PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Paedo Files
May 4th 2000, 20:01 CEST by andy

It's one of those ideas that make you slap your forehead and say GENIUS! The people behind file-sharing tool Gnutella have come up with a rather snazzy way of discouraging paedohilies from using their software...



Since about a week ago, the Gnutella servers have contained a number of perfectly legal files with names that suggest they are child porn. Anyone downloading one of those images has their IP address revealed to the world on the Gnutella site's "Wall of Shame".

Great idea, but... as much as it pains me to say it, there are a number of problems.

The most obvious flaw in the system is that once someone downloads an image, and their details are posted on the Wall of Shame, the name of the file is posted too. So while humiliating the person who downloaded the file, the Wall will also serve as a warning to other people that they shouldn't download that file.

One also has to question who exactly this is going to stop - the casually curious person, or the hard-core paedophile?

Last year I spent a few months delving into the ugly but fascinating world of Internet child porn, and during that time I either saw, or knew about, something in the region of 75,000 illegal images.

Not one single image had an obvious file name.

One of these is the name of a frequently circulated child porn image, the other three I've just made up: "hel09.jpg", "4ptg.jpg", "ghia.jpg", "ur_4078.jpg". Unless someone knows specifically what files they are looking for, the filename is no indication of what the image itself is.

Serious child porn collectors know that "preteen.jpg" and "schoolgirl.jpg" are either going to be spam or 'fake' child porn, so they don't even bother downloading images with those names. So while I sincerely applaud Gnutella's efforts, I feel confident in saying that the only people who will be caught out are the curious, not the collectors.

Finally... what have we been hearing for the last year or two about how Napster, Gnutella and the like have no control over what people use them for? Well, I'd suggest that Gnutella's efforts against child porn undermine that excuse.

So maybe the Gnutella folk should also throw in a few legitimate files with the names of Metallica and Dr Dre songs? Where there's a will, there's a way.

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Paedo Files

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Bloodewing"
2000-05-04 20:08:24
bloodewing@usa.net
I hate to say it, but I am not sure there IS an answer here. Just as with anything else, the hardcore sick will always find a way to get what they want. Truly wish it were different though, and at least, something is being done, no matter how ineffective.
#2 by "scud"
2000-05-04 20:12:53
scud@counter-strike.net http://csnation.counter-strike.net
Whoah...odd to hear/learn of this. Never having used Gnutella, I've no idea that they would go to this lengths.

But it also asks...why in the hell would they go about finding the kiddie pr0n people this way. It's well..stupid.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#3 by "JeffD"
2000-05-04 20:17:32
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Interesting idea.  Slashdot actually had a bit of a blurb on this, in typical $lashdot style they ignored the larger principles (Child pornography) in favor of highlighting the premise that posting the IPs constituted a violation of privacy. (Is it just me, or has Slashdot gotten liberal to the point of irrationality lately?).

I don't think there's much conflict here... The Wall of Shame isn't meant to be a true anti child-pornography tactic, but rather what it says -- a "wall of shame."  Maybe some of the IPs on it will get ping flooded or something similar, but I doubt the FBI is going to make it their one stop resource for child porn peddlers.
#4 by "Andy"
2000-05-04 20:46:18
andy@planetcrap.com
Off-topic. I've been sitting here thinking of new stuff we could do on PC, and I noticed Blue's got a new mailbag up, so I thought - I know, we'll add a letter's page!

It took me a few seconds to realise.

Sometimes the funniest thing is your own stupidity.
#5 by "None-1a"
2000-05-04 21:04:53
none1a@home.com
Wow, I think Gnutella folk are really going over board here. Why shame some one for downloading a file that they know isn't really child porn? Also the wall of shame must be linked to the file name the person is searching for, looking for key words like preteen. So lets say I create a text file on protecting preteen's from pedifiles on the net and name it ppreteen.txt. since the file name contains the word preteen (considered to only be used by pedifiles) and text files are considered to be stories by most, any one downloading this file would be list on the wall of shame for trying to pretect there preteen's.

One other thing how long do they expect the system to work correctly, after all it's just searching files names and renaming is one of the most basic task.
#6 by "Brandon 'GreenMarine' Reinhart"
2000-05-04 21:30:24
brandon@epicgames.com http://unreal.epicgames.com
Slashdot promotes liberalism to the extreme.  They seem to equate conservative political views with ludditism.
#7 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-04 21:30:53
Well, here's a thought... Couldn't someone (say a law enforecement official) just as easily use gnutilla to find the offending material, and then bust the person for possessing it? Since the person "had the door open" I don't know if they would need any type of a search warrant to get the files.
#8 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-04 21:41:01
Darkseid@captured.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
hrms

that seems more like entrapment ...



ho hum


Ds
#9 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-04 21:46:21
It's not entrapment (I think) as they are looking into your machine, not seeing who takes the bait... You are endangering yourself, as though you had said to a cop "Wanna buy some (insert drug name here)?"
#10 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-05-04 21:53:11
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
Actually, Slashdot technically wouldn't be promoting liberalism but rather libertarianism.
#11 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-04 21:59:31
tc10NOSPAMPLEASE@st-andrewsNOSPAMPLEASE.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
<quote>It's not entrapment (I think) as they are looking into your machine, not seeing who takes the bait... You are endangering yourself, as though you had said to a cop "Wanna buy some (insert drug name here)?"</quote>

Surely they <b>are</b> using a bait? I understood that they were placing these fake files, and then exposing those who downloaded them? So in fact, it's the copper saying 'Wanna buy some (random drug)?', and then nicking you when you say yes.
#12 by "Brandon 'GreenMarine' Reinhart"
2000-05-04 22:07:50
brandon@epicgames.com http://unreal.epicgames.com
Yes, Steve, you are right.  I was thinking libertarian but saying liberal.
#13 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-05-04 22:10:15
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
It would be entrapment (as I understand it), but they're not doing this to bust people. They're doing it to give people the same sense of personal responsibility they have in the "real" world.

You wouldn't walk into a porn shop, walk up to the counter and ask for child porn, right? But the Internet allows you to effectively do that in almost complete anonymity...
#14 by "crash"
2000-05-04 22:13:57
crash@planetcrap.com http://www.gamecenter.com
from the intro:
<i>Last year I spent a few months delving into the ugly but fascinating world of Internet child porn, and during that time I either saw, or knew about, something in the region of 75,000 illegal images.</i>

hmm. for research purposes only, i gather?

YES I HAD TO SAY IT.

:)
#15 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-04 22:27:12
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
I'm kind of disturbed thinking of where this story came from...
#16 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-04 22:49:49
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
oh, forget it, it's on /.
#17 by "JeffD"
2000-05-04 22:58:21
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Steve / Greenmarine:

Liberal - Libertarian, whatever.... the point is, Slashdot seems to have gone <I>very<I> far left of center, to the point where they justify things like piracy (MP3s) and theft (DeCSS) with vague principles like freedom of speech.

The fact is, DeCSS exists only for the piracy of DVD movies.  Posessing MP3s for tracks you don't own is theft of that music.  Yet Slashdot justifies these things with claims like "It's free information" or "CDs are overpriced anyway."

I consider Gasoline to be overpriced, should I rob my local Chevron?  I consider food to be overpriced, should I steal from my local Safeway?  I think not.
#18 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-04 23:24:32
OK, sorry, to clarify:

Mr. Bad Guy (BG) has kiddie porn. he is using gnutilla to allow others to see his collection of the images.

Mr. Federal Agent Man (FAM) uses Gnutilla to find people with this stuff.

FAM sees the collection of BG, and busts him for his collection. Since BG was effectively broadcasting his collection to other people with gnutilla, no search warrant is needed, jsut a quick d/l of the images (maybe mirror the directory as evidence for the case,) and boom, warrants can be issued to hit BG's house...

FAM is not setting up a comp with images on it, hoping to catch BG. He's looking at BG's stuff, and nailing him for it.

Clearer? (I hope)
#19 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-04 23:31:14
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
Andy:
 hel09.jpg
 (and I know that for a different reason than the one you'll probably assume)

With regards to what Gnutella are doing:

 I agree with Andy, posting the filenames is self-defeatist.  It's also fairly pointless to identify these people at all.  Many of them could be stumbling across this stuff on accident, or unknowingly directed there by another person.  (I don't use Gnutella, so I'm not sure about the procedures).

 Additionally, the kiddie-porn enthusiasts are usually going to be smart enough to avoid stuff like this.  These guys have been at this illegal activity for quite some time.  With the apparent Gnutella system, you could simply distribute password protected .zip files with fairly innocent (no pun intended) names.

 It just doesn't seem to be worth the hassle, since it's very likely that this could result in harrassment and an eventual lawsuit for slander (or whatever best applies).  Some friend of mine says (as a joke), "hey man, start up gnutella and grab this file..."  I do it, end up on the wall of shame and get harrassed by activists who consider me a threat to society.  I'm pretty sure that would end up in a law suit of some sort.

-Valeyard
#20 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-04 23:32:02
Ok, sorry, Zeropaid has a Wall of Shame that is luring people with faked kiddie porn.

My situation is a hypothetical one, where the BG's can get busted for listing their "wares."

My bad.
#21 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-04 23:32:56
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
"The fact is, DeCSS exists only for the piracy of DVD movies."
 

could you please expand on this statement, which seems to be false...
#22 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-04 23:35:20
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
If what Ryan says is accurate, then this issue is completely differnt.  If that's the case then my only complaint is that they're posting the file names.

If someone is stupid enough to openly share kiddie-porn like that, I don't see how anyone could really have any sympathy for them.  Feel free to nail them to the wall.

I still maintain that the smart collectors and BIG collectors aren't going to get caught this way...but that's the case with most crime.  It certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't catch the ones we can.

-Valeyard
#23 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-04 23:36:57
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
doh! Ignore my last.  Ryan's situation was hypothetical.

(Damn you Ryan) :)

-Valeyard
#24 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-04 23:40:57
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~badcrc/
how would you find files with names like hu342.jpg anyway?   why would you try?
 
I understand how napster worked, you wanted a metallica song, you typed in metallica..  but why would someone type in hu342?
 
 
I've never used gnutella, and probably won't ever, but I'm missing a critical piece somewhere.
#25 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-04 23:44:16
Valeyard - Sorry, just thinking out loud, I need a hypothetical tag, just for me... :)

I've never used napster or Gnutilla, so take everything I say on this topic with a grain of salt.
#26 by "RzE"
2000-05-05 00:02:37
rze@counter-strike.net http://csnation.counter-strike.net
What's the point of posting their IP?
What can someone do with it?

Nuke them, hack them, DoS them?

So, they're encouraging others to do something illegal to something who has committed <B>no crime</B> at all. You cannot arest someone for driving a hooker across town, you can only arrest them for paying for a sexual act. You can't arrest someone for downloading a file NAME...

<quote>Last year I spent a few months delving into the ugly but fascinating world of Internet child porn, and during that time I either saw, or knew about, something in the region of 75,000 illegal images.</quote>

I'm hardly proud of it, but a few years back I jumped in, out of pure curiousity, for about a week.. And yes, all the image's that were the 'sickest', most graphic, and generally authentic had unassuming names, because you already knew what you were getting.. No "serious" child porn fanatics would use Gnutella or any other program like that, because IRC, FTPs, and even ICQ are much easier, faster, and you can set 'ratios', so they get something back also..

Gnutella may have the right idea, but is implementing it in an irresponsible way.. Just block file names, Gnutella, or do nothing at all.
#27 by "JeffD"
2000-05-05 00:24:22
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Bad_CRC:

DeCSS is a program designed to break the encryption on DVDs.  The purpose of this encryption is to prevent the piracy of the DVD -- copying to a PC, etc.  

Because this is (as far as I know) the only application of DeCSS -- breaking DVD encryption -- the only reason for owning it would be to break such encryption.  

Why would you want to break the encryption unless you were pirating the movies?
#28 by "PainKilleR-[CE]"
2000-05-05 00:27:07
painkiller@planetfortress.com http://www.planetfortress.com/tftech/
Actually, the one use that the creators said it was originally intended for was to allow you to watch DVDs on a linux system with an open-source player, since, at least at the time, noone was willing to make an open-source DVD player (if even a DVD player for linux at all).

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#29 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-05 00:27:55
JeffD-

So that you could watch the movies on your Linux box, which is why that kid/team in Europe broke it in the first place.
#30 by "Ryan Greene"
2000-05-05 00:29:21
<b>IT"S MY MIND! YOU CAN"T COME IN!! STAY OUT!!!</b>

wild...
#31 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-05 00:39:50
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#27</b> "JeffD" wrote...
<QUOTE>Why would you want to break the encryption unless you were pirating the movies? </QUOTE>

Well, the ostensibly legal reason would be to make archival copies. Don't get me wrong, I do not think that is what is going on. I'm just saying that would be my first line of defense.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "BarneyQue"
2000-05-05 01:00:09
barneyQue@hotmail.com
DeCSS is not used to break the encryption to steal the movie, you can steal the movie just fine and use it with the encryption in place.

You need to decrypt to movie to watch it. Linux had no players that could play DVD's like windows has.  To get a key to make a player for DVD's, you have to cough up some big cash, and when your done, you have to by licensing, make a player that is closed sourced.

So, two problems, the Linux crowd up until recently had no cash, and they certainly don't like closed source software.

Again, the important point here is that you do NOT need to decrypt a DVD to copy it. That's the players job, and Linux had no player up to that point.
#33 by "None-1a"
2000-05-05 01:05:06
none1a@home.com
Makeing an 'archival' copy isn't a great defense. the parctice has been abanded for just about every thing excluding Cassetes,and yes it's not leigal on audio CD's eather (at least the your may create on archival copy line in the copywrite infomation isn't on a single CD I own).

mostly I'd say the reason is like Painkiller said in #28 was to watch the movies on systems that don't have DVD player software. The only problem with this is that rather then creating a player what was create makes the files usable on all computers. If you've broken the code why not just release a player? Sure there'd be some limites to it use and source distrobution (ie any thing that you created to brake said code would need to be removed from the source or risk some one else creating a decoder, and you wouldn't be able to use the DVD logo, or any MPEG hardware). I think a much better solution would have been to petition Creative and other DVD drive producers to add Linux suppoer (Creative does support Linux for there graphics card products) with a number of people behind the Linux movment it shouldn't take to much to get the number of names needed.
#34 by "Andy"
2000-05-05 01:11:53
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#19</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
hel09.jpg
(and I know that for a different reason than the one you'll probably assume)
</QUOTE>
Well let me say a great big HMMM... :)

Yep, that was the one. How do you know? (And no, I don't assume anything dodgy.)
#35 by "JeffD"
2000-05-05 01:12:36
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Everyone:

Didn't know about the DVD on Linux thing...  Sorry.  =)
#36 by "JeffD"
2000-05-05 01:33:49
jefdaley@microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com
Now some thoughts:

The DeCSS situation seems similar to the Bleem! situation a few months back... someone's cracked a "proprietary" format.

This puts, for me, the issue in much more of a grey area -- Can someone "own" the format of that encryption?
#37 by "Andy"
2000-05-05 01:43:13
andy@planetcrap.com
Does anyone think Sony should have <b>won</b> its case against Connectix? (The people who made Bleem.)
#38 by "BarneyQue"
2000-05-05 01:48:28
barneyQue@hotmail.com
I'll agree that it's grey, no question about it.


As for sony and Bleem!, what sony really should do, is BUY them before someone else does. That's the way for them to control it if that's what they want. Who knows, mabey MS would like to snag them up, and built the technology into the X-box.  That give them a nice pile of ready made games for the early adopters.
#39 by "BarneyQue"
2000-05-05 01:51:31
barneyQue@hotmail.com
Some interesting relevations in this thread, could make for some really embarassing quotes for some people depending on how the quoter slices and dices.  A crap wall o shame. :)
#40 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-05 01:55:30
as has been stated, DVDs could be pirated just fine without doing anything to the encryption.  
cracking the encryption just enabled people to write their own programs to watch the movies.

As I understand it (and I'm no expert either) DeCSS just reverse-engineered the encryption, which is, and has always been, perfectly legal (until some big corporation with tons of money and lots of power decided they wanted to change laws to their advantage)
 
The DeCSS case is an important one, because if corporations can bend laws to protect their financial interests at the expense of individual rights, as long as they have enough money and power, then we are all in big trouble.
 
I could care less about watching DVDs in linux (I think DeCSS only worked on windows anyway) but, prosecuting somebody who hasn't broken any laws for nothing other than to protect profit, and getting away with it...  that's a big deal.


<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#41 by "Charlie Wiederhold"
2000-05-05 02:02:37
charliew@3drealms.com
Shouldn't there be a bc_ somewhere in there? ;)

Charlie Wiederhold
#42 by "Andy"
2000-05-05 02:12:01
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#41</b>, Charlie Wiederhold:
<QUOTE>
Shouldn't there be a bc_ somewhere in there? ;)
</QUOTE>
No. The bc_* series are all by someone called BlackCat, hence the name. The hel* series is something different.

I think there is a bc_hel* series, though, so you're half right.

Now what's going on here?! I know that <b>I've</b> got a good reason to know about this stuff - what's yours? :)
#43 by "None-1a"
2000-05-05 03:45:29
none1a@home.com
Yes DVD's could be copyied with out a DeCSS like program, but the files would be nearly useless unless you had a player. And yes it is possible to hold a patint or copyright on an encryption scheem just ask any of the security companies. If eather of these are held on the scheem it is ilegal to reverse-engineer it, or generaly do any thing to defeat the system with out playing for it. Also since DeCSS's primary function was to copy the files to harddrive with out the encryption (which had already been cracked at the time) the movie industry found this much more threatning then simply copying useless files.

Also Conetix did create Bleem, Connetix got big news for creating an emulator of the PSX for Mac, which was originaly planed to be included with the G3 at a discount price. And about Sony wining the case, anyone use bleem? I've tried it before with no luck on any of the games I own (well GT2 worked ok but the cars has no textrues) I guess what I'm saying here is I don't really care what happens to bleem, in my oppinion bleem would have done a much better job to just emulate the PSX rather then go to market and add features that have caused a lot of games to not work.

I find both this and the MP3 topics here rather interesting, a lot of people just seam to think that for some reason the infomation age means all things should be free, this simply isn't the case.
#44 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-05-05 05:35:43
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
Back to the original subject, I think people have really missed the point of listing these IP addresses. It's not to arrest people, it's to plant the idea in people that they could be exposed, which might keep a lot of curious people from even attempting to find kiddie porn.

If there's any chance they will get caught, most people generally will not engage in illegal activity. If the penalty isn't severe, ie tickets for speeding, you see an increase in lawlessness. But as the penalties increase, the number of lawbreakers generally goes down. This breaks down situations where there's rioting and/or looting, where the individual is unlikely to get singled out and is protected by a group.

Think of the Internet as a big riot; there's so much illegal activity going on, what are the chances of anyone nailing you?

Well, if someone is tracking and listing IP addresses, maybe there is a chance you could get caught doing something. And maybe you did it at work, and someone tracks it to your company... might that be enough to keep you from doing the illegal activity in the first place?
#45 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-05 08:24:55
<b>#44</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote...
<quote><b><i>Well, if someone is tracking and listing IP addresses, maybe there is a chance you could get caught doing something. And maybe you did it at work, and someone tracks it to your company... might that be enough to keep you from doing the illegal activity in the first place? </i></b></quote>
 

You have no idea what information they are really tracking.  None of us do.
 
Think they'll catch the guy who wrote ALOVELETTER.TXT.VBS ?
 
Sure they will, how will they get him?   we'll never know.  
 

as long as you don't do anything worth noticing, they won't care.   But if they did... watch out.
 
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#46 by "Jon Lauridsen"
2000-05-05 16:46:30
gaggle@traceroute.dk
Hey there, I'll just throw my 2 cents into the ring as well.
So sure they're exposing IP numbers..whats the big deal? There are tons and utter tons of dial-up users out there, and trying to pin down an IP number days after they've used it, requires that the police steps in with a warrent and whatnot, to get the lists from the users ISP.
It's a heck of journey even for the police, so hell, if Gnutella wants to share every single IP in the world fine by me, it ain't gonna do much of a difference as I see it. An IP is still in these days pretty damn anonymous. Hell, even if it's a perm. IP it's gonna be hard to get any "real" info about the user.

So just..whats the point? Gnutella is making some noise in a can here as I see it, and the list of IP numbers might as well have been written in gibberish, cuz there's not really anything one can do about it. Yeah ok, it would be possible to DoS them or whatever, but the chances of hitting a...civilian so to speak, is pretty damned high to justify it...imho anyways. If it's a dial-up user it's not gonna be the same user that has the IP days afterwards, and if it's a perm. IP it might as well be a school or something, so again, not the same user. My first thoughts anyways when I read about it on /. was "yeah...ok...I wonder if VoodooExtreme has been updated" :)

All this talk about freedom of speech and whatnot, I just can't quite understand all the hubbub. Not until Gnutella becomes a government funded agency can I get agitated :)
#47 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-05 17:42:36
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
Andy:
"Well let me say a great big HMMM... :)

Yep, that was the one. How do you know? (And no, I don't assume anything dodgy.)"

After I got my cable modem, I went "porn crazy".  I would actually leave for work in the morning while my cable modem downloaded EVERY file from LOTS of newsgroups.  Partly out of curiousity, partly because I COULD and partly because I like naked women. :)

In any case, I'd sort through all this in the evenings and weekends when I had some free time.  I decided I wanted all the files properly categorized.

When you grab that much porn, you're going to get a TON of crap you don't want, and that was fine...until the kiddie-porn started coming in.

It's fairly hard to shock me, and thanks to some of the files I downloaded, it's now almost impossible.  I always knew that the kiddie-porn existed, but these files are nothing like what I expected.  I'd heard horror stories about black-market stuff, kidnapping, abuse...all the "dark" elements you'd expect when you hear about this....but that's not what I saw.

I saw pictures of people's young daughters performing sexual acts as if it was "normal".  You can immediately tell that many of these are pictures of girls who have been trained, for the few short years they've been alive, that this is just "how it is".

That's what sickened me...and that's why I won't forget those file names.  I can't begin to fathom all of the difficulties those girls are going to have when they grow up.  I seriously wish they'd post some censored version of these pictures on a news show to see if someone recognizes the girl or her "daddy"...they might be able to save ONE of them.  (Although I've heard that most of these pictures are many years old.)

Because of that, the fact that downloading porn got boring after I filled a 36G drive with movies, and because the girl I'm seeing isn't interested in porn...I just don't even bother to download at all anymore.

-Valeyard
#48 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-05 19:23:58
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#45</b> "Bad_CRC" wrote...
<QUOTE>Think they'll catch the guy who wrote ALOVELETTER.TXT.VBS ?

Sure they will, how will they get him? we'll never know.


as long as you don't do anything worth noticing, they won't care. But if they did... watch out. </QUOTE>

THey'll probably catch, but only because he was stupid enough to leave an email address in the .vbs script. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-05 20:03:05
<b>#48</b> "VeeSPIKE" wrote...
<QUOTE>THey'll probably catch, but only because he was stupid enough to leave an email address in the .vbs script. </QUOTE>
 
he also used several web accounts to link the password stealing program.
 
 
and if what I heard on television today is correct, they already have the guy.  a 23 year old.

the mail address in the script was a mail.com address, which is pretty much anonymous if it was even a real one (at least difficult to trace compared to a real email).   But they did trace the first copies of the virus back to a certain ISP.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#50 by "Seven Tacos"
2000-05-06 00:44:14
kurto@asgaard.usu.edu
Wow, a lot of bad information in here today.

DeCSS - DeCSS is a title of a windows application, it does not run on Linux. Note the spelling. The whole need of a DVD player for linux is a smokescreen. It was written, along with DoDSpeedRipper to pull the tracks off DVDs, convert them to lower quality and smaller file size movies and send them over the net.

Entrapment - It's not entrapment to set up bait and nail people who take it. Look at the number of street walker stings that are on COPS (err, just pretend that I don't watch that.) Look at the number of people who get busted when a cop responds to their add for a hitman.

Wall of Shame - There are several problems with the wall of shame. First they use ambigous names (like "youngass" or "teensex")and claim that those names represent pedophilia. Second they don't make any effort to ensure that the people downloading are actually intending to download these particular files. It's not hard to get the wrong file given the way search results pop up. They just get sorted into the list randomly as the results are returned, you may be aiming for one file and get another. They also don't take into account that someone may be searching for phrases like "Young" or "Ass" hoping to find pictures of Sean Young or or they have an ass fetish, and highlight a range of files without checking names and have the intention of sorting after download. Third, they seem to support copyright violations, note how they block out the IP addresses of people downloading music. Thus they aren't even working from a sound moral highground. Fourth, can you trust them not to put up the IP addresses of people they desire to harm? Finally (and this is sort of a wrap up of all the previous points) they don't have any kind of checks or policies that a law enforcement agency has to prevent abuses or errors.

If this seems familiar to stupid-dot readers, well I posted much the same over there.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Paedo Files

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]