and theyre making it sound like they have rescued active sex slave children. therefor i cant say what they did was wrong.

    2. Re:Not a problem by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not the problem. The problem is that the FBI was distributing child pornography for two weeks. This kind of things are always contentious, because setting the limits is tricky. Can a policeman pay a confident with drugs? Can an FBI agent watch a child being raped without intervening because they hope to free more children that way? Can a undercover agent kill some innocent person to keep their cover? As said, the limits are difficult to set.

      In the end it's the old question: Does the end justify the means? The answer has always been "It depends". You can say that in this particular case, the answer for you is "yes". But the question is nott, in my opinion, something to dismiss so cavalierly.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    3. Re:Not a problem by quonset · · Score: 5, Informative

      I do not think you know what the legal definition of entrapment is. Actually, I know you don't based on your post.

      I always refer to this when people spout off about entrapment. It doesn't get any more clear than this.

    4. Re:Not a problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      It's only entrapment if you lure the mark into downloading something that he does not think is child porn, or if you infect someone who visits the site by misspelling a URL. If you bundle the malware with actual child porn images that are advertised as such, you're golden.

    5. Re:Not a problem by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      under normal circumstances i would be upset. but children were involved and theyre making it sound like they have rescued active sex slave children. therefor i cant say what they did was wrong.

      On the surface, I agree with you.

      That said, the problem with your mentality is this little thing called precedent, which creates one hell of a slippery slope.

      Today, this activity by law enforcement is "justified" by your moral compass, and a complete lack of analysis to determine if what they actually did was illegal translates into accepted behavior.

      Tomorrow, this same activity by law enforcement may be used to silence what they deem as "propaganda". Or illegally search through ISP records to build cases, perhaps by parallel construction. Or enslave and hide the truth based on political contributions. All because it was once accepted by the masses when think-of-the-children was peddled out in front of the illegal activity.

    6. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my opinion, the FBI and most other USA LEO TLAgencies are not morally superior to whomever they go after, not any more, not by any stretch of the imagination. They're merely the enforcers, that that's all to it.

      This, and the fact they've been getting away with it for decades, says things about the USA that its population ought to take to heart and think about.

      Remember, there might have been other means to reach the goals, and those weren't explored. Even if those were less or not at all practicable, that's just too bad because that's the price for being on that side of the law. Once your position in relation to the fence, or even the law-fence itself, becomes completely arbitrary, you end up with situations like this. No moral compass to speak of, but lots of noise blathering about how successful you were doing a difficult job, yet accepting no criticism about how you've well become possibly even worse than whomever you managed to apprehend. And like as not mysteriously failing to make a dent in actual crime committed. Then it won't be long before bozo will no longer be the worst clown.

    7. Re:Not a problem by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The end justifies the means is a rather dangerous attitude. Because the end-goalpost can move quite quickly. After all, disagreeing with dear leader may destabilize the country, and who would want that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Not a problem by gweihir · · Score: 2

      So you would also consent to a camera in every bedroom (including yours), because that may rescue some children?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re: Not a problem by ihearthonduras · · Score: 2

      Setting the limits isn't tricky. The police should be held accountable to the same laws as the rest of us. There. Easy.

    10. Re:Not a problem by swell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The problem is that the FBI was distributing child pornography for two weeks."

      Perhaps you believe that they should have immediately arrested the operator of the site and let the thousands of others continue their activities elsewhere? And let the children remain in captivity? Assuming that the FBI is being honest with us, (?) most will agree that they did the right thing. Those two weeks are inconsequential in comparison.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    11. Re:Not a problem by gweihir · · Score: 3, Informative

      One of the arguments against is that it is a slippery slope. The only thing that works long-term is that LEOs may not commit crimes, no exception. Otherwise they begin to resemble those that they fight more and more, because it is just so much easier.

      In the case at hand, by the very definition of the DOJ (!), the FBI committed child abuse for two weeks, and the step to actually directly abusing children is a small one. I do not see why they should get away with that. Otherwise, they can next start to produce this type material themselves by raping children, because that can get them into the inner circles of such groups if they have new material to swap. They may even only have to rape a few children and may as a result safe a lot more!

      I think the problem here is entirely obvious and it is very obvious that the FBI stepped far over the line.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Not a problem by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      That's simply one of the seasons why they only do it for a limited time, two weeks in this case. That's not enough time for knowledge of the FBI ownership of the site to leak out, so not enough time for the site's consumers to try to poison the well by giving innocent people links.

      At any rate, you can already SWAT somebody with a telephone.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re:Not a problem by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not as if the FBI set up their own site and curated their own collection of child porn. They simply continued the service for two weeks after their first opportunity to shut it down. If the FBI takes over the leadership of a massive drug cartel, then I think it would also be perfectly reasonable for them to allow the cartel's employees continue distributing drugs for 2 weeks for the purpose of catching them and their contacts in the act of doing something illegal.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    14. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would seem most likely that if they had just turned the server off then they never would have discovered the location of any children, so the sub-human scum abusing the children would have disappeared into the wind. It was obviously only thru waiting for them to reveal their locations that they had any chance at all of finding any of them, and only then would they have made the discoveries of which of those low-life arseholes were actively abusing children and creating that material.

      How the fuck would they have found any child abuser without gathering information? Or do you think the server had a list of primary producers and their addresses just sitting there waiting to be read? You people suggesting that they made abuse of children happen for two weeks should just stop and think about shit.

    15. Re:Not a problem by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The end justifies the means is a rather dangerous attitude. Because the end-goalpost can move quite quickly.

      A just as chilling thought is that law enforcement has and is gradually slid from a focus on protection to a focus on punishment. Was the "ends" in the law enforcement's view to stop a crime in progress or to catch and convict as many people as possible?

      If this had been a fentanyl distribution ring, would they have allowed it to operate in order to arrest as many people as possible, or would they have shut it down in the interest of public safety, even knowing that some of the users would be able to find other outlets?

    16. Re:Not a problem by WorBlux · · Score: 2

      If the theory that the mere possession or tertiary distribution of CP re-victimizes the victim in every case, is true, then the FBI re-victimized tens of thousands on the behalf of the 55 rescued. The FBI committed or aided tens of thousands of acts that would otherwise be felonies. This can only lead to two conclusions. That many of these acts should not be considered felonies, or that the FBI actions in this case were terrible and morally reprehensible.
       

    17. Re:Not a problem by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I always refer to this when people spout off about entrapment. It doesn't get any more clear than this.

      One of my co-workers has a law degree. I showed her your link. According to her, the second example (Grayson) is pretty clearly entrapment. The guy was not predisposed to commit a crime until the police created the opportunity and enticed him into it.

    18. Re:Not a problem by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The end justifies the means is a rather dangerous attitude.

      Especially since it isn't clear that the means leads to the end. The presumption is that viewing child porn leads to violence against children. There is very little evidence to support that hypothesis, and quite a bit more that contradicts it. Over the last 20 years, access to porn has skyrocketed because of the Internet, but sexual violence has gone down by 55%. Perhaps mastrubating to porn functions as an alternative to "real" sex.

      The argument that child porn hurts children during its creation is bogus. This is true because of the illegality. If it was legal, and regulated, it could be created with EFX that avoided the use of actual children, so the harm would go down.

      Other countries have taken a more enlightened approach. In Japan, pedophiles can buy child sex dolls that appear to reduce harm. Yet those dolls are illegal in most other countries, including the US and Canada. It is hard to justify that by claiming that it "helps children".

    19. Re:Not a problem by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The ends of law enforcement is usually to make law enforcement look good. Child abuses are possible the most loathed of all criminals - the public utterly hates them to an extend that can be hard to imagine. If a politician were to propose that they be executed by slowly lowering them feet first into a woodchipper, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority voted in favor. So arresting a load of people for possession of child pornography is a great publicity win, even if none of the arrested ever actually abused or would abuse a child.

    20. Re:Not a problem by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      I think its a context issue, and stands on a razor edge and can be argued both ways until blue in the face. Grayson is admitted to know who and where all the local drug dealers are, and is approached by someone offering a large sum of money to deliver a package to one of said drug dealers. *wink wink nudge nudge*
      So either you have to assume Grayson is a complete idiot, who figures UPS was a bit short handed that day, or he knows he is delivering drugs.
      His is a really razor edge case, which would be in court and appeals for way to long, and sort of props the prosecution on the old "Small Penis" defense, where the accused has to admit something undesirable (to being a complete idiot in this case) in order to defend himself. Not an ideal example for the comic.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  2. I find it very strange and disturbing that ... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thirty years? Maybe it's worth that but I find it very strange and disturbing that raping children draws far less a penalty than possessing an image of a naked child.
    Why are they not tracking down the people making the images instead of a vast sting operation on patsies looking at them while the FBI is running the site?

    1. Re:I find it very strange and disturbing that ... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The commenter was probably referred to this guy because it got a lot of press, but he took a plea deal that gave him seven years on probation. Texas has 116 people serving life sentences for possession, though, so there's probably another teenager in there somewhere.

    2. Re:I find it very strange and disturbing that ... by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

      Child porn is easier to get a solid conviction. you catch chester the molester with images and video and convict on possession.

      molestation and rape often does get a plea because you need the testimony of children who were raped,children are not the most reliable witnesses in terms of saying conflicting things that can help the defense, and asking them to recount what happened in court is less than ideal, so often the prosecution will give a plea deal that requires registration and a smaller jail term in order to balance protecting the community with compassion for the victims and the risk of a molester getting off scott free if the child panics and denies anything happened when questioned.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  3. Re:I'm fine with this. by allo · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Child abuser aren't humans after all
    By declaring, that some people you don't like aren't humans you can always circumvent the human rights. But who know, who is the next person deciding, that YOU aren't a human?
    So nope ... human rights apply to everyone.

  4. "If we save just one child" by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the end it's the old question: Does the end justify the means? The answer has always been "It depends". You can say that in this particular case, the answer for you is "yes". But the question is nott, in my opinion, something to dismiss so cavalierly.

    If we stipulate it is acceptable for law enforcement to run a pron site because X children were rescued, we have ceased the negotiations over whether the action is proper.

    We have now reduced the equation to a bidding war over what value of X justifies the operation.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:"If we save just one child" by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Child pornography is so vigorously prosecuted because its production involves the sexual exploitation of children and its consumption drives that market of exploitation. However, law enforcement continuing to run the site for a minimal amount of time to catch the perpetrators neither creates additional exploitation nor expands the demand -- its effect is to counter and shrink both of those. The negative it does have is contributing to the continued invasion of privacy of the minors involved. Personally, though, as a victim, I would consider having those pictures out there a slightly longer period of time a minuscule addition to the harm of having them initially released and the acts involved in producing them, especially if it is ongoing and the police need the evidence to even find me and rescue me.

      It is comparable to cops going 95 mph on the freeway to reach an emergency. Strictly speaking, they are increasing the chances of a fatal accident. However, they have mitigated those risks by lights, sirens, and extensive training, and only do so to respond directly to an emergency, not to get anywhere they want to go. The premise is entirely different than me going 95 mph to get to a friend's birthday party on time.

      Would it be acceptable for law enforcement to create child pornography or launch a distribution site? No. They would be intentionally creating victims. But given an emergency situation where people are already actively being harmed, it's understood that the police can pursue a policy of minimal harm and minimal risk to resolve the situation, rather than the impossible handicap of zero harm and zero risk.

  5. Re:I'm fine with this. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, I've heard a similar sentence before. In a speech that was given about 80 years ago. He wasn't talking about child abusers, though...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. think of the children ! by swell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is an aspect to this story that may be disturbing to some. That is: we value some human lives higher than others. We have special laws to punish people who harm children, police, pregnant women, etc. We have unwritten laws (yet obvious to observers) that skin color changes the value of some humans. Age is another factor. Consider a situation where you must choose between saving the life of a sweet innocent baby and a crusty old college professor who is leading the research on a cancer cure. How do you value these lives? Which would you save?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:think of the children ! by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Consider a situation where you must choose between saving the life of a sweet innocent baby and a crusty old college professor who is leading the research on a cancer cure. How do you value these lives? Which would you save?

      I know it's not the prevalent view, but I'd save an adult over a child any day. Children is a renewable resource. We can always produce more. But the amount of effort having gone into creating the adult is far more.
      If I were driving down the road and suddenly there were a string of people across it, and I could not possibly stop in time, I'd aim for the youngest. No doubt in my mind at all.

      The reproductive capacity of humans is so strong that the cultural worship of and obsession about children seems illogical. Even more so these days, when most children get to grow up, and too few die from pressure for evolution to have much effect.

      Much of this seems to be rooted in the binary thinking of prevalent religions, where life is "sacred" and there is a mysterious "soul" that humans attain at birth, or in some cases earlier. Add parental instincts that makes sense for ancestors fighting for survival, but not in a world where children's survival rates are close to unity, and we use prophylactic methods to reduce the number of babies popping out in the first place.
      IANAP, but I think this sick worship of children could be part of the reason why there's so many suffering from unhealthy attraction to them.

      To me, it seems more logical to define a personal view of "human" as a value of the worth of the individual to humanity, with a peak individual being 100 and a child starting at 0 and ending at 0 again if living to old age dementia.

      tl;dr: Children are not special. Most anyone can have them.

    2. Re:think of the children ! by bidule · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We protect the ones who cannot protect themselves.

      The rest is intellectual masturbation.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  7. Wouldn't call this malware by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this so-called "malware" did was to provide a link to a website that someone could click on, and if someone clicked on it, their IP address was available to the website, which is just how the internet works. If I click on a www.amazon.com link, amazon gets my IP address. That's the same thing.

  8. Re:Not OK by Interfacer · · Score: 2

    I think the main reason is that demand fuels production and therefore distribution fuels production as well.

  9. Re:Not OK by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Hollywood assures us that if everyone just downloads for free, nothing more will be produced.