Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday January 26 2015, @03:25AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the nothing-funny-to-say dept.

The Independent reports that hacktivist group Anonymous, in a project named Operation DeathEaters, is calling for help in its fight against international pedophile networks, or what it calls the “paedosadist industry” and has issued a video instructing activists on how they can aid in the operation. The Anonymous project is intended to break what it says is a conspiracy of silence among sympathetic politicians, police and mainstream media to downplay the full extent of the online child sex industry. “The premise behind OpDeathEaters is to expose high level complicity, obstruction of justice and cover-up in the paedo-sadist industry in order to show the need for independent inquiries,” says Heather Marsh, an online activist who is helping to co-ordinate the operation and describes herself as an “old friend” of Anonymous. The Anonymous database, which will be hosted on the GitHub online repository, promises to collate cases from all around the world, cross-referencing connections within sub-groups including the police, armed forces, schoolteachers, politicians, media, academics and religious organisations. The database’s ultimate purpose has yet to be fully determined, but in the first instance the group says it wants to shut down the child-sex industry by “dismantling the power structure which held it there” and by “educating to create a cultural change”.

The group is calling on volunteers to help with the ongoing work, which has been divided into three steps. The first is about collecting “all the factual information,” second is to “share that information as widely as possible,” and the third step is “to set up an independent, internationally linked, inquiry into all the areas which do not appear to have been investigated properly.” Activists point to the muted media coverage given to a recent case in Washington DC in which Michael Centanni, a senior Republican fundraiser, was charged with child sex offences after investigators traced transmissions of child pornography to his computers in his basement. The case was not covered by The Washington Post or the New York Times, and was only picked up by a local NBC affiliate state and The Washington Examiner, a small conservative paper in the city. According to the court filings, Centanni was found in possession of 3,000 images, many apparently filmed in his own bedroom, including one showing a man raping a five year old girl.

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 Monday January 26 2015, @03:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @03:46AM (#138074)

    with Anonymous, or any member thereof.

    Your life could take a real bad turn rather quickly.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:26AM (#138080)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    This group aims to gather "meticulously researched and clearly documented examples of high level complicity in the industry, obstruction of justice and cover ups to show the need for independent inquiries". If they do it the wrong way, they will fail at their stated purpose. But to do it the right way they must start sharing the actual evidence of child abuse: the pictures of children being abused. This will not be possible on github or anywhere else except for may be TOR hidden servers. But it must be done. The evidence of criminal child abuse must enter the public record. No one should be able to censor these images, especially when doing so would abet a child abuser of high social standing. Sharing these evidence images non-commercially would also destroy the industry margins, as only insane would pay and assume criminal liability when they could fire up TOR and get it anonymously, legally, and gratis. We must drive a wedge between abusing children and depictions thereof. We tolerate other people looking at images of murders, and we should do the same for people looking of images of sexual nature. The censors are directly complicit in the industrial child abuse. ~Anonymous 0x9932FE2729B1D963
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2

    iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUxcE0AAoJEJky/icpsdljICAP/3t5WP9/9tQOvBVoqTCVgEEb
    b3WX5tpKnGEVzp2qZr+G00TPiUX+pWfLZT2rx28dcfEVbMBxpiytQ1nxruErQx+U
    pt9YS4VPfbQ2PnPc8s0bFZDYJndAkhLTopdVlFS5efosT7tXx6v8LaFvoiGpFJua
    kp364MX4fxP6rOH64KFYyWERIG9GHBWI+58hOLXokDCeT56jIaGUzE0BRmYgxmst
    FE/J1JJKfP23QIiKt50YvxOWbmeqe9zqB5XyDD/w2nfrAl3xCOW2Gp79JvKuSmYR
    gHXeNTBXs0apfq+rxBRAl9wAnyZUvq4LOz9jDMS5Sjb97SSo05PrIX6m4XG1hAS4
    3nmJsQmZoFyBfj5uwjsSjjNPmPDM67cl25qXanFC6aCPwYYV/SO2dYad5VwxjCak
    hRiwppZnwShmvxnpjfaul7e5I3k3IoFtQdvXnL5kwNuk59RoYsC6sTQ8x0Ybnwe2
    iOUwm14XfsQVCYupAA/8NwRs6pA8ZoJuS2003z1t43LrUKl3/+Nhl7ICuiws/KsZ
    Mhk1Gh2V3DJ0Fs5RPbJmLtNF3HKKTg3ppzoXZJveG0gUiv1ZdzMytqn5YOk1KLEb
    MDysmRJU1lMkvyjg+ffreUPGCEVr7F6UDu12KKSqiHUiwPgm3y6t/m3BMhe9VfTl
    LKSOg9LRuoNu9T/4I/Xx
    =orb1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:36AM (#138082)

      That's a detail that should have made it to the summary.</understatement>

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 26 2015, @09:16AM

        by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 26 2015, @09:16AM (#138113) Journal

        This doesn't sound right to me, especially because perceptive hashes may in the hand of computer experts yield better results than croudsourcing.

        But the first biiiig problem I see is: what stops pedos to join the project to boycott it (failing to make connections, making up fake connection, entrap...) and get free kiddy porn as bonus? Did anonymous think this through?

          but OTOH I thought anonymous was part of the system, so never going to hurt really powerful people, and some of them surely have a way better understanding of how powerful people behave. So I wait for actual results before judging.

        --
        Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:07AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:07AM (#138087)

      In other words, the only way to catch pedophiles is be become pedophiles! Yeah, this is going to turn out well!

      • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:29AM (#138091)

        The point, since you obviously don't get it, is that the way the laws are written and enforced, if you even *see* an image of a child in a situation that a prosecutor decides is child pornography, such as photos of your kids in the bath [sayanythingblog.com], you are immediately branded a pedophile and probably a child molester.

        In such an environment, many people will willfully ignore that kind of stuff for fear of being tarred a pedophile or even prosecuted and imprisoned. Real child abusers thrive in such an environment.

        Simply viewing child porn should not be a crime unless it can be proven that the person in question supported the abusers/distributors or engaged in such abuse themselves. In that kind of environment, many more resources can be brought to bear in identifying children, abusers and locations where abuse has occurred. That can lead to identifying, prosecuting and imprisoning many more of those who abuse children and create the child porn.

        Get it now?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:49AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:49AM (#138094)

          Yeah, right! It is not that I didn't understand it, it is that now every perv on the internet will claim to be a member of Anonymous.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @06:12AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @06:12AM (#138096)

            Yeah, right! It is not that I didn't understand it, it is that now every perv on the internet will claim to be a member of Anonymous.

            Simply viewing child porn should not be a crime unless it can be proven that the person in question supported the abusers/distributors or engaged in such abuse themselve

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @09:56AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @09:56AM (#138127)

            Like drug possession, child porn possession should not be a crime. Good luck trying to flip lawmakers though

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by sjwt on Monday January 26 2015, @12:30PM

            by sjwt (2826) on Monday January 26 2015, @12:30PM (#138145)

            As I read it, Anonymous are looking for people who have been abused to share there truthful stories of abuse by those in power, and collaborate on sharing this information and forcing action against those who where and or are in power, they are not asking people to trawl the internet trying to buy child porn and then share that info.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @07:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @07:13AM (#138102)
      What the fuck is the point of signing your message if we don't know who you are?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @08:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @08:13AM (#138109)

        What the fuck is the point of signing your message if we don't know who you are?

        He's looking for street cred.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @01:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @01:21PM (#138164)

        Maybe he's including secret encrypted information disguised as fake PGP signature. The intended recipient will then know how to decrypt it.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday January 26 2015, @07:13AM

      by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 26 2015, @07:13AM (#138103) Homepage Journal

      No mod points yet - maybe they'll come with the site update in a few hours...

      This is an incredibly important point: child abuse is criminal, but criminalizing the images was always a stupid idea. As the AC points out, one of reason is that criminalizing the images actually helps protect the actual child abusers. I don't know how successful Anonymous will be, but if nothing else, perhaps they will re-open the dialog on this important issue.

      If you want further reasons why outlawing the images is stupid, try these:

      - "Tough on crime" law enforcement takes any law and carries it to ridiculous extremes. Like outlawing cartoons. [dailytelegraph.com.au] There was also the truck driver crossing the US/Canada border who was prosecuted for having a printed, fictional story (no pics) involving underage sex, though I can't find the link just now.

      - Just like tossing a packet of weed in your car, these laws open the door to the police [plymouthherald.co.uk] planting images on your computer. Alternatively, maybe after Crypolocker we will get ransomware that plants images on victim's computers - wouldn't that be fun?

      - There is ample evidence that a sexual attraction to children is hardwired in the brain. Allowing those affected to have some safe outlet (cartoons, stories, computer graphics, etc.) would make sense? Instead, current laws drive those affected to illegal behavior, which is surely not in anyone's interest.

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday January 26 2015, @09:49AM

        by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 26 2015, @09:49AM (#138125) Journal

        In the interest of harm reduction, making cartoons illegal is just stupid. There is evidence that pedophilia may be an organic condition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Causes_and_biological_associations [wikipedia.org] ) and if so, it isn't something you get hooked on by exposure like chocolate or cigarettes in which case banning drawings or stories is counterproductive because it isn't going to stop anyone from becoming a pedo. On the other hand, if the use of wholly made up stuff, like cartoons, helps a pedo satisfy his urges without supporting actual child rape by purchasing porn, or worse, abusing kids himself, then that is a good thing which would lead to less actual abuse, because paper and ink just don't care what gets done to them, but if the cartoon is just as illegal as anything else and the stakes are the same whether a real child or a cartoon is involved, it is easy to see that more children will be harmed because there is no disincentive between choosing real humans over drawings.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:20AM (#138134)

          It doesn't matter if a study can prove that cartoons and drawings are a "gateway" to real abuse. It's still thoughtcrime. Arguably the prosecution of the real thing (possession, not production) is the same.

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday January 26 2015, @04:46PM

            by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 26 2015, @04:46PM (#138209) Journal

            I'm ok with prosecution for possession of actual photographic or videographic materials because demand is an important component in supply -- I don't know if punishment would reduce supply but it seems fair to punish those who encourage abuse of others as well as the abusers. The punishment for production should be more severe than that for possession however.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:12AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:12AM (#138377)

              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
              Hash: SHA1

              You are saying that demand is an important component of supply, but you have made the standard mistake of conflating the child abuse with the production of violent and/or pornographic imagery. In your mind, the demand for imagery magically creates a supply of abuse, which is nonsense. Industrial child abuse is mainly fueled by the same mechanism as any illegal trade: prohibition (not of abuse, but of imagery). Just as with cocaine and heroin, the world-wide ban on production and consumption of certain imagery creates sky-high margins, and criminals step in to satisfy the demand. Because they are both criminals and businessmen, they chose the cheapest way to produce the said imagery, and here the actual child abuse begins. If we are genuinely interested in reducing the incidence of child abuse, then we must attack their margins by regulating the market of violent pornographic imagery. We could insists on "child abuse" pornography being produced without any involvement of children or any acts of violence. It could be drawn, digitally altered, or shot with adult actors who are able to give consent. We could insist on our right to share any imagery non-commercially, and that would saturate the imagery market, cutting the pornographers' margins even further. Abusing children does not pay, and no "respectable businessman" will run a child abuse factory at a loss. As for the public, we can be confident it will choose the art over the real thing every time, just like it prefers movies to the security camera footage... Or simply consider this: does the demand for murder imagery create the supply of murders? Or does it sustain film factories in LA? ~Anonymous 0x9932FE2729B1D963
              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
              Version: GnuPG v2

              iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUxuUqAAoJEJky/icpsdljXxwP/3nD+SDUf9t+00GO85fvCA1x
              2HiMnFTnjGUhrQEDwwDDUZWK61RiU2ZAM37R9hT04dszV92iHSDM3fbulG3wPu0K
              o15/kXE0oKxN1omE/MWV4hn7/Pzv8RwPXAgDWoDXKu0v+qCRnAip4b63zTEMYueW
              PWR6QkeN78f+soAWum5JoIRhpPFEvzpsGhWjNGB47ZZvChr6GOFLtHFBtq/av6N3
              GltFQsLC6cjQt6xivEva04QMy3ojTwvC9bgACvyS2ITE/+LQ0kjzatR+CSbgOzEj
              40skBfcqE19E+BoU6i4/OtanldHfdM1+Laawn8cTHk2tVMjqZm+dqRMApPM4EaIP
              i0zsvP2itUoPCwXMsCE2eymWP+3l36eorUhsP6tapuSMNZxEbNOKGOSeHva8nf6u
              8tC54qMVdl+v7a3+ocw6BaiHew/B1EQ6S/mnPWw421joNRn7+TkU2hChHKYSGk+y
              ZlbD0Mgw1uw5OQ8aOh0Nw7T/ZUNw14eaoNhHWb3H2EN74EhDi8BWhxl+Lg/Wc8P6
              OfKkgO9MZ9FZnUItgbH9VcKWdX/EbO+XTLVmQJHV9jX2vSSXY2Wc6MjAinocY1XH
              3ueOHadkFlZZLoPdDNMePFjtCxATvdK/XRhqyY/fiack7txXuCqn50j5fZ/dZ73A
              jdvhzb9HQrnrpf5cUmtj
              =eEJd
              -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

            • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:51PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:51PM (#138879)

              Freedom of speech is far more important than stopping child porn. Furthermore, if someone acts based on supposed demand, *their actions are their own*, and no one else's. You can't blame anyone except the rapists, so your reasoning is flawed.

              Government thugs shouldn't be in the business of censoring anything. I oppose all government censorship.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @11:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @11:26PM (#138352)

        Sheesh, so now I can't even read Vladimir Nabokov without getting arrested?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:24AM (#138135)

      You should consider upgrading your signature system, Jim. I found your name in a rainbow table.

    • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday January 26 2015, @01:05PM

      by mojo chan (266) on Monday January 26 2015, @01:05PM (#138157)

      It's overly simplistic to say that we tolerate people looking at murder victims. Generally speaking we don't, we cover the body and don't publish photos because it would degrade the victim, turning their murder into something used for entertainment or to satisfy curiosity. Of course there are counter-arguments, such as news organizations showing victims of war instead of sanitising it. What I'm saying is that it isn't straight forward for murder, and neither is it for child pornography. If the image is of a child being abused then the victim may not want that image distributed or used for sexual gratification, and I'd argue they have a right to control that image. On the other hand if there was no abuse and the agreed to the image being distributed (difficult as children can't make contracts, but there are ways children can work as models and actors so in theory it could be possible) then yeah, maybe we shouldn't be criminalizing those people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:54PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:54PM (#138882)

        It's overly simplistic to say that we tolerate people looking at murder victims.

        We should tolerate it in the sense that government thugs shouldn't punish people who do manage to get pictures and such.

        because it would degrade the victim

        The "victim" is now merely a lump of meat; there's nothing to degrade.

        If the image is of a child being abused then the victim may not want that image distributed or used for sexual gratification, and I'd argue they have a right to control that image.

        Getting offended or sad is not a good reason to allow government thugs to censor information. There is no right to not be offended; once the information is out there, that is too bad. In the US, these policies are unconstitutional, even if the authoritarian courts try to modify the first amendment with invisible ink.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:37AM (#138083)

    I want those pedo assholes to face justice too

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Monday January 26 2015, @04:58AM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Monday January 26 2015, @04:58AM (#138086)

      So.... You trust a bunch of people who can root most computers at will to "out" pedos. As opposed to, I dunno, loading a bunch of files onto the computer and anonymously calling the cops?

      --
      Having a big nose is no reason to not wear a mask. I mean, I still wear underwear....
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @06:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @06:49AM (#138097)

        So, you are asking who do we trust, the government or anonymous? In this day and age of police corruption, political corruption, bribes, over penalizing to get plea bargains, abuse of Power, failing to uphold the constitution, and many, many other crimes. I think I will have to go with Anonymous.

        • (Score: 1) by Stardner on Monday January 26 2015, @07:17AM

          by Stardner (4797) on Monday January 26 2015, @07:17AM (#138104)
          Do you also believe the government is incapable of acting anonymously?
        • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:58PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:58PM (#138889)

          False dichotomy. But I trust irrational lynch mobs even less than I trust the government.

          In this day and age of police corruption, political corruption, bribes, over penalizing to get plea bargains, abuse of Power, failing to uphold the constitution, and many, many other crimes.

          Guess what? This anonymous, unaccountable lynch mob is made up of normal humans just like the government. And they somehow manage to be even less accountable and have lower standards of evidence, and that's saying something.

          Mob 'justice' is never a good idea.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @09:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @09:54AM (#138126)

        I think you are overestimating the capabilities of anons. Even LulzSec or this new Lizard group were mostly into defacement.

    • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:56PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:56PM (#138884)

      A pedophile is simply someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. A pedophile isn't necessarily a rapist, and doesn't necessarily look at child porn. Even if they did the latter, child porn is not like voodoo and therefore it's quite illogical to treat looking at images/videos as harmful.

      So, why do you mention "justice"? It sounds more like you want to go on an irrational witch hunt.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by t-3 on Monday January 26 2015, @07:49AM

    by t-3 (4907) on Monday January 26 2015, @07:49AM (#138108) Journal

    So... is Anonymous going to destroy its birthplace? Or has /b/ changed?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @09:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @09:59AM (#138129)

      Yeah you clearly missed the "PGP SIGNED MESSAGE" in the comments lol

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday January 26 2015, @06:07PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Monday January 26 2015, @06:07PM (#138257) Homepage

      As far as I can tell, /b/ never accepted CP. /b/ is a pretty lawless place, but the one thing that won't fly is CP. And perhaps torturing cute kittens.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @08:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @08:57AM (#138112)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXv_8Dk1M54 [youtube.com]

    Joris Demmink was one of our main child molesting police chiefs

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Monday January 26 2015, @09:26AM

    by mendax (2840) on Monday January 26 2015, @09:26AM (#138117)

    I am not in favor of the death penalty in principle but as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse I know what it does to a person as an adult. My life has been hell at times because of what was done to me. Now, add to this mix the knowledge that some bastard took pictures of you as a child and they are floating around on the Internet and that they will be there FOREVER. Fortunately, I was not photographed but the knowledge that such pictures exist is as damaging if not more damaging than the sexual abuse photographed. If you are skeptical, read this [nytimes.com]. Therefore, I am of the opinion that people who make child pornography are unworthy of life. But perhaps the death penalty is too good for them. Perhaps life in solitary confinement, spending the rest of your life in a small windowless room, slowly being driven insane, would be sufficient punishment. I'm not in favor of the "lock them up and throw away the key" idea but there are some people who need to be removed from society permanently. These people are in that category.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:17AM (#138133)

      Almost every commented article I have seen about child porn/abuse includes a comment fantasizing about how to torture the perpetrators (because "the death penalty would be too good for them"). I'm not convinced by your torture fantasy. Were you raped? Prosecute it as rape. Was the abuse frequent? Make the rape sentences consecutive (effectively life in prison).

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @04:04PM (#138195)

      "I'm not against/in favour of X, but ..." is the standard form of hypocrisy. So just say the truth, namely you are in favour of those punishments, when applied to child abusers.

      Either death penalty or solitary imprisonment is wrong, or it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong, period. If it is right, then obviously you have to decide for which crimes it is appropriate.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:16AM (#138395)

      That article is extremely long, I doubt many people will go through all of it.

      Child abuse is terrible, but there are much worse things.
      The past is past, and you can't change it. Just try to get over it and enjoy the rest of your life, there is nothing else to do.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:01AM (#138130)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:59PM (#138153)

    Sounds like a 5 eyes agenda with the USA at the front of this politically motivated dirt sling.

    More and more it looks like Anonymous has been taken over.

  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday January 26 2015, @03:13PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 26 2015, @03:13PM (#138179) Journal

    I'm sorry, but Anonymous is not getting my support. No, not because I don't think that the crime deserves punishment but because this is vigilantism. No assurances that the 'evidence' is accurate (“all the factual information”), no chance to challenge what is being claimed or published (“share that information as widely as possible”), and no chance of justice being achieved (“to set up an independent, internationally linked, inquiry into all the areas which do not appear to have been investigated properly.”).

    Who decides that the evidence is accurate? Who decides what should be published? Who conducts this independent, internationally linked [sic], inquiry? And who decides that 'areas have not been investigated properly'? There is much that is wrong in the world but this is not the answer. Come up with an adult plan and international judicial support and I might be behind you, but a silly name ("Op DeathEaters") does not inspire me or make me think that this is anything more than immature people in basements who might have some computer skills.

    I applaud the the aim of the cause, but I disagree most strongly with its execution.

    --
    It's always my fault...
    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday January 26 2015, @05:27PM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday January 26 2015, @05:27PM (#138236) Journal

      Can't disagree with anything you've said. However I would point out that vigilantism is the inevitable result of the populace losing faith in the legitimate law enforcement channels. Vigilantism is a symptom, not a problem. The problem is the corrupt and cynical law enforcements agencies and the well-connected criminals who are immune to prosecution.

    • (Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:36AM

      by etherscythe (937) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:36AM (#138367) Journal

      Agreed. This is too sensitive a topic to be handled by amateurs randomly selecting themselves on the internet. There needs to be professionalism and discretion at work. I'm also opposed to "put all of it out there so that the funding dries up" theory. I might be sympathetic to allowing cartoons and other material of an obviously unrealistic nature, if it were shown to be helpful to those who struggle with their desires to live a normal life that respects others.

      However, if you want to expose corruption in general by our elected or appointed officials - go right ahead. Those guys knew what they signed up for when they agreed t the position.

      --
      "Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
  • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:29AM

    by Hartree (195) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:29AM (#138366)

    Horrific child sexual abuse does happen, and is abhorrent. I want the people who do it out of society and in prison.

    But, there's a history of cases where it's alleged and in the end, it turns out to never have happened. Sometimes it's for revenge, and sometimes it's completely imaginary. Go read about the McMartin Preschool case. The allegations were so lurid that many people said that there had to be something to it, just because what was alleged was so huge and unbelievably that no one would or could tell such a lie.

    Yet, there was no evidence that it actually happened. In fact, there was a series of cases in the 80s and 90s that ruined people based on repressed memories that were recalled (Often under substantial pressure from the "therapists") that were ultimately shown to be false. Likewise, anonymous allegations that incriminating materials were on a computer can be faked even more easily.

    In the McMartin case, there was a legal system that at least was some sanity check on what was alleged.

    With anonymous, not only is there no way to face the accusers, but by definition the accusers are unknown. This invites group dynamics to make it spiral the same way that the witch trials of the past did. Without the checks and balances of a legal system (even a decrepit one), it can descend into a mob action targeting those who society dislikes. It might start out tightly aimed at only those of high political office, but almost certainly it would devolve into revenge and political advantage seeking.

    As an example, imagine the worst political consultant of a party or group you dislike. For a US example, Karl Rove. Or if you don't like the Democrats, James Carville. If that sort of charge started getting thrown at those they were working for, do you for a minute think they would hesitate to gin up phony countercharges against opposed politicians if for no other reason than to muddy the water? The chances of anything resembling justice coming out of it would be nil. Are you confident the MPAA would be above targeting a European member of the Pirate Party, for example? It would, of course, be anonymous, and just as credible (and unanswerable) as any of the other allegations.

    We've seen it before in politics. Just go back and look at the McCarthy era, for example (again, a US example. It's what I'm most familiar with).

    Bad as child molestation and child pornography is, a self appointed, unanswerable star chamber is at least as bad.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:50AM (#138477)

    Old Testament allows child marraige

    Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew.

    Rape young girl, keep her, pay father.