PDA

View Full Version : Framed for child porn by a PC virus



Georgia boy
November 10th, 2009, 01:01 PM
Hi everyone. Don't know if you guys and gals have read this article in Yahoo. If you use Windows or friends and family use Windows have them be aware of this. Sad that it can also hit you when searching for free games to play.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091109/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_a_virus_framed_me

Give it a read and let me know what you think of this one. I have only been back on my XP for a total of about 5 times since I installed Ubuntu last year. I only use Ubuntu when I turn on the computer. As soon as the next LTS comes out I'm doing a complete install over everything and get rid of Windows completely.

Tom

Sporkman
November 10th, 2009, 04:14 PM
Framed for child porn by a PC virus

* By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Technology Writer - Mon Nov 9, 2009 12:10AM EST

Of all the sinister things that Internet viruses do, this might be the worst: They can make you an unsuspecting collector of child pornography.

Heinous pictures and videos can be deposited on computers by viruses the malicious programs better known for swiping your credit card numbers. In this twist, it's your reputation that's stolen.

Pedophiles can exploit virus-infected PCs to remotely store and view their stash without fear they'll get caught. Pranksters or someone trying to frame you can tap viruses to make it appear that you surf illegal Web sites.

Whatever the motivation, you get child porn on your computer and might not realize it until police knock at your door.

An Associated Press investigation found cases in which innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus. It can cost victims hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence.

Their situations are complicated by the fact that actual pedophiles often blame viruses a defense rightfully viewed with skepticism by law enforcement.

"It's an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse," says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework."...

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091109/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_a_virus_framed_me

Ms_Angel_D
November 10th, 2009, 04:16 PM
I read about this, it's just one more reason I'm thankful for linux as an option.

SunnyRabbiera
November 10th, 2009, 04:17 PM
never click iluvchildpron.exe is the moral of the story :D
But yeh this is messed up, another good reason not to use windows

lloyd_b
November 10th, 2009, 04:22 PM
I read about this, it's just one more reason I'm thankful for linux as an option.

Don't feel too safe - the FBI will arrest you just for clicking on the wrong link (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/03/rick-rolled-to-child-porn-youre-a-pedophile-says-fbi.ars). Given that someone can embed one of the "honeypot" links just about anywhere, nobody is safe, regardless of the operating system they run.

Lloyd

The Funkbomb
November 10th, 2009, 04:23 PM
This does not surprise me in the least. Not that I condone viruses that steal credit card numbers or identities, but this is just cruel for the sake of being cruel.

The sad part is, even if you did get infected by a virus, the court of public opinion has already found you guilty.

CharlesA
November 10th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Another reason not to download or try to download cracked programs.

benj1
November 10th, 2009, 04:25 PM
as an extension of the terrorists use linux thread, does this mean paedophiles use windows?

Keyper7
November 10th, 2009, 04:29 PM
I read about this, it's just one more reason I'm thankful for linux as an option.

The system is not really relevant. Most infections do not come from powerful viruses that exploit security holes even when executed without root permission, but from stupid users who willingly execute them with root permission.

Stupid enough to click on AngelinaJolieNaked.exe and click "Yes" on the UAC is stupid enough to execute "sudo ./AngelinaJolieNaked.sh".

Ms_Angel_D
November 10th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Don't feel too safe - the FBI will arrest you just for clicking on the wrong link (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/03/rick-rolled-to-child-porn-youre-a-pedophile-says-fbi.ars). Given that someone can embed one of the "honeypot" links just about anywhere, nobody is safe, regardless of the operating system they run.

Lloyd

Your right about that guess I also should be thankful I don't click just anything....:lolflag:

Sporkman
November 10th, 2009, 04:33 PM
The system is not really relevant. Most infections do not come from powerful viruses that exploit security holes even when executed without root permission, but from stupid users who willingly execute them with root permission.

Stupid enough to click on AngelinaJolieNaked.exe and click "Yes" on the UAC is stupid enough to execute "sudo ./AngelinaJolieNaked.sh".

You don't even need to execute stuff as root to do damage - a non-root user can still spawn processes & access/alter data in the user's home directory (including init scripts).

liam_p
November 10th, 2009, 04:39 PM
I don't think OS is the issue here. Perhaps if computer forensics techniques were better then this wouldn't be such an issue. What if the computer was used by someone else? Is a shared computer? What if I used an internet cafe and the modified file times point to my login session?

If the onus is to prove inoccence, at great personal expense, then poor innocent people will be imprisoned and rich pedophiles will be let off.

Sad story though. I wonder if Ned Solon is really innocent.

t.rei
November 10th, 2009, 04:53 PM
Considering the ease at wich to place any data on a machine and claim (even 'prove' it's been there for ages... Electronic evidence on r/w media should not be enough to convict anyone.

In matters of child porn this is really really dangerous, because the ultimate destruction of the personal life of a person that is suspected of it takes place the moment someone utters this suspicion. Thus irreperable punishment is taking place long before any proof was found - be it of being innocent or guilty. Neighbors, wifes, friends, siblings,... they will all have this in the back of their heads FOR EVER. This is bad. Especially considering that in bad bad cases where the "public belief in the law enforcement system" is at stake, I am almost certain that evidence can be placed. For the greater good. Yes, I don't trust.

Dragonbite
November 10th, 2009, 05:00 PM
This is scarey, partially because you don't have to go to illicit sites to get viruses anymore. More and more legit sites are getting infected.

Hope they can get something to block/remove the offending virus and auto-delete the contents.

Maybe even include a "communication" to a place that logs "this virus was found and removed" so if one were to come under investigation they could look on the logs and see that they were a victim of the virus previously and give some credibility (chance) that the person is actually innocent (but can still be found guilty pending investigation,.. such as if they are logged with the virus daily, something may be up.)

I'm glad I use Linux, but gotta keep in mind if somebody finds a way to put this in Linux it may go a lot longer before being detected (due to lack of scanning software use, etc.)

whoop
November 10th, 2009, 05:06 PM
This makes me wonder:
Have I committed a crime if I accidentally stumble upon childporn? Even if I immediately close my browser? Some would say yes, this would be ridiculous.

Furthermore, I have never encountered childporn, but if I would, I think I would inspect, to make sure. If I would confirm my suspicion I would see what steps could be taken to take the service down (legally).
I get the idea that I can't do this without committing a crime, absurd.

I think it is or should be illegal to create child pornography and/or to provide child pornography (especially for a fee). Everything else concerning child pornography is either sick or just a plain accident (not illegal) imo.

coldReactive
November 10th, 2009, 05:09 PM
I read about this, it's just one more reason I'm thankful for linux as an option.

Indeed.

Earl_Maroon
November 10th, 2009, 05:17 PM
This virus sounds interesting. If it spreads to a high enough level and enough innocent people are being prosecuted then just maybe society will realise that in the scale of world issues people getting twisted gratification from pre-existing child porn is pretty low down and that the moral panic surrounding it only blinds people from important issues.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:17 PM
This makes me wonder:
Have I committed a crime if I accidentally stumble upon childporn? Even if I immediately close my browser? Some would say yes, this would be ridiculous.

Furthermore, I have never encountered childporn, but if I would, I think I would inspect, to make sure. If I would confirm my suspicion I would see what steps could be taken to take the service down (legally).
I get the idea that I can't do this without committing a crime, absurd.

I think it is or should be illegal to create child pornography and/or to provide child pornography (especially for a fee). Everything else concerning child pornography is either sick or just a plain accident (not illegal) imo.

Yes you can. The whole legal system that is setup to "combat" child porn is ridiculous. It's there to make the voters feel nice at how the government is looking after the children and catching the evil pedophiles.
But considering that Australia and Germany are filtering internet access ala China one has to see that essential freedoms are sacrificed with little effect to CP distribution.
Most child molesters aren't creepy guys/girls that abduct children from the streets but parents and close relatives.

I suggest that if you ever stumble on CP that you immediately close the the tab and call the police or your ISP. Give them the site you got it from and be nice and helpful.

coldReactive
November 10th, 2009, 05:19 PM
So I sent Microsoft an Email...


Your customer support request # is <snip>

Name:
<snip>

E-mail address:
<snip>

What Product Family do you have a question about? (ie. Windows Vista, Office, Internet Explorer)
Windows

What Product Version do you have a question about? (ie. Windows Vista Home Premium, Office 2007 Professional, Word 2007)
All

How did you obtain your Microsoft Product?
I purchased the Microsoft product at a retail store

How may we help you?
I have a virus or security concern

What is the subject of your comment or question?
Serious Virus Issue

Please provide a detailed description of your issue or question along with any error messages so we may assist you. Do not include any additional personal information when submitting this feedback.
I was just wondering if you heard about the child pornography incident.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091109/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_a_virus_framed_me

It didn't frame me of course, but what will you do to protect my operating system from such a threat? Nothing? Or do I have to go linux?

WinterMadness
November 10th, 2009, 05:19 PM
Even if the user has a virus that downloads child porn, chances are they wrote it as an alibi. Its not like its a tough thing to code, all its gotta do is download stuff.

Dragonbite
November 10th, 2009, 05:21 PM
This is making me think about contacting the police department and find out about their computer forensics procedures and make sure this is brought to their attention.

If they are worth their salt, then they can tell ME more about this subject and many other possible cases.

If not, then they need some education or at worst, whistle-blowing!

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:23 PM
Even if the user has a virus that downloads child porn, chances are they wrote it as an alibi. Its not like its a tough thing to code, all its gotta do is download stuff.

Right... let's assume that the person must be evil and cunning not just computer illiterate. More people are computer illiterate then they are evil and cunning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Earl_Maroon
November 10th, 2009, 05:24 PM
Oh and about the prosecution's claim that the AV was working properly... If the defendant hadn't had AV software his defence would have been more plausible.

Does this mean that AV software is hazardous to one's health?

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:28 PM
This is making me think about contacting the police department and find out about their computer forensics procedures and make sure this is brought to their attention.

If they are worth their salt, then they can tell ME more about this subject and many other possible cases.

If not, then they need some education or at worst, whistle-blowing!

In one UK paper there was an article about CP raids against people that bought a pass to 100's of porn sites and one of them had a standard banner advertising CP. Guess what?

1000's of people were arrested or charged and offered settlements that would let them free but with a CP charge in the file for life.

The guy that wrote the article managed to free/expunge-the-record of several people and no thanks to "computer experts" from the police who were so incompetent that the majority of people on this forum would look like a freaking computer geniuses.

lloyd_b
November 10th, 2009, 05:29 PM
This makes me wonder:
Have I committed a crime if I accidentally stumble upon childporn? Even if I immediately close my browser? Some would say yes, this would be ridiculous.

Furthermore, I have never encountered childporn, but if I would, I think I would inspect, to make sure. If I would confirm my suspicion I would see what steps could be taken to take the service down (legally).
I get the idea that I can't do this without committing a crime, absurd.

I think it is or should be illegal to create child pornography and/or to provide child pornography (especially for a fee). Everything else concerning child pornography is either sick or just a plain accident (not illegal) imo.

Possession of child pornography is a crime. Period. It doesn't matter how it got onto your computer. It doesn't matter where on your computer it's stored. If they find it on your computer, you will most likely be convicted.

If you accidentally go to a site that has such an image, even if you immediately close your browser that image will still be in the browser's cache (unless you have the browser configured to completely clear the cache when you shut down). That is enough to get you convicted.

And if you try to report a site for having such pictures, the first thing the law will ask you is "how do you know". If you admit to having seen such a picture on your computer, they then have probable cause to search your computer...

I'm fully in favor of protecting our children, but this witch hunt has already gone past "ridiculous". Teen girls being threatened with prosecution for sending naughty pictures of themselves to boyfriends. A man in prison for downloading *cartoon* pornography. A woman arrested, her children taken away, because she had a picture of her breast-feeding a naked baby.

Sorry for the rant, but dammit, aren't there *real* criminals that the police should be worrying about?

Lloyd B.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:30 PM
Oh and about the prosecution's claim that the AV was working properly... If the defendant hadn't had AV software his defence would have been more plausible.

Does this mean that AV software is hazardous to one's health?

And a good defense attorney can shred that in seconds. AV's aren't the ultimate bane of viruses. If they don't have virus definitions then you can forget about protection. Heuristic can only help you a little and that is only if the virus is trying to do nasty things to your computer. Downloading information from the internet is how all update managers behave, so not highly suspicious to the AV.

ibuclaw
November 10th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Your right about that guess I also should be thankful I don't click just anything....:lolflag:

Oh, but always click links given out by compiledkernel. ;)

Ms_Angel_D
November 10th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Oh, but always click links given out by compiledkernel. ;)

:lolflag::lolflag::lolflag:

lukjad007
November 10th, 2009, 05:38 PM
i read about this, it's just one more reason i'm thankful for linux as an option.
+1

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:39 PM
Possession of child pornography is a crime. Period. It doesn't matter how it got onto your computer. It doesn't matter where on your computer it's stored. If they find it on your computer, you will most likely be convicted.

If you accidentally go to a site that has such an image, even if you immediately close your browser that image will still be in the browser's cache (unless you have the browser configured to completely clear the cache when you shut down). That is enough to get you convicted.

And if you try to report a site for having such pictures, the first thing the law will ask you is "how do you know". If you admit to having seen such a picture on your computer, they then have probable cause to search your computer...

I'm fully in favor of protecting our children, but this witch hunt has already gone past "ridiculous". Teen girls being threatened with prosecution for sending naughty pictures of themselves to boyfriends. A man in prison for downloading *cartoon* pornography. A woman arrested, her children taken away, because she had a picture of her breast-feeding a naked baby.

Sorry for the rant, but dammit, aren't there *real* criminals that the police should be worrying about?

Lloyd B.

I completely agree with you. Just encrypt everything.
I read on wikileaks an insiders look at the CP industry. The guy was a little pro-kid-nudity but he had some great insight into CP distribution.
In the dark corners of the internet there are forums with CPers that are mostly parents or close relatives of the victims and they basically do it for their perverted pleasure not money.
The mafia downloads those images and hosts them in encrypted containers on virtual machines. They send tons of spam advertising the CP. The customer pays and gets the ip address of the machine and the password for the container. They remote desktop and unlock the container over a secure VPN. Try tracing that.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:41 PM
I read about this, it's just one more reason I'm thankful for linux as an option.

I don't see how Linux can protect the user from her/his stupidity.

coldReactive
November 10th, 2009, 05:41 PM
I completely agree with you. Just encrypt everything.
I read on wikileaks an insiders look at the CP industry. The guy was a little pro-kid-nudity but he had some great insight into CP distribution.
In the dark corners of the internet there are forums with CPers that are mostly parents or close relatives of the victims and they basically do it for their perverted pleasure not money.
The mafia downloads those images and hosts them in encrypted containers on virtual machines. They send tons of spam advertising the CP. The customer pays and gets the ip address of the machine and the password for the container. They remote desktop and unlock the container over a secure VPN. Try tracing that.

What if you don't have a Remote Desktop door to have a remote desktop key to go in in the first place? I always remove the Remote Desktop features of my linux box, I don't use them.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:42 PM
What if you don't have a Remote Desktop door to have a remote desktop key to go in in the first place? I always remove the Remote Desktop features of my linux box, I don't use them.

I think that you can find and RDP or VNC viewer if you are going to pay to view CP.

coldReactive
November 10th, 2009, 05:45 PM
I think that you can find and RDP or VNC viewer if you are going to pay to view CP.

Good thing I don't view CP (danbooru makes us pay for it anyway.)

Oh wait, that's anime.

Sporkman
November 10th, 2009, 05:46 PM
...just maybe society will realise that in the scale of world issues people getting twisted gratification from pre-existing child porn is pretty low down and that the moral panic surrounding it only blinds people from important issues.

The demand for child porn is not confined to preexisting material - it creates a demand for the production of new material, which is incredibly serious & harmful (right up there with the most important of societal issues).

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:47 PM
Good thing I don't view CP (danbooru makes us pay for it anyway.)

Oh wait, that's anime.

LOL. Interestingly CP was legally in Japan until 1997/8. Then they outlawed production of it but not possession. You still have magazines that have models as young as 14. Those sushi loving pervs :P

Tibuda
November 10th, 2009, 05:48 PM
Yeah, sometimes the dog can eat your homework.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:50 PM
The demand for child porn is not confined to preexisting material - it creates a demand for the production of new material, which is incredibly serious & harmful (right up there with the most important of societal issues).

Most CP that is produced is from parents or close relatives that don't do it for money and share it between themselfs. I highly doubt that there is and industry that produces CP.

Sporkman
November 10th, 2009, 05:50 PM
Sorry for the rant, but dammit, aren't there *real* criminals that the police should be worrying about?


The industry behind CP is insidious and dangerous - here's a sobering movie about the topic:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399095/

Sporkman
November 10th, 2009, 05:51 PM
Most CP that is produced is from parents or close relatives that don't do it for money and share it between themselfs. I highly doubt that there is and industry that produces CP.

False.



Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the Internet, according to the USA The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) and other international sources. (...lots of references listed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 05:54 PM
The industry behind CP is insidious and dangerous - here's a sobering movie about the topic:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399095/

That's a fictional movie with fictional characters. If it was a documentary you would have a point.

Here is a wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

Only 10% of the offenders aren't relatives or close friends or people of trust.

Earl_Maroon
November 10th, 2009, 05:55 PM
False.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

You can't seriously be using Wikipedia as a reference...


*Edit*
Seems like you're not the only one as well. Christ.

Tibuda
November 10th, 2009, 05:58 PM
You can't seriously be using Wikipedia as a reference...

Yes, we can. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#References)

cascade9
November 10th, 2009, 06:00 PM
Yes you can. The whole legal system that is setup to "combat" child porn is ridiculous. It's there to make the voters feel nice at how the government is looking after the children and catching the evil pedophiles.
But considering that Australia and Germany are filtering internet access ala China one has to see that essential freedoms are sacrificed with little effect to CP distribution.
Most child molesters aren't creepy guys/girls that abduct children from the streets but parents and close relatives.

I suggest that if you ever stumble on CP that you immediately close the the tab and call the police or your ISP. Give them the site you got it from and be nice and helpful.

Australia isnt quite as bad as china, but its not good here. Its not like the are just blacklisting dodgy child porn sites. Heck, the even blocked the wikileaks list of the ACMA blacklist. Not that I want to see the majority of stuff on that list. [-(

True, its not going to stop the hardcore, theres always ways around blacklisting. Even if its just optical media by post. Err..at risk of sounding a little to 'into' it, I knew 1 person here who got around australian porn laws by p2p and post (thats adult hardcore stuff, not child porn....and he is not a nice person)

You could just as well say that serial killers aren't creepy guys/girls, but I would bet a lot of them are.

BTW, I have actually called the australian federal police cause of some _very_ dodgy filenames I saw once on a p2p network. Grabbed the IP, time, username, went down to the phone booth and called them up. No, I didnt dl the files to 'check'. That would be stupid.


Possession of child pornography is a crime. Period. It doesn't matter how it got onto your computer. It doesn't matter where on your computer it's stored. If they find it on your computer, you will most likely be convicted.

Which is a lot of the problem. One persons porn can be another persons family snaps. I know that there are pictures of me, as a small child, running through the surf on a beach, butt-naked. Totally harmless. But by definition, thats child porn.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 06:04 PM
False.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Organized_crime

Contrast the info from my link with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Organized_crime

You come to the conclusion that, yes most pedophiles are in fact close to the victim. Like I said those people aren't doing it primarily for money but for sexual release. Money is probably only the icing on the cake or simply being exploited by organized crime as a free source of CP.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 06:05 PM
You can't seriously be using Wikipedia as a reference...


*Edit*
Seems like you're not the only one as well. Christ.

Nothing wrong with wikipedia articles that have heavy citation links.

Sporkman
November 10th, 2009, 06:06 PM
That's a fictional movie with fictional characters. If it was a documentary you would have a point.

Here is a wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

Only 10% of the offenders aren't relatives or close friends or people of trust.

It's paints a dramatic portrait of a real industry.

You referenced the wrong wiki article - you should look at this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

Before you complain about wikipedia, look at the references section of the article.

Dragonbite
November 10th, 2009, 06:07 PM
Only 10% of the offenders aren't relatives or close friends or people of trust.

That's because of opportunity. Relatives and close friends can be given opportunities that unknowns cannot.

One of the safety videos we got and watched with the family breaks people down to Safe-Adults (parents, chosen people by parents, etc.), Kinda-Known (not "chosen" friends of parents, adults from activities (soccer, etc.), friends parents, etc.) and Don't-Know (everybody else).

It takes a lot to get on our Safe-Adults list and easy to be removed. We make sure the kids know this and we review it. Sometimes we have to remind them somebody is only a "Kinda-Know".

By keeping these categories in mind, gives a simple and memorable category as to who you can trust and who you cannot.

Even then, though, if it is the parent then the only person able to protect the child is somebody OUTSIDE of the immediate family/house or a sibling informing somebody.

Sporkman
November 10th, 2009, 06:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Organized_crime

Contrast the info from my link with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Organized_crime

You come to the conclusion that, yes most pedophiles are in fact close to the victim. Like I said those people aren't doing it primarily for money but for sexual release. Money is probably only the icing on the cake or simply being exploited by organized crime as a free source of CP.

There is a big demand for child pornography, and apparently people are willing to pay good money for it, so that begets a criminal industry of big-league proportions. Not only that, but the victimization involved is the most horrible that can be imagined. That's why the authorities seem almost insane in their zeal towards busting anything even remotely related to the trade.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 06:12 PM
It's paints a dramatic portrait of a real industry.

You referenced the wrong wiki article - you should look at this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

Before you complain about wikipedia, look at the references section of the article.

You are confusing the two. Child sexual abuse is the act, child pornography is the industry that exploits the act.
What I'm saying is that I highly doubt that people are producing CP for purely business reasons. CP is produced mostly for personal use and sharing with other pedophiles not to full the industry.

Earl_Maroon
November 10th, 2009, 06:24 PM
It's paints a dramatic portrait of a real industry.

You referenced the wrong wiki article - you should look at this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

Before you complain about wikipedia, look at the references section of the article.

Macbeth is a dramatic account of a real person. It doesn't mean there's any truth to it.

And all of the references on that page I have looked at so far have been very vague and mostly useless. Wikipedia is an awful source.

zekopeko
November 10th, 2009, 06:27 PM
There is a big demand for child pornography, and apparently people are willing to pay good money for it, so that begets a criminal industry of big-league proportions. Not only that, but the victimization involved is the most horrible that can be imagined. That's why the authorities seem almost insane in their zeal towards busting anything even remotely related to the trade.

Authorities are doing a disservice to the public. How many innocent people are in jail for ******** CP charges or have had their lives ruined by simply being accused?

The problem is that the methods that they use are destroying the freedoms that democratic societies have. I don't know about you but I don't want people in power (since power corrupts) having access to methods that can limit my access to information. How long before politically dissenting views are on this secret blocklists?

Not to mention that most of those action that they so zealously do are politically motivated and for the most part have no root in science and/or statistics.

Earl_Maroon
November 10th, 2009, 06:39 PM
Authorities are doing a disservice to the public. How many innocent people are in jail for ******** CP charges or have had their lives ruined by simply being accused?

The problem is that the methods that they use are destroying the freedoms that democratic societies have. I don't know about you but I don't want people in power (since power corrupts) having access to methods that can limit my access to information. How long before politically dissenting views are on this secret blocklists?

Not to mention that most of those action that they so zealously do are politically motivated and for the most part have no root in science and/or statistics.

+1
This is what I mean by more serious issues.

lavinog
November 10th, 2009, 06:52 PM
There was a flash exploit that forced all copy and paste events to post a url to a malacious website. There were corporate websites that posted links to the malacious sites because of this. The same thing could happen with the FBI links.

zdnet article on the exploit: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1733

vagrantrooper
November 10th, 2009, 07:13 PM
as an extension of the terrorists use linux thread, does this mean paedophiles use windows?


Yes, paedophiles use Windows, a close relative works independent with the UK police to

scan devices that have been ceased.

The team does acquisition of data for case prosecution, 90% of hard drives ceased contain

incriminating evidence, 99% of them are variations of windows OS.

jfloydb
November 10th, 2009, 07:23 PM
My question is: how does one protect himself from these types of PC viruses? Especially if you dual boot. AV software apparently isn't enough.

lavinog
November 10th, 2009, 07:36 PM
My question is: how does one protect himself from these types of PC viruses? Especially if you dual boot. AV software apparently isn't enough.

Cut your network connection.

I think the biggest defense is to be aware that malicious programs and sites exist and how they work. Many people get viruses because they are not concerned about them and click and download anything. Some people believe that an antivirus program can stop every attack...even if they don't have an updated definition file.

Paranoia is a great defense.

Even on the forums, you should take the time to understand the commands that others post.

whoop
November 10th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Possession of child pornography is a crime. Period. It doesn't matter how it got onto your computer. It doesn't matter where on your computer it's stored. If they find it on your computer, you will most likely be convicted.

If you accidentally go to a site that has such an image, even if you immediately close your browser that image will still be in the browser's cache (unless you have the browser configured to completely clear the cache when you shut down). That is enough to get you convicted.

And if you try to report a site for having such pictures, the first thing the law will ask you is "how do you know". If you admit to having seen such a picture on your computer, they then have probable cause to search your computer...

I'm fully in favor of protecting our children, but this witch hunt has already gone past "ridiculous". Teen girls being threatened with prosecution for sending naughty pictures of themselves to boyfriends. A man in prison for downloading *cartoon* pornography. A woman arrested, her children taken away, because she had a picture of her breast-feeding a naked baby.

Sorry for the rant, but dammit, aren't there *real* criminals that the police should be worrying about?

Lloyd B.

I fully agree. I even think this approach is keeping child porn alive. No one will contact the police if they have a feeling they will be dragged into it.

A person who claims a picture of a woman breastfeeding a naked child is pornography, has paedophile tendencies themselves if you ask me.

Dragonbite
November 10th, 2009, 09:05 PM
In Windows, you can set Picasa to keep scanning your entire hard drive for image files. That way, if you become infected and are thus a repository of pictures the next time you log into Picasa they will be added to your "album".

Not idea, but increases the chance of seeing that you have them and know that you are infected (assuming you know nobody else is doing anything).

Definitely not an ideal solution.

Shibblet
November 10th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Don't feel too safe - the FBI will arrest you just for clicking on the wrong link (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/03/rick-rolled-to-child-porn-youre-a-pedophile-says-fbi.ars). Given that someone can embed one of the "honeypot" links just about anywhere, nobody is safe, regardless of the operating system they run.

Lloyd

Isn't that classified "Entrapment" in the US?

lavinog
November 10th, 2009, 09:46 PM
In Windows, you can set Picasa to keep scanning your entire hard drive for image files. That way, if you become infected and are thus a repository of pictures the next time you log into Picasa they will be added to your "album".

Not idea, but increases the chance of seeing that you have them and know that you are infected (assuming you know nobody else is doing anything).

Definitely not an ideal solution.

Picasa wont see thumbnails, thumbs.db, or firefox cached images.

Maybe opendns could help with preventing this...but it would require the FBI to report the sites to opendns.

Another solution would be to find proof of the virus, get the site list from it, and send it to the FBI.

Dragonbite
November 10th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Picasa wont see thumbnails, thumbs.db, or firefox cached images.

Maybe opendns could help with preventing this...but it would require the FBI to report the sites to opendns.

Another solution would be to find proof of the virus, get the site list from it, and send it to the FBI.

Or send the virus to an anti-virus company or project so they can strip what they need so their virus checkers can find & remove it.

Chronon
November 10th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Yes, paedophiles use Windows,
Yes, but this is completely meaningless since pretty much any demographic that isn't defined in terms of preference for a given non-Windows OS will also "use Windows".

wilee-nilee
November 10th, 2009, 10:29 PM
If your a windows user and you use some of the major AV software your at risk for them being known and being exploited. There are trojans..etc that are written to disable the major players. There are many free not so well known AV programs that actually work better then the major ones used.

earthpigg
November 10th, 2009, 10:51 PM
I posted the following on facebook, inspired by this thread:


Get a computer virus -> Go directly to Jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
(link to article mentioned in the OP)

Subsequent Comment on my own attention-getter post:

The Washington Post documented the solution. It is just as applicable for Online Banking as it is for legally viewing legal porn as an adult - the risk is of not heeding this advice is identity theft in the case of banking, and being tossed in jail for illegal child porn in the case of legally viewing legal porn.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/10/avoid_windows_malware_bank_on.html

xuCGC002
November 10th, 2009, 11:38 PM
This story makes me feel glad that I left Windows. But it also makes me sad. Sad that these people are hurting these children and sad that innocent people are seeding this awful content without even knowing it, and are being punished for it.

lloyd_b
November 11th, 2009, 08:56 PM
Isn't that classified "Entrapment" in the US?

Actually, no. "Entrapment" is legally defined as the police convincing you to commit a crime. Just creating the circumstances where it would be *possible* for you to commit a crime doesn't meet that standard.

Now if the FBI created such a web site, and then used a spam campaign to convince people to visit it, then it would qualify as entrapment.

Lloyd B.

Ex0suit
November 11th, 2009, 09:15 PM
Hi everyone. Don't know if you guys and gals have read this article in Yahoo. If you use Windows or friends and family use Windows have them be aware of this. Sad that it can also hit you when searching for free games to play.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091109/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_a_virus_framed_me

Give it a read and let me know what you think of this one. I have only been back on my XP for a total of about 5 times since I installed Ubuntu last year. I only use Ubuntu when I turn on the computer. As soon as the next LTS comes out I'm doing a complete install over everything and get rid of Windows completely.

Tom

Pretty much typical now lol

HappinessNow
November 11th, 2009, 09:30 PM
never click iluvchildpron.exe is the moral of the story :D
But yeh this is messed up, another good reason not to use windowsNothing wrong with using Windows just use it responsibly.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Another reason not to download or try to download cracked programs.

Pardon me for saying, but that is a stupid statement.

You might as well say: "Another reason not to download or try to download any programs."

Or "Another reason not to click or try to click a link on a website that you didn't construct yourself."

I'm not trying to promote the use of cracked software. But using the fear of a false accusation to demonize cracked software is, in my opinion, as bad as planting child pornography on someone's computer. If you want to campaign against cracked software, do it honestly. Or risk being branded as a liar.

redfoxkt
November 11th, 2009, 09:46 PM
The system is not really relevant. Most infections do not come from powerful viruses that exploit security holes even when executed without root permission, but from stupid users who willingly execute them with root permission.

Stupid enough to click on AngelinaJolieNaked.exe and click "Yes" on the UAC is stupid enough to execute "sudo ./AngelinaJolieNaked.sh".

yeah this reminds me of a few days back i got a couple emails from these chinese people and it had malware attached named Menakedtakingashower.exe.....u gotta know thats not a video...

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 10:06 PM
That's because of opportunity. Relatives and close friends can be given opportunities that unknowns cannot.

One of the safety videos we got and watched with the family breaks people down to Safe-Adults (parents, chosen people by parents, etc.), Kinda-Known (not "chosen" friends of parents, adults from activities (soccer, etc.), friends parents, etc.) and Don't-Know (everybody else).

It takes a lot to get on our Safe-Adults list and easy to be removed. We make sure the kids know this and we review it. Sometimes we have to remind them somebody is only a "Kinda-Know".

And what exactly is that supposed to prove?

Let's assume I'm your brother. Your child's uncle. I'm also a paedophile. But obviously I keep it secret. So you don't know I'm a nonce. So you trust me.

I abuse your child. I guilt-trip your child into keeping it secret. After all, you told your child that he/she could trust me. So it must be the child's fault. So he/she keeps quiet about the repeated abuse.

How exactly have you kept your child safe?

Before you say "Yeah but..." - the above scenario has been played out many times in many families. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't trust your brother. I'm saying that being a parent or a relative does not make one trustworthy. Nonces abuse their relatives. They abuse their own children. Without the other parent being aware. Fact.

CharlesA
November 11th, 2009, 10:15 PM
I'm not trying to promote the use of cracked software. But using the fear of a false accusation to demonize cracked software is, in my opinion, as bad as planting child pornography on someone's computer. If you want to campaign against cracked software, do it honestly. Or risk being branded as a liar.

It can happen with anything, but wouldn't you be more "at risk" if you were looking for something that wasn't exactly "legal" such as cracked software?

Dragonbite
November 11th, 2009, 10:16 PM
And what exactly is that supposed to prove?

Let's assume I'm your brother. Your child's uncle. I'm also a paedophile. But obviously I keep it secret. So you don't know I'm a nonce. So you trust me.

Not necessarily. You don't get on the trusted list that easily. That's why I said it's hard to get on the list, and easy to be taken off.

You're assuming quite a bit if you think my brothers, or brother-in-laws are on that list. You're also assuming a lot if you think my parents or my in-laws are on that list. I never said family members get automatic passage onto the green list.

Many family members are not on that list for one reason or another. It takes diligence and observation that never end, we are always on the lookout for something, some indicator or hint of something being there which may or may not be an indicator.

Paranoid? You bet your hairy **** we are!! Better paranoid than sorry.

Unfortunately we did see signs but did not know how to pursue them when a friend's family was in this scenario. He's in jail now, but there were indicators, ever so slight.

Chronon
November 11th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Pardon me for saying, but that is a stupid statement.

You might as well say: "Another reason not to download or try to download any programs."

Or "Another reason not to click or try to click a link on a website that you didn't construct yourself."

I'm not trying to promote the use of cracked software. But using the fear of a false accusation to demonize cracked software is, in my opinion, as bad as planting child pornography on someone's computer. If you want to campaign against cracked software, do it honestly. Or risk being branded as a liar.

Really???

Making a disingenuous argument is just as bad as planting child pornography on someone's computer? The latter requires that you are an accessory to the crime of child pornography and secretly store it on someone's property. You are also setting an innocent person up for prison.

vagrantrooper
November 11th, 2009, 10:19 PM
In Windows, you can set Picasa to keep scanning your entire hard drive for image files. That way, if you become infected and are thus a repository of pictures the next time you log into Picasa they will be added to your "album".

Not idea, but increases the chance of seeing that you have them and know that you are infected (assuming you know nobody else is doing anything).

Definitely not an ideal solution.


I am not familiar with picasa, but firefox will save a thumbnail image to the hard drive from every website visited even if that image was not saved by the user, would picasa pick up such images on the HDD?

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 10:24 PM
Really???

Making a disingenuous argument is just as bad as planting child pornography on someone's computer? The latter requires that you are an accessory to the crime of child pornography and secretly store it on someone's property. You are also setting an innocent person up for prison.

I don't think it was a disingenuous argument. I think it was a calculated attempt to deter people from downloading cracked software by scaring them that they may go to jail for paedophilia.

If you don't want people to download cracked software, give it some honest justification.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 10:29 PM
Not necessarily. You don't get on the trusted list that easily. That's why I said it's hard to get on the list, and easy to be taken off.

You're assuming quite a bit if you think my brothers, or brother-in-laws are on that list. You're also assuming a lot if you think my parents or my in-laws are on that list. I never said family members get automatic passage onto the green list.

Many family members are not on that list for one reason or another. It takes diligence and observation that never end, we are always on the lookout for something, some indicator or hint of something being there which may or may not be an indicator.

Paranoid? You bet your hairy **** we are!! Better paranoid than sorry.

None of what you said invalidates my argument. Okay, you think your brother maybe a paedophile. So let me rephrase.

You said that parents make the trusted list. So let's say I'm your child's other parent. I'm also a paedophile. I know you don't like paedophiles, so I keep it secret from you. But I abuse our child regularly. He/she keeps it secret because I tell him/her that you would be sooo angry with him/her.

How exactly are you protecting your child?

I'm not suggesting that you don't protect your child. Just that your stated system of protection is flawed.



Unfortunately we did see signs but did not know how to pursue them when a friend's family was in this scenario. He's in jail now, but there were indicators, ever so slight.Really? Sure that's not hindsight?

CharlesA
November 11th, 2009, 10:31 PM
I don't think it was a disingenuous argument. I think it was a calculated attempt to deter people from downloading cracked software by scaring them that they may go to jail for paedophilia.

If you don't want people to download cracked software, give it some honest justification.

It was calculated? Can I give it a LOLWUT?

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 10:34 PM
It was calculated? Can I give it a LOLWUT?

You can. If you want to pretend that I'm wrong.

Seriously: what was the point of the statement, if it wasn't to deter people from downloading cracked software?

Chronon
November 11th, 2009, 10:34 PM
I don't think it was a disingenuous argument. I think it was a calculated attempt to deter people from downloading cracked software by scaring them that they may go to jail for paedophilia.

If you don't want people to download cracked software, give it some honest justification.

Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Your claim also appears calculated and disingenuous. You have neatly avoided affirming your claim that making a dishonest argument on an internet forum is just as bad as being an accessory to child pornography and willfully planting evidence (which may or may not require you to possess said child pornography) intended to deprive another person of freedom.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 10:42 PM
Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Your claim also appears calculated and disingenuous. You have neatly avoided affirming your claim that making a dishonest argument on an internet forum is just as bad as being an accessory to child pornography and willfully planting evidence (which may or may not require you to possess said child pornography) intended to deprive another person of freedom.

My claim is: it's wrong to try to frighten people from an act unconnected with child pornography by telling them they will be branded paedophiles. My use of the words "as bad" was ill-judged. It is slightly less wrong than planting child pornography on someone's computer. Slightly.

Oh, and it's perfectly possible to plant child pornography on someone's computer without ever possessing the porn yourself.

Dragonbite
November 11th, 2009, 10:45 PM
None of what you said invalidates my argument. Okay, you think your brother maybe a paedophile. So let me rephrase.

You said that parents make the trusted list. So let's say I'm your child's other parent. I'm also a paedophile. I know you don't like paedophiles, so I keep it secret from you. But I abuse our child regularly. He/she keeps it secret because I tell him/her that you would be sooo angry with him/her.

How exactly are you protecting your child?

I'm not suggesting that you don't protect your child. Just that your stated system of protection is flawed.

Really? Sure that's not hindsight?

True, so if I am scrutinizing everybody else, why would I discount my wife?

Even when our friend was confronted with the truth she couldn't believe it. She never noticed until it was the police were taking him away practically and even afterward she blamed the child for it.

You can't protect from every scenario. I trust my wife and she trusts me. Does it work in every circumstance? No.

Hindsight or not, indicators were there.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 10:53 PM
You can't protect from every scenario. I trust my wife and she trusts me. Does it work in every circumstance? No.


And that's the point, isn't it? Most nonces are known and trusted by the parents of the victim. Trusted adults can be nonces. But that doesn't stop parents from trusting someone.

Chronon
November 11th, 2009, 11:20 PM
My claim is: it's wrong to try to frighten people from an act unconnected with child pornography by telling them they will be branded paedophiles. My use of the words "as bad" was ill-judged. It is slightly less wrong than planting child pornography on someone's computer. Slightly.

Oh, and it's perfectly possible to plant child pornography on someone's computer without ever possessing the porn yourself.

The poster you replied to merely said that this provides another reason not to use cracked software. When pressed, a further response revealed that the reason for this was suspicion about the integrity of warez sites and those who provide it. I don't see anything wrong with this point of view. It seems valid to me. The premise here is that the integrity of warez is assumed to be less than that of known trusted sources (i.e. not that you _will_ be accused of child pornography, but that the odds are higher of encountering malware of this variety when installing software of dubious origin).

In any case, regardless of the details of the argument itself, I really don't understand how arguing from a faulty premise is anywhere near as bad as lying yourself and planting evidence that will deprive them of their freedom. In the second case, you are also a liar and a hypocrite, as well as an accessory to child pornography. You are also depriving an innocent person of their freedom. I don't really get how this can be equivalent (or nearly equivalent) to making a fallacious argument on an internet forum.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 11:30 PM
In any case, regardless of the details of the argument itself, I really don't understand how arguing from a faulty premise is anywhere near as bad as lying yourself and planting evidence that will deprive them of their freedom. In the second case, you are also a liar and a hypocrite, as well as an accessory to child pornography. You are also depriving an innocent person of their freedom. I don't really get how this can be equivalent (or nearly equivalent) to making a fallacious argument on an internet forum.

1. You are misrepresenting me. I have already conceded that scaring users away from warez by bringing up the phantom of paedophilia is not equal to planting child pornography on someone's computer. Your use of the word "nearly" is disingenuous. I said "slightly". These are not automatic synonyms.

2. I did not criticize the poster in question for making a fallacious argument. I criticized him/her for trying to frighten users away from warez with the phantom of paedophilia.

Disagree with me all you like. But please don't misrepresent me.

Chronon
November 11th, 2009, 11:44 PM
1. You are misrepresenting me. I have already conceded that scaring users away from warez by bringing up the phantom of paedophilia is not equal to planting child pornography on someone's computer. Your use of the word "nearly" is disingenuous. I said "slightly". These are not automatic synonyms.

2. I did not criticize the poster in question for making a fallacious argument. I criticized him/her for trying to frighten users away from warez with the phantom of paedophilia.

Disagree with me all you like. But please don't misrepresent me.

1. Then please clarify precisely how "slightly" and "nearly" differ.

2. If the argument wasn't fallacious then you shouldn't have a problem with it, right?

It appears you misrepresented the other poster's statements as well by claiming they said that installing warez _will_ lead to false charges of child porn. I apologize if I misrepresented the way that you misrepresented their statement.

I really think that the form of the argument is irrelevant, however. When you can explain how making an argument, whether true or false, on an internet forum is slightly better than lying, planting evidence, and causing loss of freedom, loss of livelihood and reputation to an innocent person, etc., then I will be able to understand your statements, which is all I'm trying to do.


EDIT: Actually, I think I will just presume that you don't really mean what you said and leave it at that. This thread is done for me.