Child Porn, telltale signs

[Whistler]

What I didn't see in that article was any mention of him actually possessing the pornography in question (or any pornography for that matter) just some very flimsy circumstantial evidence. What I did see was a blatant attempt at characterizing someone with a few guns, computer knowledge, a BOB and worse several computers running that evil Linux. I know, the computer was password protected, that should take all of 10 minutes to bypass unless he was using encrypted file systems.

If he's actually distributing child pornography I'm all for prosecution but why is the rest even relevant?

 

[Younggun]

He had it, the NSA put it there so they KNOW it's there.


And nobody will believe that happened because the gov wouldn't do that.

 

[benenglish]

I know, the computer was password protected, that should take all of 10 minutes to bypass unless he was using encrypted file systems.

He was caught because he was on a peer-to-peer network. I sincerely doubt that someone dumb enough to do that would implement a proper encrypted file system.

If he's actually distributing child pornography I'm all for prosecution but why is the rest even relevant?

It's not. This sort of "use any excuse to make guns look bad" reporting irritates me no end. We've all see how the NRA is being partially blamed for Ebola; this reporting is out of the same playbook.

In my cynical dotage, whenever I see any news report, I assume it's exaggerated for salaciousness, pushing a political agenda, or just plain wrong. This one may be all three.

 

[Younggun]

Yup.

When the news became a ratings game accuracy in reporting took second place.

 

[Whistler]

Ben it's my understanding p2p can be spoofed, I recall reading a paper reporting printers receiving DMCA take down notices. I don't use any p2p and admittedly am not very up to date due to limited exposure.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I'm not sure why, since we're clearly in agreement.

That would be the crime he committed, so we're in complete agreement that he deserves punishment for that crime.

Right? Or am I missing something?

Yeah, I was just frustrated and trying to make the point that he'll probably get a slap on the wrist instead of any real punishment.

 

[jordanmills]

Hmmm I have guns matching or pretty close to those descriptions. I'm also a "systems administrator" and my computers are password protected. I must be swimming in child porn!

Dumbass reporter.

 

[TXAZ]

Has the FBI become a political thug squad to serve a racist, anti-constutitional administration?

 

[Mike1234567]

Has the FBI become a political thug squad to serve a racist, anti-constutitional administration?

I thought that was NSA's, HS's and IRS's job.

 

[Younggun]

Hmmm I have guns matching or pretty close to those descriptions. I'm also a "systems administrator" and my computers are password protected. I must be swimming in child porn!

Dumbass reporter.

Are you running Linux?

 

[benenglish]

Ben it's my understanding p2p can be spoofed, I recall reading a paper reporting printers receiving DMCA take down notices. I don't use any p2p and admittedly am not very up to date due to limited exposure.

The original Bit Torrent protocol was written to be completely insecure. The motivations of the author would take too long to discuss but, suffice it to say, completely out-in-the-open file sharing can be used for many, many good things.

However, when it's used for bad things it requires a number of layers of slapped-on security. IP spoofing is one but it's not enough. It's very easy to get something wrong and semi-difficult to stay anonymous on the ubiquitous P2P networks. (Note that diving into the deep web with Tor or Freenet or I2P or even a properly designed and set up BT client changes everything.)

I can speculate about how this guy got caught. He wanted to see certain kinds of movies and pictures. It takes literally 10 unthinking minutes to slap any old first-generation P2P client on your computer, do a search, do a half-dozen clicks to initiate the download of a few thousand files, and walk away. You'll get your dirty pictures but you'll also be re-broadcasting them to the world. It's not difficult for any podunk police department to spend a few minutes on a search to find out who has an IP that's probably within their jurisdiction that's sharing obscene material. Since anybody who just lets their computer sit, unmonitored, for a day or two can amass many thousands of obscene images, it then becomes easy to bust the perp and then publish a press release about how a major distributor has been shut down.

This guy was arrested after, according to that article, distributing over 2800 images. That's nothing, almost literally. It's possible to download and distribute that much in a couple of hours, starting from a clean slate. If you know what you're doing, you could accomplish the same thing over the open wireless connection at a Denny's during a long breakfast.

(As an aside, I'd be interested in knowing what technical mistakes this guy made. He theoretically had too much training to screw up this bad, so my first impression is that a network system administration degree from ITT Technical Institute must be pretty darn worthless. Seriously, has anybody worked with an ITT grad in a computing field? Are they really that clueless?)

All that leads me to conclude this made the news basically because the author and publisher want to push a "guns are owned by bad people" agenda. I find that terribly irritating.

Pro-tip to anybody reading - If you want to download this sort of material and waste your life staring at it, move. It's legal to download and possess in most countries in the world. We don't need you in the U.S.A.

 

[Whistler]

Thanks Ben.

 

[matefrio]

I don't think the ability to catch a guy with a few pictures trumps my right to act in anonymity.

I am also disappointed that this is part of a larger smear campaign against survivalist or

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Has the FBI become a political thug squad to serve a racist, anti-constutitional administration?

Yes, but they PALE in comapro to the IRS!!!!

 

[benenglish]

I don't think the ability to catch a guy with a few pictures trumps my right to act in anonymity.

X 1000

 

[benenglish]

Yes, but they PALE in comapro to the IRS!!!!

Yes, definitely no, and probably maybe.

The pendulum is swinging wildly at the IRS.

In Nixon's day, they were used for all sorts of bad things. After Nixon, Congress forced them to get in shape by pulling out all the political appointees and making sure every oversight agency crawled up their butt and camped out. It worked. For 20 or so years, the IRS was probably the most honorable, least corrupt large civilian agency of the U.S. government. Then, towards the end of the Clinton administration, the pendulum started swinging back the other way and it's been picking up speed at a frightening rate.

Things are happening now that would have never been tolerated within the agency circa 1990. I'm sorry to say that I believe we're headed for a time worse than the Nixon years. It will be worse because the ability to technologically hide malfeasance is better than ever and improving every day. We're not there yet but we're headed there, fast.

 

[Mike1234567]

All this talk about hiding one's wrongdoing especially when it involves child pornography is giving me the chills. I completely agree that our private adult matters are our private adult matters. Here's what's really bothering me though: Is what I'm seeing in some posts here protectionistic of pedophilistic behavior? Please tell me it ain't so.

 

[benenglish]

Is what I'm seeing in some posts here protectionistic of pedophilistic behavior? Please tell me it ain't so.

It ain't so. Feel better?

Seriously, though, quote an example from one of my posts. I'll be happy to put it in context.

I feel sure that if anyone around here has said something that could be misinterpreted as condoning illegal action, it's probably me. I take no offense at that, none whatsoever. It's not possible for me to give every bit of experience or training that's behind everything I say every time I say something. So I would truly appreciate it if you'd give me an example and I'll let you know what was behind it. I will, absolutely guaranteed, not be offended by any (mis)interpretation of anything I've said. I would, however, appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

 

[jordanmills]

Are you running Linux?

No, I guess that makes me a good compliant citizen. Guess they won't assume I have child porn... makes life easier for me, and saves them a lot of wasted time.

 

[jordanmills]

All this talk about hiding one's wrongdoing especially when it involves child pornography is giving me the chills. I completely agree that our private adult matters are our private adult matters. Here's what's really bothering me though: Is what I'm seeing in some posts here protectionistic of pedophilistic behavior? Please tell me it ain't so.

Well why don't you be the first to volunteer to let me search your house and files for child porn? Doing anything else could be protective behavior. I swear I'll only remember or act on any child porn I find, and only to make a report to authorities. I won't remember any of your personal financial information, those nice pics you have of your wife, or that meth lab in your garage. I swear!