SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Absinth writes:
From MSNBC, "It (the site) attempted to operate as a 'discussion-only' forum where people could share their sexual interest in young boys without committing any specific offenses, thus operating 'below the radar' of police attention. Having made contact on the site, some members would move to more private channels, such as email, to exchange and share illegal images and films of children being abused.
The statement said Europol analysts had cracked the security features of a key computer server at the center of the network which uncovered the identities of suspected child sex offenders. And, after his arrest, the forum's Dutch administrator helped police break encryption measures that shielded users' identities, allowing police to begin their covert investigations.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement( ICE ) has also issued a news release."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bluefoxicy on Wednesday March 19 2014, @03:55PM
I'm not sure how to address this.
The Dutch administrator who was arrested was running a site for people to discuss their... uh... interests? That's kind of a facet of self, immutable. You can't really arrest people for being pedophiles, it's not right. It'd be like arresting people for being turned on by rape fantasies because rape is bad.
The administrator set up a discussion forum. If he wasn't actively facilitating exchange of child pornography, and if the forum members weren't actively detailing their sexual exploits (questionable itself: are they just talking tough about things that never really happened?), then he's not really party to any crime. Summary indicates that members would move off-list to discuss things privately and exchange illegal materials.
What I see here is along the lines of "you've done nothing actually illegal or really wrong; but we don't like you and are going to somehow pin all kinds of shit to you so we can punish you for being weird and icky." Living in a world where we've largely agreed that we have no business treating people bad because they have attributes we dislike, I find this disturbing. Until there's intent to commit a crime (conspiracy) or involvement in an actual crime, people should be free of legal harassment.
Hopefully something is missing in this story, otherwise how am I not next because "oh you know all that scary hacker shit, you have things that could steal credit cards, we should arrest you for like... hacker." I've been banned from places for discussing penetration testing before--not for listing tools and techniques, but for mentioning that I worked for a company that did a security audit in which we broke into some power company's server, found it wasn't on a DMZ, and proceeded to embed deep into their core network and hijack their domain controller and exchange server. "OH U R HACKER! NO HACKERS HERE *BANHAMMER*"
Germany had a law going on the books that would send the police at you for discussing security vulnerabilities, so you know it could happen. First the freaky people who tolerate pedophiles, then the freaky people who can break your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 19 2014, @04:05PM
Penalizing a law-abiding venue for the illegal actions of those present is nothing new. There's a pub not far from where I live that has been closed down countless times for drugs offenses committed on the premises by the clientele. The reputation this pub has with the local police means that, among the 4 pubs in a 100-yard radius, it's the only one that gets visits from undercover officers soliciting narcotics.
I wonder how long it'll be before being caught running a TOR exit node gets you put on the sex offenders register...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19 2014, @07:55PM
> offenses committed on the premises by the clientele
That is how your example is different from this case.