Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Linux-Based "Breath Test" For Porn On PCs

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the child-porn-claims-the-ultimate-smear-tactic dept.

Privacy 345

Gwaihir the Windlord writes "A university in Western Australia has started beta testing a tool that's described as 'a random breath test' to scan computers for illicit images. According to this article it's a clean bootable Linux environment. Since it doesn't write to the hard drive, the evidence is acceptable in court, at least in Australia. They're also working on versions to search for financial documents in fraud squad cases, or to search for terrorist keywords. Other than skimming off the dumb ones, does anyone really expect this to make a difference?" The article offers no details on what means the software uses to identify suspicious files.

cancel ×

345 comments

Here's how it works... (5, Funny)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629651)

It looks for files like "guyongirlonsheep37.jpg"

Re:Here's how it works... (5, Funny)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629729)

It looks for files like "guyongirlonsheep37.jpg"

Then I'll be safe since I rename all my files as "Top Secret: Hot Japanese Satellite images".

Any Aussies here? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25629967)

What the hell is wrong with your country?

Re:Here's how it works... (4, Funny)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630061)

guyongirlonsheep37.jpg would probably be OK. I wouldn't want to try to explain guyongirlonsheep17.jpg however ...

Re:Here's how it works... (4, Funny)

autocracy (192714) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630119)

What makes you think that having 20 less photos in the collection helps your cause? ;)

Re:Here's how it works... (3, Funny)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630679)

I think you missed the point [memeparty.com] .

Re:Here's how it works... (4, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630159)

The specific command:

#find / -name \*.jpg

Re:Here's how it works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630463)

Hey! That's what I rename by diary to so no one will read it.

Quick! Whats the... (5, Funny)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629655)

Quick! Whats the RGB color value for "pink" ?

Re:Quick! Whats the... (1)

Skewray (896393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629859)

Scanning for vast swaths of human skin tones probably isn't a bad method, actually.

Re:Quick! Whats the... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25629993)

For kiddie porn you want to scan for small swaths.

Re:Quick! Whats the... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630085)

'Human skin tones' is a pretty wide range though. Even just restricting it to 'white' people gives you a big range of colours if you consider the various shades of tan / sunburn - anything from deep red to pale white through dull brown. If you want to find naked black- or yellow-skinned people then it's an even bigger range. If something is blue or green you could probably guess it's not naked skin (unless the person is bruised, or wearing body paint), but without factoring in shape as well it's pretty difficult to tell if something is human coloured or not.

Re:Quick! Whats the... (5, Interesting)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630307)

'Human skin tones' is a pretty wide range though. Even just restricting it to 'white' people gives you a big range of colours if you consider the various shades of tan / sunburn - anything from deep red to pale white through dull brown. If you want to find naked black- or yellow-skinned people then it's an even bigger range. If something is blue or green you could probably guess it's not naked skin (unless the person is bruised, or wearing body paint), but without factoring in shape as well it's pretty difficult to tell if something is human coloured or not.

Actually, human skin is pretty much all the same hue, it just has different saturation levels. If you convert each image to HSV from RGB, you can just look at the hue component and people all pretty much look the same. This is common in computer vision techniques for identifying skin.
-Taylor

Re:Quick! Whats the... (1)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630727)

I think you're missing the point. But then this is Slashdot, a lot of us have never actually seen a vagina.

Re:Quick! Whats the... (4, Interesting)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630365)

Once upon a time, a company did this, and sold their product to another corporation so that they could monitor employees' email. If I recall correctly, it ended in tears when somebody got sent baby pictures.

Re:Quick! Whats the... (1)

Inner_Child (946194) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630623)

Scanning for vast swaths of human skin tones probably isn't a bad method, actually.

It isn't perfect yet, but this [ideeinc.com] is an interesting attempt at doing just that. It's not limited to skin tones however; you can search by any colour.

Randoms searches, Yay. (3, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629695)

Now everybody in Australia is guilty until proven innocent!

Re:Randoms searches, Yay. (5, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629797)

Now everybody in Australia is guilty until proven innocent!

I thought that was the founding principle of Australia :)

Re:Randoms searches, Yay. (5, Funny)

Maclir (33773) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630549)

Remember, we were selected by the best judges in England...

The difference between the USA and Australia - first, England rounded up all of it's religious fanatics, and sent them to the American colonies, then they rounded up all of these criminals, and send those to the Australian colonies....

Re:Randoms searches, Yay. (1, Redundant)

NuclearError (1256172) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629961)

Well, considering that many people there are descended from the members of a prison colony......

Re:Randoms searches, Yay. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630589)

What the parent poster is trying to illustrate is that when a particular type of humor that roughly fits the phenotype of a reductio ad absurdum, or farce, in modern parlance, and, further, is based upon the implication of knowledge, which creates the perception of an 'inside joke', magnifying said statement's entertainment potential, has the piece of knowledge, previously conveyed via implicit communication, explained explicitly the statement so doing actually assumes the full weight of the previously mentioned 'absurdum', leaving only a fact and a non sequitur.

In other words, it's not funny when you explain it, but thanks!

(Notes to subsequent posters: a formulaic representation where the function of the humorous statement is subsequently undermined by the explanation and proved untrue (or similar), while funny, would have taken a bit more time than today's actual work-a-day requirements would allow. I would however be pleased to enjoy another's attempts to compile such an argument.)

Disclaimer: This message is intended as humor and not flamebait, contrary to the anonymity assumed during the posting of said message. Furthermore, contrary to what is stated above, this post is the opinion and property of Slashdot. (Just kidding on that last part.) :)

-HH

Helix (5, Informative)

davrodg (889968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629705)

Helix can do most of the "breath test" functionality referred to, and is a great forensic Linux distro. Helix is also considered a viable method in which to capture data that is consistent with the chain of custody that is required for evidence to be presented to a Judge. Check it out... http://www.e-fense.com/helix/Download.html [e-fense.com]

About the only way it COULD work... (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629709)

... would be to get a hash value for individual files, and compare that to known hash values for known infringing files. And there are already tools that do this.

Re:About the only way it COULD work... (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629831)

And trivial ways to get around it. An encrypted file system is the obvious solution, but hell if they're just checking hashes you could use ImageMagick and a very small shell script to very slightly alter the image, giving you an entirely new hash.

Re:About the only way it COULD work... (2, Informative)

click2005 (921437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630137)

There was a slashdot story a few weeks back about a company claiming to be able to detect images inside encrypted drives.. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/17/2043248/ [slashdot.org]

If they're just checking hashes you could change the R,G, or B of a random pixel by 1 and change the has.. or even just add random text to the EXIF data.

Re:About the only way it COULD work... (1)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630151)

or just trancode the file to a different format.

Re:About the only way it COULD work... (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630403)

Just opening and saving a JPEG file will change the hash, because of the lossy compression.

Re:About the only way it COULD work... (2, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629939)

It looks like it's just a tool for previewing media on the drive while maintaining forensic integrity. Certainly something a person trained in computer forensics could do without the tool, but this is targeted at people with minimal training, it seems.

Of course there are plenty of easy anti-forensic measures, but the goal is probably to cut down the time spent per case on the low-hanging fruit (which is the majority of cases) to reduce backlog.

forensics (5, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629733)

Computer forensics is hard, expensive, and time-consuming. I would guess this is just a tool for cops to save cash in criminal investigations compared to hiring an expert, or at least to triage which systems need to be investigated by an expert.

Also, if your friends are IT staff and your online watercooler is slashdot.org, you may think everyone but the "dumb ones" knows how to encrypt a drive. But the reality is that the vast majority of criminals have never heard of Truecrypt.

Are you saying criminals are dumb? (0, Redundant)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629783)

Also, if your friends are IT staff and your online watercooler is slashdot.org, you may think everyone but the "dumb ones" knows how to encrypt a drive. But the reality is that the vast majority of criminals have never heard of Truecrypt.

Are you saying the vast majority of criminals are dumb? Someone mod this person insightful.

Re:forensics (4, Insightful)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629937)

I think you are correct. Most criminals are dumb. And I think you're right about this being a cash-saving tool. From the article:

The design concept is that any police person with adequate training could use the tool, so that when they go into a crime scene they can quickly review a computer for illicit images or videos.

Sounds like it relies more on officers' eyeballs than algorithms to do a quick scan for anything obvious. This tool will help them quickly move through the easy stuff, and allow them to focus time and resources on the more sophisticated criminals. [gulf-times.com]

Re:forensics (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630667)

Your example of a "more sophisticated criminal" is a man who uploaded photos of himself abusing children. He didn't even black out his face. He "swirled" it in such a way that it could be easily unswirled.

Yes. Encryption is rare. (2, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630049)

A local forensics expert says the same thing of his practice. In fact, last time I heard him speak about it, he said he'd never encountered encryption in a case he handled.

There's some sample bias going on there, because he refuses to handle some cases, and child pornography is one of the things he won't touch.

BitLocker may make encryption more mainstream.

Re:forensics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630203)

I was under the impression that most criminal investigative forensics involve little more than firing up EnCase, doing some keyword searches, and browsing some galleries.

Can't be challenged forensically? (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629755)

Could someone who is a lawyer better explain this? Is it not a challenge to forensics if you challenge the method of the forensics? Even highly reliable software averages about 1 error per kloc, seems like it would be easy to have a field day with poking holes in "detection" software. Are Australians not allowed to challenge the devices used to catch them in crimes?

Re:Can't be challenged forensically? (3, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629917)

IANAL, but the summary (at least) gives no indication that the forensic tool is going to be the last word. It's a bootable distro, so presumably the system has already been confiscated by whatever organization cares most about the potential crime. The forensic examiner(s) responsible for looking for data with the evil bit set boot to this CD and see if it flags anything. Then they examine anything that's flagged, and prep it for court.

Doing a thorough exam of an average drive can be time consuming, even if the user is kind enough to leave all their documents handily in the "My Documents" folder. Trying to examine several machines in a timely fashion would benefit greatly from a tool like this. If the disk flags something, and it's really illegitimate, the data just needs to get cataloged. Think of it as helping go for "low hanging fruit" that can be used to convict someone, without being as resource intensive as a full manual scan. I'm guessing that if the disk doesn't turn up anything, there will still be a long manual process involved to see if there's something there.

Re:Can't be challenged forensically? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630139)

They mean that you can't challenge whether the data was acquired in a forensically-sound manner. If the software does any determination of if the image is illicit or not, that's undoubtedly not valid in court. However, the system is to write the illicit images to a removable medium (CD-R) and verify that they are illicit through standard procedures.

Re:Can't be challenged forensically? (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630191)

Sounds dubious to me. In most jurisdictions I'm aware of, you are not allowed to connect hard drive to a machine physically capable of writing to it if you want anything retrieved from it to be admissible in court, and you need a chain of custody showing this. Software write protection is not good enough, you need to physically disconnect the write pins from the cable (no idea how they do this from SATA - probably something which intercepts write commands and blocks them and goes through an expensive approval process to ensure that it works).

Re:Can't be challenged forensically? (4, Informative)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630395)

The minute you change the contents of that hard drive, you open the door to claims of tampering with evidence. "Your honor, the kiddy porn only showed up after the police 'inspected' it. They planted all of it." That's what 'chain of custody' means. Police have procedures to follow to ensure that evidence can't be tampered with.

Good meatspace analogies would be OJ Simpson's DNA showing up on evidence only after he gave a blood sample. More hypothetically, say the cops take your backpack as evidence. What happens to it? Well, it sits in a police warehouse storage facility somewhere, possibly for months. If any cop has access to that backpack on demand for this whole time, then there is effectively have no way to prevent someone from stuffing the bag full of drugs. No accountability. So for meatspace evidence, there are very strict rules that say you have to keep track of every person who has access to that piece of evidence. There can be no exceptions.

The equivalent in the computer forensics world is that you have to guarantee you didn't alter the original equipment's hard disk. Proper forensic analysis involves making a *copy* bit-for-bit and then analyzing this copy. The new thing here is a bootable CD that presumably has been rigorously tested and certified (by who, I couldn't say) that it literally cannot modify the hard disk.

Re:Can't be challenged forensically? (1)

Ozric (30691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630539)

It just copies the suspect files to external media.

Someone will still have to look at those files to see what they are.

This is just a tool to save them from groking the files.

The manner they use to find files on a system they already took in to evidence is not an issues
so long as the systems media remains unchanged.

The original evidence is preserved. Who can you challenge that?

What's your favorite porn website to jack off? (1)

lapinmalin (1400199) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629761)

I won't tell you

Re:What's your favorite porn website to jack off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630327)

What's your favorite porn website to jack off? I won't tell you

I've always found Richard's Realm to be good. ;-)

Re:What's your favorite porn website to jack off? (1)

lapinmalin (1400199) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630479)

bustypassion is where i release my love juice when i'm at work

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25629773)

Ha! I hope it can scan virtual machine disk images. Wait, no I don't!

A porn breath test? (1)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629777)

I mean come on...porn + breath test? Do we really need those in the same sentence...that's just asking for trouble...

Re:A porn breath test? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629843)

Not only that, but it's funny that they would name it after a device that is notorious for fallibility. Yes, reports show that breathalyzers are not as accurate as claimed. Perhaps they used that phrase because they are expecting 10-20% false positives?

Re:A porn breath test? (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630001)

<horribleacting>
<cheesysoundtrack>

*WEEW*

"License and registration please...are you drunk ma'm?"

"No Ociffer, I swear to Drunk I'm not god"

"Step out of the car please. I'm giving you a breathalyzer test. I need you to blow on this"

"Wait...wut...come on I just want to go home"

"Well if you don't want to do the breathalyzer I can give you a balance and mental aptitude test..."

"Come on just cut me a break, I live just down the road, outside of these dark woods on this lonely country road"

"Well OK, but if you want me to skip the breathalyzer, I need you to blow on _this_"

</horribleacting>
</cheesysoundtrack>

Re:A porn breath test? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630213)

<horribleacting> <cheesysoundtrack> ... </horribleacting> </cheesysoundtrack>

Malformed markup encountered. Aborting.

Re:A porn breath test? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630625)

Your PTML parser is too strict. Did you expect proper code on low production values?

Dumb Ones? (1)

whois_drek (829212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629781)

Most criminals are dumb. Ergo, it will work on most criminals.

Damn (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629787)

There goes my secretledger.doc and terroristplottotakeovertheworld.doc!

Re:Damn (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630245)

rename them digdug.exe and pacman.exe

Oh crap, the penalty for software piracy is torturous death while terrorism gives you only life imprisonment.

sorry.... my bad.

Australia seems to be a pretty repressed country (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629799)

It's always about censorship and blocking and denial. That's all I hear now coming out of Australia.

That's too bad. Was thinking of going there on vacation. Guess I'll go spend my money elsewhere.

Re:Australia seems to be a pretty repressed countr (4, Insightful)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629825)

Might want to avoid the US and the UK as well.

Aww, "freedom proof fence" isn't in use... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630397)

I like the term "freedom proof fence" but it doesn't seem to be in general use... looks like someone tried a bit of low-level astroturfing and got it temporarily into Wikipedia and a couple of twitters, but that's it.

misread the title (2, Funny)

FlashBuster3000 (319616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629819)

as breast test... would've been more appropriate, too.

Psych-Ops (4, Interesting)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629821)

The article offers no details on what means the software uses to identify suspicious files.

I highly suspect that the police don't want people to know the details of how sophisticated their technology is because they don't want to embarrass themselves. Keeping an aura of mystery and FUD around themselves and their techniques is also a form of psych-ops; it's the chrome facade of a lemon.

...Until They Hit An Encrypted Drive (1)

DRBivens (148931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629855)

Seems that nobody in the cited article bothered to think how well the tool will (won't) work when they try it on an encrypted drive.

The trend these days is to encrypt laptops' entire disks. I may be missing something but wouldn't that render this sort of tool useless? (Or worse--to an investigator--give a false negative result?)

This is why I keep my /b/ folder encrypted (1)

admiralfrijole (712311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629897)

Sure, I can be compelled to provide the passphrase in court, but a dose of 256-bit AES keeps it on the down low to tools like this.

Re:This is why I keep my /b/ folder encrypted (1)

jrockway (229604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630609)

Sure, I can be compelled to provide the passphrase in court

Not in the US.

steganography (1)

fpgaprogrammer (1086859) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629899)

to beat this "breath test," please refer to the previous slashdot post today on steganography [slashdot.org] .

Illicit? (3, Insightful)

reidconti (219106) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629933)

Last time I checked, porn was not illegal.

Re:Illicit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630233)

I was just thinking that

Re:Illicit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630319)

seriously

Re:Illicit? (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630359)

Depends on the jurisdiction. Pretty sure you get in a heap of trouble if you showed some female skin in Saudi Arabia.

Re:Illicit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630477)

Pretty sure you get in a heap of trouble if you showed some female skin in Saudi Arabia.

So I'd be safe with my gay pr0n then ?

Re:Illicit? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630431)

Last time I checked, porn was not illegal.

Can you imagine if it were made illegal? Technological breakthroughs in Internet speed and design will come to a standstill after that. What's the point of 100MB wifi-everywhere if you can't stream HD porn?

(Anti-porn group)"The Internet has porn on it! Won't someone think of the children?!?"

Fuck that, won't someone think of the Network Designers?!? We need jobs too!"

Re:Illicit? (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630503)

Last time I checked, porn was not illegal.

In Australia lots of it is. Any depiction of an sexual act. Photos of nudity are mostly legal.

Re:Illicit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630519)

In Australia?

Re:Illicit? (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630599)

They mean child porn

Even then, it checks only the "available" files (not checking deleted, or encrypted drives). So hopefully police will use this, and if your computer passes the test, then you are free to go instead of taking your computer for months.

Funny thing is, all this "checks", is known hash values of child porn and means 3 things:
1: Edit a pixel on all your images
2: Encrypt/steganography your images
3: or Make your own and don't distribute

The only thing they are doing with these new systems is preventing the "demand" of this porn, all based on the assumption that anyone involved with viewing/creating this stuff means you are PHYSICALLY harming a child.

They will keep stripping away our freedoms all in the name of preventing people from getting hurt. Instead they could just regulate it and make it legal (yes, this stuff is actually considered legal, but because abuse is involved sometimes, they made it illegal). What other things hurt people? Drugs? Alcohol? Why don't they step in and "think of the adults"?

Re:Illicit? (1)

HCLogo (1077495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630701)

Have you ever been to /b/ ? A good portion of the stuff posted on there IS illegal :P

Encryption (1)

Airline_Sickness_Bag (111686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629935)

The simple answer is to encrypt your drives. However, in some countries, they have or are looking at laws that will force you to turn over your keys.

ugggh (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629969)

after viewing where most pron actor and actresses' mouths go, i don't want to know anything about a "breath test"

A "random breath test" for computers? (1)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 5 years ago | (#25629987)

Oh great, expect that in a few years they will be running this on international travellers as a standard part of customs.

Got to stop that kiddie porn. Everyone knows they are too stupid to traffic it via encrypted Internet traffic, or DVD's mailed in the post.

Re:A "random breath test" for computers? (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630105)

Oh great, expect that in a few years they will be running this on international travellers as a standard part of customs.

Sadly, this seems to be a part of a trend. Part of travel now means that you need to be subjected to complete search and inspection to make sure you haven't done anything wrong.

This includes fingerprinting, gathering of biometrics, and having all of your personal stuff exhaustively searched to ensure you have no porn, terrorist material, copyrighted material you can't prove you bought, or anything critical of the government of the country you're entering.

If you have probable cause that I'm smuggling something, maybe. But, in the case you point out where we scan everyone so they can prove themselves innocent ... well, modern society is pretty much hosed in that case. However, that seems to be where we're going lately.

Cheers

how could this even work? (1, Troll)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630013)

Some descriptions say that "porn scanners" search for fleshtones in images. What if the guy's a rubber freak and everybody is in skintight latex bondage outfits? Or hell, the guy could be a real sicko, a furry. Images of anthro skunk on aardvark action would be completely overlooked by such a filter and quite frankly, if we're going to investigate people based on their taste in porn, I find the furries the most suspicious. Them and the Harry Potter yaoi fangirls but you can grep that real quick.

Re:how could this even work? (-1, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630523)

Some descriptions say that "porn scanners" search for fleshtones in images. What if the guy's a rubber freak and everybody is in skintight latex bondage outfits? Or hell, the guy could be a real sicko, a furry. Images of anthro skunk on aardvark action would be completely overlooked by such a filter and quite frankly, if we're going to investigate people based on their taste in porn, I find the furries the most suspicious. Them and the Harry Potter yaoi fangirls but you can grep that real quick.

So was I downmodded by the yaoi fangirls or the furs? Wait, girls don't post on slashdot. Yaoi fanboys. *shudder*

Illicit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630017)

Since when was porn illegal? If some nosy cunt wanted to "breath test" my pc for porn, i'd just hold up a nice gynacological centrefold and say "look! i think i can see her kidneys! Now fuck off!"

Re:Illicit? (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630439)

Since when was porn illegal? If some nosy cunt wanted to "breath test" my pc for porn, i'd just hold up a nice gynacological centrefold and say "look! i think i can see her kidneys! Now fuck off!"

Ah, but once crossing a border requires you to be scanned for any infractions, you won't have a choice.

Soon, it will be considered perfectly normal to subject yourself to full scrutiny in order to prove that you don't have anything they deem unacceptable.

Me, I find it appalling, as we throw away most forms of civil liberties in Western countries on the presumption that someone might have done something wrong, so we inspect everyone.

Cheers

Terrorism is terciary to the police state (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630055)

SECAU was also considering another purpose-built CD to search financial documents for use by a fraud squad or those hunting terrorists using keywords.

Another example of how the fight against privacy has little to do with terrorism. Perversion is of greater concern to the Right Wing than fighting violent crime.

Re:Terrorism is terciary to the police state (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630569)

Another example of how the fight against privacy has little to do with terrorism. Perversion is of greater concern to the Right Wing than fighting violent crime.

In Australia, it's our left wing government that is attempting to introduce censorship of the internet.

How does computer figure out human age? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630087)

Since I assume they are only after child porn.

The fear factor (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630229)

Perhaps they're trying to scare most of us straight, perhaps shake out a few confessions? "If you tell us you've been downloading illegal porn rather than MAKE US look for it by tearing through your system, the judge will go easier on you." Good cop bad cop anyone?

It's all a game to them when you're being brought downtown on a trumped up charge to be leaned on by halfwits. (with excuses to Bryan Singer for the obvious Usual Suspects reference)

Geeks , get rid of troublesome "porn breath" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630275)

Use Linux Mint(TM) [linuxmint.com] with special additive TrueCrypt(TM) [truecrypt.org] for a cleaner, fresher breath scan!

"Doesn't write" might not count (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630299)

My understanding is that for serious computer forensics you need to work on bit-level duplicates of the original drive, with the original protected by a hardware write-blocker from the moment it's extracted from the original machine (and doing that without risking loss of evidence is quite a challenge in itself, coming down to a choice between data loss through a specially modified shutdown.exe or data loss through yanking the mains). There's just no other way to properly guarantee that the data is pristine. By malice or error, it is entirely possible for you to destroy or contaminate computer evidence, even if you've booted up a Linux disk that's not supposed to write to the original drive, and isn't supposed to give you the ability to fiddle with the contents of the original drive.

Only works on Windows (1)

randallman (605329) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630323)

I bet it only works on Windows machines.

Looks like I'm screwed.. (1)

tomd123 (1007793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630343)

my computer's "Bit Porn Content" aka BPC is way above the legal limit of 10% in the state of Illinois.

what about .dat files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630347)

dont windows .dat files keep track of stuff that ordinary erasers don't remove - I know there is a utility that claims this, and that cleans .data files

At last... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630391)

I won't have to remember where I put them.

Interactive Linux Distro? "Breathless" (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630453)

On first reading, i thought this was a distro with a USB peripheral that the user strapped on like an oxygen mask. When doing what some do while using the computer to process the imagery into physical conversion of energy to work, the device would suck in the exhalations and process the various bits and such for upstream comparison to other users. This might improve the quality of porn... some... how...

Maybe the disro could be called "Breathless" or (in UK pronunciation) "Con-Troh-Ver-see" (for it being a controversial distro)... Or, "KomPyut"

This could give a whole hole new meaning to "lameness filters" when certain types of vapor content is ana.. an... analysed... (sorry, twitchy ha... han... hand....)

Simple Algorithm (1)

billius (1188143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630467)

It checks to see if you have an internet connection.

Getting around hash values isn't hard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630507)

Just have a program to slightly alter your data files so that your files generate a different checksum.

  You aren't going to be able to tell the difference if the program adds low-level noise to the image, but computers generally aren't clever enough to work out the difference.

Or, even better... Since they appear to be targeting specific, illegal content: Don't put child porn on your computer.

2009! (2, Funny)

flattop100 (624647) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630533)

It's the year of Linux on the Desktop! And to think of what the reaction would be if this ran on Windows.

leaked source code (3, Funny)

CompMD (522020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630605)

#include
#include
int main()
{
        printf("Searching for stuff the user isn't supposed to have...\n");
        sleep(30);
        printf("Illegal material found! Seize computer and arrest owner!\n");
        return 0;
}

Porn, Fraud, and Terrorism (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630677)

Guess I better start deleting my wmv's of Bin Laden doing hot Enron executives.

Workaround if you cant live without porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630717)

Tip for Australian porn addicted: use a very slow PC. While it will allow you to browse for the usual porn, it will suck when the complex computing of the "Breath test" starts to run.

At least you will have time to run.

USCBP (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630719)

Border patrol using this on all laptops in 3... 2... 1...

Uhhhh... I don't have a bootable CD drive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25630721)

My laptop won't boot from a USB CD... it has to be on a special cable (Dell C series).

And what happens to people with crap HW that won't boot Linux?

almost read this wrong (1)

samsonov (581161) | more than 5 years ago | (#25630733)

Almost read this as 'random breast test'... oops
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...