Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday November 13 2016, @11:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the purveying-porn-for-profit-and-prosecution dept.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/fbi-operated-23-tor-hidden-child-porn-sites-deployed-malware-from-them/

As Ars has reported, federal investigators temporarily seized a Tor-hidden site known as Playpen in 2015 and operated it for 13 days before shutting it down. The agency then used a "network investigative technique" (NIT) as a way to ensnare site users.

However, according to newly unsealed documents recently obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, the FBI not only temporarily took over one Tor-hidden child pornography website in order to investigate it, the organization was in fact authorized to run a total of 23 other such websites.

Security researcher Sarah Jamie Lewis told Ars that "it's a pretty reasonable assumption" that at one point the FBI was running roughly half of the known child porn sites hosted on Tor-hidden servers. Lewis runs OnionScan, an ongoing bot-driven analysis of the Tor-hidden darknet. Her research began in April 2016, and it shows that as of August 2016, there were 29 unique child porn related sites on Tor-hidden servers.

"Doing the math, it's not zero sites, it's probably not all the sites, but we know that they're getting authorization for some of them," she said. "I think it's a reasonable assumption—I don't think the FBI would be doing their job if they weren't."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:06PM (#426238)

    Per the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography the majority of the child pornography produced is by the US government.

    It's not like tactics changed with a new medium.

    And so we are left with the government doing some skeezy things to catch skeezy people, the government focusing more on the child abuse aspect of pornography, or coming to terms with the fact that the majority of abusers are juveniles themselves.

    After teens pass around nude pics of themselves however, I think this battle is lost like the drug war, but it will be a century before society comes to terms with it.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:43PM (#426242)

    Merely looking at or possessing something--regardless of what it is--should not be a crime. For one thing, laws that punish people who possess something make it far too easy to frame them (cops sometimes plant drugs, for example), and this is especially true when it comes to data on easily-exploitable computing devices. More importantly, the government should not be in the business of censorship, and should simply focus its efforts on going after the ones who actually raped other people; anything else is not only futile (once the data exists, erasing all the copies is nigh impossible), but almost certainly unjust. This would require discarding irrational notions about voodoo harm resulting from every view of the child porn, would require that people think rationally about a subject that involves children being harmed, would require that people (including the courts) start caring about freedom of speech, and would require that we as a society get rid of our harmful tough-on-crime attitudes.

    I expect that we'll continue spending ridiculous sums of money going after low-hanging fruits like people who merely view child porn (whether they bought it or not) for a very long time, and pretending that this somehow solves or even significantly reduces the problem. As anonymity and encryption techniques get better and better, going after mere viewers of child porn will become increasingly expensive and fruitless.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 13 2016, @03:04PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday November 13 2016, @03:04PM (#426253) Journal

      For a long time the official line was homosexuals were also pedophiles. Now that we know that being gay can't "be cured" when are we going to shift from uselessly locking these men in cages and focus on harm minimization? Isn't pedophilia just another orientation?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @07:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @07:55PM (#426318)

        Now there is a sticky issue. I would contend that pedophilia is the result of abuse or unnatural prohibition against sexual thoughts growing up. I've heard of gay animals, but I've never heard of pedophile animals... Seems more like a mental health issue and not a statistically low natural phenomenon.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Monday November 14 2016, @07:04AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Monday November 14 2016, @07:04AM (#426452) Homepage

          Actually, a lot of male animals prefer to go after younger females, sometimes too young to be cycling, and some females prefer younger males who as yet don't know which end is up. I suppose it's an exaggeration of the drives to get your genes in there FIRST, and to select a young-and-virile mate.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday November 14 2016, @10:37AM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday November 14 2016, @10:37AM (#426485) Journal

          Citation needed. Last I heard the whole "being a victim of child abuse makes you grow up into a pedo" thing was thoroughly debunked.

          Good thing too, since that thinking effectively demonizes a whole class of people who already have more than enough bad shit to deal with, and discourages disclosure which obviously does not help with convictions.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @04:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @04:59AM (#426441)

        There's nothing exactly wrong with pedophilia, pedophiles are victims of shitty biology and have no control over their attraction. Unless they actually act on it, punishing pedophiles for being pedophiles is punishing thoughtcrime; most child molesters aren't even pedophiles but opportunistic molesters who aren't preferentially attracted to pre-pubescent individuals. We should be punishing actions only, not thoughts we find uncomfortable or disturbing.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:13PM

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:13PM (#426267)

      As anonymity and encryption techniques get better and better, going after mere viewers of child porn will become increasingly expensive and fruitless.

      And on the flip side, as such becomes more difficult to obtain they will increasingly frame/entrap people to justify their own existence. Which the events in the story comes dangerously close to or even crosses the line.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:01PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:01PM (#426320)

        Our media pumps this shit out all the time. Every TV show with some form of law enforcement ALWAYS crosses the legal line to "save the day". There has been an uptick in torture, illegal search and seizure, and surveillance at least in the US media. The abuses (potential and real) of the criminal justice system are now exploding out of control with the digital universe, and there is a real propaganda force working to make public opinion favorable to such criminal activity.

        Remember folks, something can be illegal right up until the point where a law says its not (and vice versa). Absolute right/wrong don't exist, we determine the limits we hold each other to.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:27PM (#426268)

      That's because it's easier to throw "nobody"* pedophiles at the mob to satisfy their anger than to actually stop "real" crimes (e.g. arrest the people who actually raped those kids or took advantage of them, or actually fix major issues with the country).

      Normal folk masturbating to normal porn seems reasonably harmless. You can say it objectifies people etc but the more dysfunctional people satisfying their urges via porn instead of actually breeding the better it is in the long run isn't it? Seems to me you should actually encourage such people to use porn and stick to it. In my opinion the world would be a far better place if only the wonderful well-adjusted people were having sex and reproducing while the other bunch stuck to porn. The last I checked we don't have an under-population problem. Way past the time for quality and not quantity.

      So it seems to me that if a pedophile is sticking to porn and hasn't even been getting close to children then he's no danger at all. Apparently there are some pedophiles who never get near to children, just like there are male nerds who'd be virgins forever despite being very attracted to girls ;). And those types aren't going to harm their "targets" - their targets wouldn't even know they exist. Millions of horny male guys wank off to stars and porn stars. Only a very tiny few of them pose a threat if any.

      * There are pedophiles who are nobodies and there are pedophiles who are favored or in positions of power. Not as much happens to the latter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case [wikipedia.org]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal [wikipedia.org]

      If Mark Foley doesn't go to jail for lusting after underaged kids and only having sex with them when they are older, why do other pedophiles get put in jail for lusting after the underaged if their supposed "victims" never even know of their existence and likely never would if the pedophiles weren't exposed publicly (e.g. ignorance is bliss vs "OMG this perv was wanking off to a photo of me when I was underaged!")?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:56PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:56PM (#426273) Journal

      What i'm wondering is, how much money is the FBI making from running all these sights? Is it worth it for them to 'arrest the pedo's', or keep expanding the field to make more money?

      I'm all for keeping kids from getting hurt or abused: are they really shutting down pedos or is it a money maker?

      Seriously asked, not really being sarcastic.... i don't trust governments/gov. agencies a whole lot anymore.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @07:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @07:51PM (#426317)

        I forget the book or the congressman (it was in the 80s. Give me a break), but he had served on a few committees before he left government in disgust.

        One of the things he had pointed out is that even if the CIA were completely defunded, they would still have enough revenues from their operations to stay mostly intact for more than a decade.

        Extrapolate from there.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday November 14 2016, @06:50AM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday November 14 2016, @06:50AM (#426450) Journal

        I'm all for keeping kids from getting hurt or abused: are they really shutting down pedos or is it a money maker?

        Forget about money -- even the basic premise here fundamentally violates the rationale of child porn laws. The entire premise of arresting and charging people with POSSESSION of child pornography (where there is no evidence of direct harm to children) is because allowing unfettered distribution and access to child porn aids in creating and sustaining the market for it. Thus, the very fact that it's known to be out there and you're buying it and viewing it is contributing to requests for more of it to be produced (and thus more children abused).

        The FBI, by hosting such sites, is effectively helping to create and sustain that market, much more so than any individual viewer in simply downloading a few pictures. According to their own rationale, they should all be arresting themselves and putting themselves in prison.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @09:17AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @09:17AM (#426467)

          The entire premise of arresting and charging people with POSSESSION of child pornography (where there is no evidence of direct harm to children) is because allowing unfettered distribution and access to child porn aids in creating and sustaining the market for it.

          If only we could get them to take that discussion with the people pushing laws like the DMCA. Allowing free distribution of CP will create and sustain the market, we must limit it to destroy the market. Allowing free distribution of music will destroy the market, we must limit it to sustain the market.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday November 14 2016, @11:39AM

          by Gaaark (41) on Monday November 14 2016, @11:39AM (#426491) Journal

          ABSOTUTELY agree!!!

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 13 2016, @03:17PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday November 13 2016, @03:17PM (#426256) Journal

    Per the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography the majority of the child pornography produced is by the US government.

    It is produced by the government? Not just distributed? I doubt that.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:02PM

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:02PM (#426262)

      It is produced by the government? Not just distributed? I doubt that.

      You've never met our government.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @05:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @05:11PM (#426275)

        You've never met our government.

        Sure I have ... back when I was a kid ... hey, wait a second ...

    • (Score: 2) by fishybell on Sunday November 13 2016, @05:24PM

      by fishybell (3156) on Sunday November 13 2016, @05:24PM (#426280)

      Without evidence to the contrary or supporting it, I imagine the law's definition of producing is the same today for making a digital copy and serving it to a client as it was decades ago for photocopying a picture and handing it to someone. By that definition viewing could be construed as producing as your browser makes a copy of the digital stream to show on your computer rather than just watching the bytes go by. You'd definitely be producing if you saved a copy.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @09:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @09:19AM (#426469)

      It is produced by the government? Not just distributed? I doubt that.

      Do you think the NSA surveillance system skips camera-phones and webcam-equipped computers? Or the phones and computers owned by children and located in their bedrooms?

  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:04PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:04PM (#426263) Journal

    Per the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography the majority of the child pornography produced is by the US government.

    Do you mean "produced" in the conventional sense of "made" or "created" rather than "distributed" (as this story is about)? If so I find your statement difficult to believe. Can you offer corroboration for it?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:46PM (#426301)

      "Produced" in the 70s sense would have been printing pictures/films as well as distribution.

      The report, theoretically, is still available, but keep in mind some people were prosecuted at the the time for having a copy (the history of that is interesting and worth reading).