what we can't be sure of, is was this kid looking at pictures at all
Fixed that for you.
I mean, the guy has an internet connection and gigs of pr0n, and he goes out and gets a Playboy? Nuff said.
Actually he admits to looking at legal porn:
Nevertheless, Matthew did have an embarrassing confession. He had been sneaking peaks at adult erotic photos on the family computer. "I got the Web site from a bunch of friends at school. [It was] just adult pornography...Playboy-like images."
"Box[ing]" refers to using a device called a colored "box" (eg. redbox, bluebox, etc) to trick the phone system into (usually) giving you free phone service
Additionally, it seemed that the illegal activity had coincided, roughly, with the times Matt had been active on Yahoo as joebean1988hoopdu.
I'm puzzled about something here. According to this there were two users logged into Yahoo! on the same computer at the same tyme. Yet neither I nor anyone else I know has been able to do this, I am a member of some Yahoo groups and I know of members of some of the groups that have two or more Yahoo IDs. The only way they can login with more than one ID at the same tyme is if they use different computers for each ID.
WHY would this particular pedophile hacker decide to burn several child porn images to a CD-R or CD-RW that just so happened to be in the drive? As the justice4matt.com site argues, this is perfectly possible - and yet doesn't make any sense in my mind.
Doing so solidifies the case against the victim. If there is a solid case there's no need to look more.
There are a number of teenage girls on sex offender lists for taking pictures of themselves!
And, thanks to idiot Florida law, flashing while on spring break.
There was some cases in one Fl county about women walking around topless and getting tickets, maybe it was Pinellas county. Anyway some of the women filed a discrimination lawsuit, they were being discriminated because they were women and were ticketted for being topless while men weren't getting tickets for being topless as well. Eventually they decided to stop ticketing for being topless. Darn, I wish I recall when this happened but it was sometime in the late '80s or early '90s.
And it could be like a gang standing around a murder victim. Someone pulled the trigger, but who? You just convict them all is the only way to deal with it.
Unlike you but like Thomas Jefferson, I'd rather let ten guilty go free than to falsely convict one innocent. Some may, I don't know if you might be one, say "but they must of done something bad anyway". Well if so then find it and charge them with it.
However, I would note there's a big difference between leeching some images and actually abusing children or paying money for images of minors, providing a demand for the continued abuse of children.
There is also a difference in what different people concern is porn. There have been cases of parents being accused of child porngraphy for taking photos of their child(ren), babies and older children, taking a bath. Heck such things were accepted as being part of a family album while I was growing up, but now it's porn. Ya now, as a photographer there are things I automatically think about twice before taking a photo when just 20 years ago I didn't have to worry I'd be accused of being a child pornographer or a terrorist. Several years ago while I was taking a photography class we discussed a case then going on about how another student was arrested for taking photos at a chemical plant while working on an assignment for one of his classes. He was accused of being a terrorist and photographing potential terrorist targets.
So what's the solution? We've got democracy, and now we're trying to spread it. What would you suggest be done?
One, stuff like this needs to be fought against. And two, we need to become more aware of what's going on. Unfortunately for too many in the US, there's not enough tyme and it's not worth it to spend what tyme there is on learing about something. It only becomes worth it when it bites them in the ass.
Now I'm not saying it's all the voters' fault, afterall John and Sue Jones need to feed thier kids, but people really need to consciously decide what is more important.
I'm not going to allow such uncontrolled events as described in the post to happen, if I can help it. The only way I can help it is to have an OS running in my home that can be secured. That means MacOS or Linux. That and a hefty firewall.:)
There is a good firewall for Windows, ZoneAlarm. Unfortunately it doesn't work with Firefox or Netscape newer than 4.x. Now, only if I could find a firewall like it for OSX and Linux. Sure there are some for them but I haven't found one that allows the user to block javascript, Java, or other objects by website, ie allow some websites to use these but block others from using them.
Here's one guy who is probably running that I think most freedom loving folks might endorse. Longshot, the media will go out of their way to ignore him, his own party sort of ignores him but he gets relected by his locals because he's an honest dude, a true rarity in the district of criminals. Pretty smart guy, strict Constitutionalist, and etc. There needs to be a ton of pressure applied (and support for and $upport for) from the grass roots level.
I'm not registered Republican, I'm registered independent, but if he's running in the primary I'll register Republican just to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Of course afterwards I'd change back to independent. I voted for him the first tyme he ran for president, in 1988 he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket. Hell, If I lived in his Texas district I would of voted for him again. I heard yesterday he was putting together an exploritory committee to see if he would run for pres on the republican ticket.
For those who don't like grand juries, I propose an alternative. Allow private prosecutions of prosecutorial and police misconduct under civil rights legislation (18 USC 241,242,etc). By private prosecution, I mean allowing a private attorney (hired by the aggreived party) to press charges against a state official in the name of the state. This is possible under common law, but infrequently used or impossible today. Why private prosecution? Government officials seem a bit too unwilling to prosecute one another, so someone from outside sometimes needs to be brought in.
Thanks for the info, I thought government officials were immune to prosecution for performing actions as part of their job. If they can be prosecuted then I fully support this. Actually I fully support a Fully Informed Jury and Jury Nullification.
People from the United States of America = Americans
Another lesson:
Citizens of the United States of America = Unites States of America citizens.
Or put another way America is not a country, it is the continents of North America and South America together. Someone from Brazil is just as American as someone from the USA.
Wow. You USAians really live in a fucked up country if you can be charged with showing your mates a playboy.
Unfortunately this is all too true. With the way things are, if a parent were to do what my mother did while I was growing up she'd be prosecuted for child abuse, child endangerment, or indescency to a minor. What did she do? She gave me "Playboys" and alcoholic drinks. The parents I saw and met in Germany when I was there would be prosecuted today with these charges. What did they do? A parent would get a glass of wine for their child when eating at a restaurant.
(c) a Federal requirement that states require a grand jury before going to trial on any felony.
I think grand juries are BS!!! One person cotrols the grand jury, the prosecutor. A defendent isn't even allowed an attorney in hearings, not without permission of the prosecutor. Yet too many people get the idea that if a grand jury indicts someone they must be guilty.
Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door? If you keep your doors locked, then it's really not too hard to figure out who's coming into your computer. Although, I've got to say that coming into one's computer gives new meaning to Intarweb porn. Maybe she should teach her son that there are safer places to come.
Most people aren't geeks or hackers and don't know how vulnerable their computer is or how to lock it down.
What really rots your socks is he could have had a picture of a girl 17 and older than him, flashing her tits, and not only would it be child porn, but they could easily try the 16 year old as an adult!
That's the problem with statutory rape laws, a 15 year old boy can have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl and he can be charged with statutory rape.
The family made the mistake of talking to the police before they talked to a lawyer and once the kid admitted looking at "Playboy"-type images the cops donned their blinders and got their Nancy Grace on.
Nancy Grace does get a hardon about prosecuting someone before enough investigation is done and info is released to decide innocence or guilt. Then again her fiance was murdered. If I recall right originally she wanted to be a actor but when he was murdered she switched her major to law.
Well that's a good point, but they know that what they are downloading is bootlegged, stolen goods. So yes, they don't want to buy a CD or movie but they'll take it if they can. That's greedy.
Where does downloading bootlegged material come from?
Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.
A computer that is owned, has been cracked and is used remotely, is ideal for many scumbags. They are able to avoid having dirt on their own computers. Also commanding someone else's computer that's always on, has abroadband collection, can be used as a server.
The way some of these stories and comments are written, it sounds like someone examining the computer found dozens of pictures of kiddie porn on there, and the explanation is "the virus did it!"...but I don't see the motive in writing a virus to do that...a popup or two, yes, but not dozens of images.
Again the computer might be being used as a server. The same techniques are used for DDOS attacks.
If you cared enough about your art, you wouldn't give a shit if somebody else was able to enjoy it without paying you for it; the mere creation would be enough. Same with my poetry- if I could get people to copy it for free (and they most certainly HAVE) it's enough that my message gets out there.
I care about my art but I also care about feeding myself. That includes photography and writing. Yes, I used to write poems, as well as articles for magazines and I was working on a book. However I lost my ability to write when I had an accident. So while I can still photograph I haven't been able to write. And one of the things I had wanted to do was photojournalism.
However, the need to make money inhibits my ability to write poetry- the need to make a living off of it destroys the art.
See, you admit not being able to make money off writing "detroys the art", yet your position would make it even harder to make a living off of your creations. I've been thinking of signing up with some microstock websites that sale photographs such as iStock Photography, Shutterstock, and Big Stock Photo. If copyrights didn't exist, as soon as I were to upload any photo someone else would be able to sale them themself.
Likewise with all creation- if you can't bring it to market in 4 months, forget it, because the R&D will negatively impact the bottom line and some bean-counter will pull the project because it's not "making money".
Tech companies spend much more tyme on R&D than just 4 months. Look at Apple and the switch to Intels. Apple had Mac OSX running on Intels for years before they switched. Just this weekend, Saturday, there was a discussion on new dvd drives that were triple layed and another where a company had come up with a 1 terabyte hd. I seriously doubt it only took 4 months to develop them. As for an individual doing it, unless they were able to find a big company to buy them out, it could take a year or more to get the funding to build a factory never mind getting something out of the door. But it could take a year to find a buyer too.
I've seen far too many projects destroyed by capitalism and the stock market to believe that capitalism is capable of creating anything at all- any invention comes to market IN SPITE OF capitalism, not because of it.
It wasn't capitalism that destroyed these projects, it may of been bean counters or company executives, but it wasn't capitalism. It coud of been that those who killed a project didn't see it of any use, or that it would cost too much money to bring to market. At least capitalism allowed an attempt, unlike communism.
If you read what Feinstein herself says about the bill, it's clearly about commercial broadcasts-- the kind you need a government license for. If you broadcast other people's music under a government broadcast license, you have to apply DRM. If you make your own licensing arrangements with the copyright holders (i.e. yourself, perhaps), the bill doesn't apply.
It doesn't apply only to those with a government granted monopoly, broadcast license. The page you link to says: This bill would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters. To webcast does not require a license but as you can read this law applies to webcasters, "Internet broadcasters", as well. More confirmations follow:
"1...This means that Internet, cable, and satellite will all be subject to the same rate standards;"
"2. It requires that Internet, cable and satellite providers employ technology that will prevent downloading, manipulation and sorting of the music that they play to prevent individuals from creating their own personalized play-lists."
" Background on the Feinstein-Graham PERFORM Act:"
Creating Rate Parity - all cable, satellite, and internet companies should be subject to the same rates
Fact is is this proposed law would apply to media that doesn't require a license, unless you want to make webcasting requie a license.
Libertarians, to do anything effective on the national level, need to acquire power within one or both of the established parties. So far they've tried mostly within the Republican Party
It makes sense Libertarians work more with Republican than they do Democrats. The Libertarian Party was started by Republicans who were fedup with Republicans under Nixon. Some opposed cointel and the efforts of Hoover, others were fedup with Nixon policies ans statements. One such statement was that no matter what Nixon's Presidential Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse decided after studying marijuana. He said no matter what conclusion they came to he would never support legal hemp, marijuana. And in fact that is what they concluded, that hemp was such a useful plant and marijuana didn't present a danger the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 should be repealled.
Slashdot Mirror
what we can't be sure of, is was this kid looking at pictures at all
Fixed that for you.
I mean, the guy has an internet connection and gigs of pr0n, and he goes out and gets a Playboy? Nuff said.
Actually he admits to looking at legal porn:
Nevertheless, Matthew did have an embarrassing confession. He had been sneaking peaks at adult erotic photos on the family computer. "I got the Web site from a bunch of friends at school. [It was] just adult pornography...Playboy-like images."
Falcon"Box[ing]" refers to using a device called a colored "box" (eg. redbox, bluebox, etc) to trick the phone system into (usually) giving you free phone service
Captain Crunch's whistle anyone? How about 2600?
FalconAdditionally, it seemed that the illegal activity had coincided, roughly, with the times Matt had been active on Yahoo as joebean1988hoopdu.
I'm puzzled about something here. According to this there were two users logged into Yahoo! on the same computer at the same tyme. Yet neither I nor anyone else I know has been able to do this, I am a member of some Yahoo groups and I know of members of some of the groups that have two or more Yahoo IDs. The only way they can login with more than one ID at the same tyme is if they use different computers for each ID.
WHY would this particular pedophile hacker decide to burn several child porn images to a CD-R or CD-RW that just so happened to be in the drive? As the justice4matt.com site argues, this is perfectly possible - and yet doesn't make any sense in my mind.
Doing so solidifies the case against the victim. If there is a solid case there's no need to look more.
FalconThere are a number of teenage girls on sex offender lists for taking pictures of themselves!
And, thanks to idiot Florida law, flashing while on spring break.
There was some cases in one Fl county about women walking around topless and getting tickets, maybe it was Pinellas county. Anyway some of the women filed a discrimination lawsuit, they were being discriminated because they were women and were ticketted for being topless while men weren't getting tickets for being topless as well. Eventually they decided to stop ticketing for being topless. Darn, I wish I recall when this happened but it was sometime in the late '80s or early '90s.
FalconAnd it could be like a gang standing around a murder victim. Someone pulled the trigger, but who? You just convict them all is the only way to deal with it.
Unlike you but like Thomas Jefferson, I'd rather let ten guilty go free than to falsely convict one innocent. Some may, I don't know if you might be one, say "but they must of done something bad anyway". Well if so then find it and charge them with it.
FalconHowever, I would note there's a big difference between leeching some images and actually abusing children or paying money for images of minors, providing a demand for the continued abuse of children.
There is also a difference in what different people concern is porn. There have been cases of parents being accused of child porngraphy for taking photos of their child(ren), babies and older children, taking a bath. Heck such things were accepted as being part of a family album while I was growing up, but now it's porn. Ya now, as a photographer there are things I automatically think about twice before taking a photo when just 20 years ago I didn't have to worry I'd be accused of being a child pornographer or a terrorist. Several years ago while I was taking a photography class we discussed a case then going on about how another student was arrested for taking photos at a chemical plant while working on an assignment for one of his classes. He was accused of being a terrorist and photographing potential terrorist targets.
FalconSo what's the solution? We've got democracy, and now we're trying to spread it. What would you suggest be done?
One, stuff like this needs to be fought against. And two, we need to become more aware of what's going on. Unfortunately for too many in the US, there's not enough tyme and it's not worth it to spend what tyme there is on learing about something. It only becomes worth it when it bites them in the ass.
Now I'm not saying it's all the voters' fault, afterall John and Sue Jones need to feed thier kids, but people really need to consciously decide what is more important.
FalconI'm not going to allow such uncontrolled events as described in the post to happen, if I can help it. The only way I can help it is to have an OS running in my home that can be secured. That means MacOS or Linux. That and a hefty firewall. :)
There is a good firewall for Windows, ZoneAlarm. Unfortunately it doesn't work with Firefox or Netscape newer than 4.x. Now, only if I could find a firewall like it for OSX and Linux. Sure there are some for them but I haven't found one that allows the user to block javascript, Java, or other objects by website, ie allow some websites to use these but block others from using them.
FalconHere's one guy who is probably running that I think most freedom loving folks might endorse. Longshot, the media will go out of their way to ignore him, his own party sort of ignores him but he gets relected by his locals because he's an honest dude, a true rarity in the district of criminals. Pretty smart guy, strict Constitutionalist, and etc. There needs to be a ton of pressure applied (and support for and $upport for) from the grass roots level.
I'm not registered Republican, I'm registered independent, but if he's running in the primary I'll register Republican just to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Of course afterwards I'd change back to independent. I voted for him the first tyme he ran for president, in 1988 he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket. Hell, If I lived in his Texas district I would of voted for him again. I heard yesterday he was putting together an exploritory committee to see if he would run for pres on the republican ticket.
FalconFor those who don't like grand juries, I propose an alternative. Allow private prosecutions of prosecutorial and police misconduct under civil rights legislation (18 USC 241,242,etc). By private prosecution, I mean allowing a private attorney (hired by the aggreived party) to press charges against a state official in the name of the state. This is possible under common law, but infrequently used or impossible today. Why private prosecution? Government officials seem a bit too unwilling to prosecute one another, so someone from outside sometimes needs to be brought in.
Thanks for the info, I thought government officials were immune to prosecution for performing actions as part of their job. If they can be prosecuted then I fully support this. Actually I fully support a Fully Informed Jury and Jury Nullification.
FalconPeople from the United States of America = Americans
Another lesson:
Citizens of the United States of America = Unites States of America citizens.
Or put another way America is not a country, it is the continents of North America and South America together. Someone from Brazil is just as American as someone from the USA.
FalconWow. You USAians really live in a fucked up country if you can be charged with showing your mates a playboy.
Unfortunately this is all too true. With the way things are, if a parent were to do what my mother did while I was growing up she'd be prosecuted for child abuse, child endangerment, or indescency to a minor. What did she do? She gave me "Playboys" and alcoholic drinks. The parents I saw and met in Germany when I was there would be prosecuted today with these charges. What did they do? A parent would get a glass of wine for their child when eating at a restaurant.
Falcon(c) a Federal requirement that states require a grand jury before going to trial on any felony.
I think grand juries are BS!!! One person cotrols the grand jury, the prosecutor. A defendent isn't even allowed an attorney in hearings, not without permission of the prosecutor. Yet too many people get the idea that if a grand jury indicts someone they must be guilty.
FalconCall me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door? If you keep your doors locked, then it's really not too hard to figure out who's coming into your computer. Although, I've got to say that coming into one's computer gives new meaning to Intarweb porn. Maybe she should teach her son that there are safer places to come.
Most people aren't geeks or hackers and don't know how vulnerable their computer is or how to lock it down.
FalconIf I recall right originally she wanted to be a actor but when he was murdered she switched her major to law.
I think it was English teacher. Now she does some acting from time to time. :)
Yea, on Larry King Live! And on Court TV I think.
Actually I kind of like her but I think she's too quick in concluding someone's guilty.
FalconWhat really rots your socks is he could have had a picture of a girl 17 and older than him, flashing her tits, and not only would it be child porn, but they could easily try the 16 year old as an adult!
That's the problem with statutory rape laws, a 15 year old boy can have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl and he can be charged with statutory rape.
FalconThe family made the mistake of talking to the police before they talked to a lawyer and once the kid admitted looking at "Playboy"-type images the cops donned their blinders and got their Nancy Grace on.
Nancy Grace does get a hardon about prosecuting someone before enough investigation is done and info is released to decide innocence or guilt. Then again her fiance was murdered. If I recall right originally she wanted to be a actor but when he was murdered she switched her major to law.
FalconAnyone has any info on that?
The article says Yahoo had reported child porn was uploaded from the computer into some chat rooms.
FalconWell that's a good point, but they know that what they are downloading is bootlegged, stolen goods. So yes, they don't want to buy a CD or movie but they'll take it if they can. That's greedy.
Where does downloading bootlegged material come from?
FalconWhy are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.
A computer that is owned, has been cracked and is used remotely, is ideal for many scumbags. They are able to avoid having dirt on their own computers. Also commanding someone else's computer that's always on, has abroadband collection, can be used as a server.
The way some of these stories and comments are written, it sounds like someone examining the computer found dozens of pictures of kiddie porn on there, and the explanation is "the virus did it!"...but I don't see the motive in writing a virus to do that...a popup or two, yes, but not dozens of images.
Again the computer might be being used as a server. The same techniques are used for DDOS attacks.
FalconIf you cared enough about your art, you wouldn't give a shit if somebody else was able to enjoy it without paying you for it; the mere creation would be enough. Same with my poetry- if I could get people to copy it for free (and they most certainly HAVE) it's enough that my message gets out there.
I care about my art but I also care about feeding myself. That includes photography and writing. Yes, I used to write poems, as well as articles for magazines and I was working on a book. However I lost my ability to write when I had an accident. So while I can still photograph I haven't been able to write. And one of the things I had wanted to do was photojournalism.
However, the need to make money inhibits my ability to write poetry- the need to make a living off of it destroys the art.
See, you admit not being able to make money off writing "detroys the art", yet your position would make it even harder to make a living off of your creations. I've been thinking of signing up with some microstock websites that sale photographs such as iStock Photography, Shutterstock, and Big Stock Photo. If copyrights didn't exist, as soon as I were to upload any photo someone else would be able to sale them themself.
Likewise with all creation- if you can't bring it to market in 4 months, forget it, because the R&D will negatively impact the bottom line and some bean-counter will pull the project because it's not "making money".
Tech companies spend much more tyme on R&D than just 4 months. Look at Apple and the switch to Intels. Apple had Mac OSX running on Intels for years before they switched. Just this weekend, Saturday, there was a discussion on new dvd drives that were triple layed and another where a company had come up with a 1 terabyte hd. I seriously doubt it only took 4 months to develop them. As for an individual doing it, unless they were able to find a big company to buy them out, it could take a year or more to get the funding to build a factory never mind getting something out of the door. But it could take a year to find a buyer too.
I've seen far too many projects destroyed by capitalism and the stock market to believe that capitalism is capable of creating anything at all- any invention comes to market IN SPITE OF capitalism, not because of it.
It wasn't capitalism that destroyed these projects, it may of been bean counters or company executives, but it wasn't capitalism. It coud of been that those who killed a project didn't see it of any use, or that it would cost too much money to bring to market. At least capitalism allowed an attempt, unlike communism.
FalconThe sickly ironic part is "GOP" is supposed to stand for "Government of the People".
Actually "GOP" means "Grand Old Party". Try googling "Grand Old Party" and the first two results are Republican National Committee websites.
FalconIf you read what Feinstein herself says about the bill, it's clearly about commercial broadcasts-- the kind you need a government license for. If you broadcast other people's music under a government broadcast license, you have to apply DRM. If you make your own licensing arrangements with the copyright holders (i.e. yourself, perhaps), the bill doesn't apply.
It doesn't apply only to those with a government granted monopoly, broadcast license. The page you link to says: This bill would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters . To webcast does not require a license but as you can read this law applies to webcasters, "Internet broadcasters", as well. More confirmations follow:
Creating Rate Parity - all cable, satellite, and internet companies should be subject to the same rates
Fact is is this proposed law would apply to media that doesn't require a license, unless you want to make webcasting requie a license.
FalconLibertarians, to do anything effective on the national level, need to acquire power within one or both of the established parties. So far they've tried mostly within the Republican Party
It makes sense Libertarians work more with Republican than they do Democrats. The Libertarian Party was started by Republicans who were fedup with Republicans under Nixon. Some opposed cointel and the efforts of Hoover, others were fedup with Nixon policies ans statements. One such statement was that no matter what Nixon's Presidential Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse decided after studying marijuana. He said no matter what conclusion they came to he would never support legal hemp, marijuana. And in fact that is what they concluded, that hemp was such a useful plant and marijuana didn't present a danger the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 should be repealled.
FalconUsually it's only one constitutionally protected freedom judging by the Libertarians around here.
And what it that?
As a Libertarian I support and freedom and liberty. As long as someone doesn't harm another they should be able to do whatever they want.
Falcon