Beta
×

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!

Malware Can Download Child Porn To Your Computer

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the where's-dexter-when-needed? dept.

Security 586

2muchcoffeeman writes "The Associated Press tells the story of Michael Fiola, a former Massachusetts government employee who was arrested in 2007 after child porn was found on his state-issued laptop computer. He was eventually cleared of all charges after some digging by the defense found that the laptop was infected with malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute — an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half. Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped — 11 months after it was filed.' The article also discusses the technical aspects of how it could happen and about similar cases in the United Kingdom in 2003."

cancel ×

586 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

new? (1)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025450)

how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.

Re:new? (4, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025580)

It's new because the prosecutors are actually being reasonable about it. Remember this story [arstechnica.com] from last year?

CP is disgusting but we shouldn't lose our freedom over it..

so what happens when a public pc goes to a link li (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025952)

so what happens when a public pc goes to a link like that?

A virus downloads it to a public pc?

A pc that is not setup to even be used by any one aka one used to display stuff get some on it?

useing a laptop at a place with free wifi all the ip will show is that some from there when to the site and there are a lot places that have open wifi or just have 1 code to get on the network.

Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026130)

Don't forget to change your MAC address before you connect. macchanger on linux, I assume there's similar functionality for other OSes. MACs encode the brand of wifi card (and usually of your laptop if it came with) so it can be reasonably easy to visually scan the room for the offender if there aren't 9001 MacBook Pros in it.

Of course, I'm against actually doing this as then the wifi owner gets yelled at and shuts it down, denying me free internet.

Re:new? (1)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026212)

You mean to tell me rogue code can download things? Say it isn't so!

Re:new? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025626)

ANAL FETUS

Re:new? (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026034)

how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.

Next thing you'll know the news will be warning people about strings of armed robberies in their neighborhood, when anyone should know that someone with a gun can rob people. I mean what's the point? Oh, and forget about weather reports, why bother when it's perfectly logical and foreseeable that the temperature reached the level it did today, considering the long-term climatological trends, the time of year, the latitude, and the altitutde?

Uh... DOOOOYYYYYYYYY? (0)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025460)

No Doooooooooooy!?

its like episode V (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025468)

Pedobear strikes back

But the records are kept (4, Insightful)

Xiph (723935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025474)

Wherever she goes, the police will be aware that she was once accused of something related to pedofilia.
Accused of course implies she was linked to it.

ok, i meant to make this longer and darker, but i'm just not really feeling that paranoid tonight =)

Re:But the records are kept (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025650)

ok, i meant to make this longer and darker, but i'm just not really feeling that paranoid tonight =)

Noted. Thank you citizen. This matter will be investigated and remedial action taken fnord if it is deemed to be warranted.

This guy was lucky. (4, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025476)

Lucky for this guy there was evidence to prove he didn't do it. A hacker could might have installed a remote access program, downloaded the files manually, and then uninstalled the remote access program. There wouldn't be much evidence to suggest that this guy didn't download the kiddie porn himself.

Re:This guy was lucky. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025516)

The guy could also download some kiddie-porn-visiting malware, have a good time jacking off to cool pics and when finally caught, blame it all on teh viruses.

Re:This guy was lucky. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026180)

Yet another reason that simple possession of such material should not be a crime. The whole notion of a crime should involve actual harm caused by one's actions; go bust the people who are giving child rapists money.

Re:This guy was lucky. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026186)

Lucky for this guy there was evidence to prove he didn't do it.

There is something about this sentence that worries me.

I just can't put my finger on it...

Great! He's cleared! (5, Insightful)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025480)

Too bad his life is already ruined beyond repair.

Re:Great! He's cleared! (4, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026116)

If he has a life. Many times, poor bastards like this get assassinated by folks who have no idea. It's on thing if the pedo hurt innocent children, but when it's a guy who was arrested for sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 18 because of our retarded sex laws passed by retards to impress retards who vote for them.

A new name for this? (5, Insightful)

Monoman (8745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025502)

Frameware ? :-)

Re:A new name for this? (5, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025706)

The hysteria around child porn makes the ideal way to frame someone. Need to get rid of an enemy, a politician you don't like maybe ? Just break into their computer and load a single image on there. No one will look too closely, everyone will be scrambling to condemn you first to avoid looking guilt by association. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Re:A new name for this? (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025748)

I seem to recall reading that the FBI ran some honeypot sites that were linked to indicating that they contained child porn, but didn't. For this kind of malware you'd want to make sure it hit a few of them, downloaded some real child porn, and then deleted itself. Do it to a Senator, for example, and it wouldn't matter if they were cleared within a few days; the scandal would be enough to ruin their political career for life.

Re:A new name for this? (-1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025870)

Do it to a Senator, for example, and it wouldn't matter if they were cleared within a few days; the scandal would be enough to ruin their political career for life.

They'll just move on to become priests or fundie pastors or some other scam where child porn is more common.

Re:A new name for this? (2, Interesting)

Monoman (8745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025822)

I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Maybe it does. Hmmmm....

Re:A new name for this? (2, Interesting)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025980)

When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

Re:A new name for this? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026072)

When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

That's what happens when nonviolent victimless activities such as adult consentual personal drug use are made into crimes. That 1% would be a tiny fraction of a percentage if there were no such thing as the War on Drugs.

Re:A new name for this? (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026074)

When 1% of your population is in prison, you can be sure the vast majority are actually innocent. No culture is that wicked.

You have a higher opinion of human nature than I.

Re:A new name for this? (0, Flamebait)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025964)

Probably a good reason why many politicians won't ever come into direct contact with a computer. Well that and they're old.

Re:A new name for this? (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025970)

The hysteria around child porn makes the ideal way to frame someone.

People need witches. People need easy targets to vent the full fury of the legal system upon. Pedophiles are perfect, because unlike witches, they actually exist. The public delights in these show trials, and delights even more in being able to treat the accused and especially the convicted as the scum of the earth.

It's a kind of blood sport. It's a form of entertainment. It's completely shameful.

Shameful, how? (-1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026100)

"It's completely shameful."

Whatever. I feel no shame in demanding the executions of such bizarros as Phillip Garrido, or Dennis Bradford, or any number of other freaks. In fact, I am PROUD that I'm willing to put a predator to death. If ever the state needs a volunteer, I'll step up. I can do the needle, I can knot a rope, I can throw an electrical switch, I can pull a trigger, or I can swing an axe.

Put the dogs down, and they'll never harm another human being.

Legalise the posession of child porn already (4, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025506)

Its crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having a certain amount of bits stored on hard drives/flash memory/toggle switches arranged in a certain way.

Criminalising mere possession only drives the stuff up in value, if there was more of it freely available no pervert would feel the need to hand their credit card details over to some lads in Thailand so they can pick more 5-year-olds off the street.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025560)

I don't know. Regular porn is available everywhere. You can't throw the proverbial stone in the virtual world without hitting 20 free porn sites, and if you. Still people pay for it.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (2, Insightful)

RIpRapRob (1346701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025600)

Surely you must be trolling? If not: It's crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years just for buying something that was already stolen or for hiding someone who has already committed a crime.

Nobody knows the true age of an adult child. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025722)

The Jewish Torah says 13-years-old, while the Babylonian Jewish Talmud says 2-years-old. The bigger question is do you want a pederast to mistreat a child with remorse and anger, or do you want that pederast to not be so violent to keep child from talking about it? Realy, children grow-up so fast today. I've seen 90-year-old millionaires mary 23-year-old "girls", and I've seen 30-year-old "boys" mary 65-year-old millionaires.

I've seen so much alleged child pornography that I've already come to the conclusion that the demographics where that child was born simply made him or her grow-up quickly to be an adult like everyone else. I've seen 10-year-old girls skewered in the rectum by pre-dominantly negro men, and then jiz-cannoned 15-feet to the other side of the room like cannonshot. If they aren't adults yet, then how can they behave like adults then hmmm? I look at all the pederast porn, and I truly think it's just a bunch of 30-year-old chibby midget girls with growth problems dressing like they are 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 years-old just for the kink of letting the camera see their vagina hymen rip like a blood bubble while she screams and slapped and smothered from screaming.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025774)

Let's see:
1. Buying something that you know is stolen - the original owner should still be able to reclaim his property. Also, you are paying a thief for stealing, so he will steal more because he can live from it.
2. Hiding someone who has committed a crime - you are wasting time of the police officers who are searching for the criminal, also the criminal may commit another crime while running from the police and this time you will be an accomplice.

Now, downloading a picture of a crime. The picture is harmless, having it is also harmless (unless you have the only copy in which case you are holding evidence that could be used to put a criminal in jail). Pirating such picture does not pay money to the producer and so the producer will lose a lot of money (RIAA and MPAA both said that piracy hurts the industry).

please mod parent post UP (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026056)

The usual argument for criminalizing posession of data regardless of how you got it hasn't been refuted near enough. (too bad AC posts get overlooked by mods - as if they weren't worth reading unless someone got a karma point)

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025744)

People download porn and pay for hookers so why would this stop them from abusing real children? Legalising child porn legitimises child abuse, imo, and makes it more likely that people will do something to children.

Now maybe if the punishment for child abuse was something extreme, like death then yeah maybe. What's done is done so I could see leaving them to play with the pictures they have and if they take it beyond that then wipe them off the planet.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025990)

Or you could keep the DISTRIBUTION of child porn illegal, something that's a higher priority for law enforcement than people with some random pictures on their hard drives from some virus anyway.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026192)

OK, the malware then starts sharing the files.

Actually, IIRC, that's happened before.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (4, Insightful)

kromozone (817261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026162)

Depraved videos of people being brutally murdered, see "3guys1hammer" for example, are not illegal and they depict the most heinous of acts. I am sure a depraved sociopath or two has masturbated to such videos before as well. Yet, while these videos are legal and a certain segment of the population with extremely violent tendencies may experience sexual pleasure from them, having them legal has not increased the incidence of people making murder/rape videos on a for profit basis. The whole thing has devolved into pure insanity. People being thrown in jail for pictures of the Simpsons having sex, people being framed, the FBI posting links on sites purporting to be child porn, then storing the IP of anyone who visits that URL without verifying in any way that they were in fact referred from the site where the link was posted. So long as the underlying act is kept illegal, legalizing possession of data depicting such acts does nothing to boost crime rates. I would also imagine it would be even easier to locate and prosecute actual pedophiles if such images were legal.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (5, Interesting)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025884)

Our governments claim that it is essential to stop people downloading and possessing regular media from P2P services (outside of official channels) because it decreases the ability and motivation of media producers to produce new media.

Our governments claim that it is essential to stop people downloading child porn off P2P services because it increases the ability and motivation of child abusers (or more commonly now, children) to produce new child porn.

I think there's something fishy here.

Re:Legalise the posession of child porn already (2, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026084)

Its crazy that you can be sent to jail for many years and be alienated from society for the rest of your days for having a certain amount of bits stored on hard drives/flash memory/toggle switches arranged in a certain way.

The creation of those bits required the harming of a child, there's nothing crazy about wanting to outlaw those bits. Legalizing the ownership of abusive images will only result in MORE children being abused. If they get caugh/prosecuted more in the US, then they will simply outsource to abuse to some poorer country where child abuse isn't heavily prosecuted. All you've done is moved the abuse elsewhere, and made it easier for Americans to get their hands on some despicable material. Your suggestion is a very bad one.

Flying the false flag (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025522)

If everyone downloads kiddie porn, then that makes it really hard to pick out and prosecute the people who do it deliberately.
This case was kinda stupid in that it went faster than humanly possible. I expect that newer versions will be a bit more subtle.

Personally I think trojans like this are a good idea precisely because they make it difficult to prosecute someone for having a copy of the stuff -- possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy. The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it. The politicians get their public back-slapping for a job well done, meanwhile the children who are really being hurt by the creation of the stuff aren't any better off than they were before.

Its a case of the politicians deliberately not thinking of the children at all, only their careers, but proclaiming that they are protecting children -- 100% hypocrisy.

Re:Flying the false flag (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025674)

It's even funnier when you compare the stand on downloading kiddy porn and downloading movies/music/software for free.

1. Downloading copyrighted material illegally (not paying the authors when they ask for the payment) hurts the whole $content industry and will lead to less $content being produced, because nobody wants to work for free.
2. Downloading kiddy porn without paying for it helps the industry and will lead to more of it being produced = more children being abused.

Does this mean that the only true artists are the kiddy porn producers who appreciate that their product is being used and produce it just for the fun of it?

And yes, trojans like this are good. Now will somebody make one that also downloads music and software in addition to kiddy porn? Since most users don't find out about what various software does to their PCs until the PC starts acting up more than they can handle, it should DDoS the MAFIAA and child porn prosecutors. Except this time make it a worm, so it spreads without the user having to click on some link.

Re:Flying the false flag (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025818)

How can you indorse such an action?

Then you'll have no problem with me installing my trojan which downloads highly secure information from rouge states?
Sneak into your house and hide narcatics and weapons?

Secretly downloading porn to someones computer to create a cover is hardly moral.

I'm not saying ruining someones life for a nude picture is good but some people believe in the right to have weapons and free information but you wouldn't want your computers attacking the NSA secretly at night to prove someone elses point.

Re:Flying the false flag (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025886)

Secretly downloading porn to someones computer to create a cover is hardly moral.

Never said it was.

But life is not black and white, and all of your examples are either whacko (like the US government would be mad that we download secret information from their enemies) or totally missing the point of thought crimes (planting weapons).

Re:Flying the false flag (1, Interesting)

rwwyatt (963545) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025940)

I must respectfully disagree with a number of your points.

possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy.

The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

The politicians like it because it is 1000x easier to prosecute someone for having a copy of kiddie porn than it is to catch and prosecute the people manufacturing it.

There are ways to catch the manufacturer, but what other freedoms will be lost in the balance. Shall we have to provide ID to buy a Camera?

Re:Flying the false flag (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026110)

You see nothing wrong with charging people with a crime, for viewing a picture? Or being in possession of one? It may not be thought crime, but it is persecution especially when you consider that we aren't just talking about actual child abuse either, where you would have an argument concerning actual crime taking place to produce the picture (which still doesn't justify throwing people in jail for possessing the picture), but CGI images have resulted in child porn prosecutions, as have drawings and comics.

This is at its core, prosecution and persecution targeted toward people the public does not like.

Re:Flying the false flag (5, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026154)

possession of kiddie porn is just another thought crime and prosecuting it is complete hypocrisy.

The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

Actually thought crime is often used to refer to something where all you're doing is sitting around not harming anyone (as opposed to victimless crimes).

Here's a fun thing from Denmark (age of consent is 15).

If I (32) have sex with a 17-year-old girl, that is perfectly legal.
If anyone takes a photo of it, draws it, writes about it in detail or films it - it is child pornography. And as I'm am the only 'adult' in this, I will bear the full brunt of the law's punishment. Even if she were to set up hidden cameras without me knowing it, I'd still be charged with manufacturing. It's classified as child pornography and not pornography with a minor (under 18).

But if no-one watches, it's perfectly legal.

That is fucking scary.

Re:Flying the false flag (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026200)

The act of possession means it is no longer a thought crime. It is a crime in the United States to even view an image of Child Pornography.

Uh yeah, what do you think a thought crime is - something that is not a crime?

There are ways to catch the manufacturer, but what other freedoms will be lost in the balance. Shall we have to provide ID to buy a Camera?

So, your argument is that because it is too hard to actually save any children from abuse, we should just fuck with people we think are gross?

Re:Flying the false flag (3, Informative)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026152)

Because it's easier to assuage the public outcry and win PoliticanPoints by attacking those who possess it than going after those who produce it (since a lot of it isn't in the States, for one thing) and/or saving the kids.

There was a great article in the Economist recently about how there's no motivation for politicians to care at all about the suspect's side (felons don't vote, for one thing), so laws just become more and more unreasonable and the rights of pedophiles get eroded worse and worse.

Ever since that one girl had to Register after having naked pics of herself on her cell phone when underage, then charged as an adult, I've had basically zero respect for these laws, even as the thought of CP makes me sick.

And this new "virus" I "got" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025526)

Downloads all the latest movie and software releases, and stores them on my computer! It's madness, I say, madness.

40 sites per minute? (1)

bill98122 (1547183) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025544)

The real question is "Why do these same prosecutors allow so many child porn sites to exist?" Because it's easier to pursue innocent victims?

Re:Rources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025652)

A lot of it is resources. Another part is placement. It's easy enough to point at a child porn site and say, "We should get rid of that." But what if it's in another country? What if that country has less-strict laws about what you can and can't put on the net? What if the country has a small, taxed police force concerned with other things? It can take a lot of effort to try to communicate with other law enforcement groups (especially across national and cultural borders).

Also, a lot of police don't have the time to go looking for this stuff. Many reports of computers containing kiddie porn come from people who know the suspect, rather than from investigation. Angry exs, co-workers, etc will report this sort of thing, which would otherwise go unnoticed.

Re:Rources (5, Interesting)

bill98122 (1547183) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025714)

It is not resources. It is a matter of will. If a US government agency can kidnap a person off an Italian street and ship them off to another country to be tortured, then the US government can shut down child porn site _no matter where_ it is located.

Re:Rources (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025750)

The US has an extradition treaty with the EU, and in this case, they knew who they were looking for. If all you have is an IP address and it is a country you don't have an extradition treaty with, it is a bit more difficult.

Re:Rources (2, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025800)

To be fair the police don't really have to do it on their own. The Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk/ [iwf.org.uk] is pretty much dedicated to wiping the stuff off the net.

Perhaps the government can do something similar. In fact, use prosecuted pedos to hunt the stuff down while in prison. If it resides in another country then just get ISPs blocking it. There is still proxies but you'll never get rid it completely but if you make it nearly impossible get then that's a good start.

Re:Rources (1)

kill-1 (36256) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026172)

In Germany, there has been a big debate about online child porn recently. One organization showed that by simply sending email to the hosting providers many sites were deleted within 12 hours.

See http://ak-zensur.de/2009/05/loeschen-funktioniert.html [ak-zensur.de] (in German)

Re:40 sites per minute? (5, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025766)

Because there is, to my understanding two kinds of "child porn".

1) The "core" material that is clearly children, clearly porn and prosecuted as such pretty much everywhere.
2) The "fringe" material that is teen but maybe not 18, suggestive poses, artistic or not so artistic nudes, CG art, stories, roleplay or whatever else that the US may consider child porn but at least parts of the world do not. They're an endless source of easy convictions that make it appear that they're tough on all the nasty bogeymen.

For example, here in Norway there was a "child porn" conviction that I read about in the paper, where the defendant disputed that any children was involved, and it quoted part of the main actress' bio. I found this very strange so I googled for it and it was "Tiny Tove", who was a Danish porn star that starred in a lot of dubious movies in the 1970s but was 18+ in all of them. None the less, he still got convicted because she was playing a much younger role in the movies and that is illegal in Norway. In other words, it's not "child porn" in 95%+ of the world and you can download it from any adult site or p2p network. If you turn off safe search on google you don't even have to do that. But if I did that, I'd be watching child porn under Norwegian law. It's just so fucked up you wouldn't believe it.

Re:40 sites per minute? (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026082)

You think thats fucked up? Some guy got done for child porn in Australia for simpsons porn!

Re:40 sites per minute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026134)

That is scary. From what I understand it is illegal to be in possession of drawn child porn in Sweden which would mean that nearly everybody who has every watched hentai on their computer (most hentai have at least a token loli character) or similar would be guilty. Fortunately the law has never been used as far as I know but it is still scary. Posting AC because I've moderated in this thread.

Guess that lets my cat off the hook (4, Funny)

gmagill (105538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025548)

Guess that lets my cat of the hook...

Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook (1)

gmagill (105538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025588)

Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook (2, Funny)

gmagill (105538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025602)

Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025782)

Are you aware that, not only are you talking to yourself, but you're using the Internet to do so? You should probably seek professional help...

Re:Guess that lets my cat off the hook (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025756)

Guess that lets my cat of the hook...

Not. He was caught with kitty porn [dailyhaha.com] .

THAT'S NOT MALWARE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025550)

My 4chan /fit/ Pedobear senses are tingling. What. does. it. MEAN?!?!

perhaps it downloaded... (1)

weirdo557 (959623) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025570)

perhaps it just tried to cache 4chan

The Perfect Frame (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025582)

Think Fred might beat you to that promotion? Think your wife was a bit too friendly toward Bob at the party? Think Doctor Franzhaufer gave you an unfair grade? Don't like your new uppity neighbor?

Download child pornography to their computers. Sure, they'll whine about their "rights" and their "innocence", but who's going to believe a creepy pervert? Even if the faggy liberal court lets him off on some technicality, his career will be ruined, his friends will leave him, and he'll probably end up shooting himself.

You win, right? You showed him who's boss.

--

This country is losing all its marbles at once Among our other problems, we're engaging in a good old-fashioned witch hunt against child pornographers. No accusation is too specious, nor any policy too draconian. Never mind if due process rights are bulldozed, and people who've served out their sentences are branded for life and forced to live under overpasses. Never mind that the beachheld of practically all Internet censorship schemes has been combating child pornography. Never mind the culture of fear that can justify anything.

At least we're getting those evil-doers, right?

Re:The Perfect Frame (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025752)

There is an antidote though: Child porn on (nearly) every computer!
I mean, the law system basically already has that implemented: Everybody is guilty somewhere.
So it will make no difference if they pick one of us at random, because he is one of the 99.99% with child porn on the computer. Or because he is one of the 99.99% with $OTHER_CATCH22_CRIMINAL_OFFENSE.

Re:The Perfect Frame (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026164)

And some pot with every chicken!

Re:The Perfect Frame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025924)

Good Lord, man, THINK of the CHILDREN. Or maybe you're a perv too?

Re:The Perfect Frame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025966)

Nah, there's an even better way to do it. Simply send child porn to their cell phone.

Pedophilia has a NEW GO-TO Excuse (1)

Derpnooner (1606505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025592)

John Stossel and his crew better be getting into shape for the upcoming child-porn craze that will be hitting the streets. Pedophiles make Nazi-Zombies seem "nice," and "tolerable."

ikee virus? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025620)

At least it wasn't 100000 Rick Rolls.

Now all we have to do, ... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025724)

...is create a bunch of honeypot websites for politicians and fatcats.

And then trigger the appropriate middle-of-the-night "clubbing cops" raids on the targets.

But don't get too greedy. It must stay believable to the general public. (Including the media. Including "FOX & 'tards".)

P.S.: I think, we, the people, should have our own intelligence service. With the ability to filter out things that were aquired with proper methods. With a huge knowledge base. With native "agents" in every country. In every company and government office. And with trust relationship management. Make it a game. And let millions of people play it. Let's see who 0wns who then ^^ (Yes I know... nice dream though.)

Re:Now all we have to do, ... (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025878)

P.S.: I think, we, the people, should have our own intelligence service. With the ability to filter out things that were aquired with proper methods. With a huge knowledge base. With native "agents" in every country. In every company and government office. And with trust relationship management. Make it a game. And let millions of people play it. Let's see who 0wns who then ^^ (Yes I know... nice dream though.)

I believe we call that wikipedia.

Complicates prosecution (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025726)

Now if anybody is caught with illegal stuff, they can just claim a virus did it. There's not way to really prove otherwise unless the person is filmed actually typing/clicking for it. Otherwise, anything you can do on a PC a virus can also do.

Re:Complicates prosecution (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025926)

Well in the case of Fiola, many different factors pointed towards his innocence. The first thing the forensic investigator noticed was that it was severely infected with malware. The computer wasn't being patched regularly because the new laptop wasn't added to the list of official computers that the MS server was supposed to patch. The firewall had not been turned on. Many of the porn had been downloaded to the machine when there was no browser or user activity, etc.

standards of evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025802)

From TFA:

Many prosecutors say blaming a computer virus for child porn is a new version of an old ploy.

"We call it the SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It," says James Anderson, a federal prosecutor in Wyoming.

This sounds like some prosecutors either don't understand the prevalance of malware in PCs, or they don't take the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of justice very seriously. I think the prosecutors need additional confirming evidence beyond finding a stash of bad stuff on someone's PC, so that innocent people don't find themselves in the same bind as this man did.

Incidentally, it doesn't surprise me that the Attorney General's office involved was that being run by Martha Coakley, now a candidate for Ted Kennedy's old US Senate seat. She is useless, known to look the other way when well-connected politicians and executives are accused of corruption and/or conflicts of interest.

prosecutors (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025858)

What gets me are the confident assertions that people cannot unintentionally download child pornography by prosecutors who have no idea what they are talking about. It's disturbing both that people pay attention to them and that they are more interested in getting convictions than in consulting real experts.

In other news ... (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025860)

malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute -- an inhuman feat

In other news, slashdotters lined up in droves asking "where can I get the adult | lesbian | furries version of this script?"

I assume this virus is for getting revenge (3, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025872)

Seriously, you gotta be a real ass to do something like this to someone.

It's this sort of thing that will give governments an excuse to try and control the net even more and give companies a reason to close up their hardware and in the end most people end up with less freedom.

The net was nice before every tard was on it waiting to be exploited.

Re:I assume this virus is for getting revenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025954)

When was that exactly? This story reminds me of the story about the guy who got owned by Netbus and child porn, in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netbus [wikipedia.org]

Grain of salt. (3, Insightful)

SkOink (212592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025892)

Whenever I hear about something like this, I'm always a little bit skeptical. What would a malware writer stand to gain by writing some malware that "accessed 40 child porn sites per minute" and installing it on some guy's computer? It's pretty absurd when you think about it.

Does anybody really believe that there's some spergy criminal mastermind out there who spends his nights optimizing his malware's CPSPM rate? One would assume that anybody with enough knowledge to even write the software is probably already connected to the people who produce that stuff, or else he wouldn't know where to get it in the first place (and so how could he write malware to do it for him?)

Re:Grain of salt. (5, Insightful)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026026)

It might be the case that the malware was designed to turn the computers into hosts for redistributing the material so that those hosting it wouldn't need to host their site on anything that could be traced back to them.

Re:Grain of salt. (5, Insightful)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026050)

Seriously? It's the ultimate revenge plot in the west. Even if you're just accused of having child porn, regardless if it's true or not, your life is ruined from that moment on. All for what amounts to what, maybe a couple hours of programming? Talk about return on investment, and probably no way to trace the program back to the 'hacker' means almost no liability. It's the perfect dish to serve cold.

Re:Grain of salt. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026086)

I can think of two possibilities:

Framing. This is where the target gets the malware which downloads child porn to the computer. Pretty effective attack, if you ask me. It's obvious that it worked, too.

As a proxy. Somebody wants to get child porn and so they use this computer as a proxy to get what they actually want -- the computer downloads a bunch of porn and tells the writer what was downloaded through some covert channel. Since child porn is such a public crime, it will be completely obvious when the intermediate computer's owner is caught, so there is no chance of getting trapped in a honeypot and actually getting the writer. By the time anybody realizes what is going on (11 months down the road), the actual "bad guy" has moved on to somebody else.

Re:Grain of salt. (1)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026102)

Revenge, most likely.

Which sites? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026138)

I wonder if this malware was in fact targetted specifically at KP. It might have just been an open door that the creator or others (think: those that don't want to use their own computers could pay to hijack somebody else's).

In most cases, if something is illegal, there's a shady market for it somewhere.

Re:Grain of salt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026144)

Obviously, he's trying to get child porn. Maybe the malware writer has a stable job, family, etc. He doesn't want to risk getting caught, so he gets his victim to download child porn for him. The malware writer can also store his collection on the victim's computer.

So whenever he wants to see his collection, he just logs in and views it.

Glad this has happened to a politician (4, Insightful)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025906)

While it's sad whenever someone is falsely accused and I have sympathy for him and his wife, I can't help but feel - it's wonderful that this has happened to a politician. Because this could happen to absolutely anybody and politicians will not relent in their fear mongering and ridiculous laws in this area until they become victims themselves.

While I strongly suspect if they weren't a) wealthy and b) in positions of power the governor would now be rotting in a cell, the fact of the case being overturned will help sanity prevail everywhere.

What if... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025910)

the accused was just a really dedicated pedophile and downloaded a program from his buddies that allowed him to circumvent all the tedious typing and clicking. Turn your laptop on, do your other legitimate business of the day, and then enjoy the benefits of your application at your leisure. Unless I missed it, I didn't see where they mentioned finding duplicates of this program replicating itself across a network, or evidence of a security breach on that computer which coincided with the installation of that program.

I'm not saying he did it, but shouldn't we consider the possibility that he was just a technically literate pedophile? I open up Opera, click on all of my "Speed Dial" favorites and then go get a snack. When I come back I start browsing all my favorite blogs and online news sites and such. What if he's just one step ahead of people like me?

So now what (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025916)

So now the guy's sold his car, taken out a second mortgage, lost his job, 11 months of his life and most of his friends. He's a pariah with a mountain of debt.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor's off looking for the next big case without so much as an uncomfortable public statement or even an "I'm sorry". Business as usual.

It's a touch kinder and gentler than the days of the (Un)Holy Inquisition where if you drowned you were innocent and if you didn't they'd burn you, but it's no different in principle. The process of being tried does very nearly as much damage as being found guilty would. The accusation destroys your life one way or the other. Those who cause all the damage face no consequences whatsoever.

Re:So now what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026190)

Sorry to derail your witch burning for a second, but it's something I gotta wonder. Even back then how the hell could people really believe if you drowned you were innocent, but if you came back up for air you were a witch. Back in those days if someone tried to do that to me, the first thing I'd do is demand proof that this ritual works and demand the clergy to go first.

If THEY come back up for air, either they'll have to admit their strategy had flaws, or I'll have people to talk to on the stake!

Yeah, just flag this off-topic. Sorry. :)

Blurring the lines (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025948)

Computer malware could screw badly your REAL life. It should be a real example to show to people that aren't concerned about security, uses insecure practices/browsers/operating systems/whatever.

Probably is the most convincing scenario until a computer virus manage to infect and kill real people.

This should be interesting in Sweden... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30025962)

... and the possibly upcoming law now, making it illegal to WATCH child porn. No, not consume it or otherwise support pedophile circles, merely watch it.

It's exactly these things that make me against that law. Sure, you'll probably easily explain it if it really did happen to you, but what if the search warrant was about something else? "Oh, look, he had child porn on his computer too, besides all this movie piracy." Where both can be a result of low computer security and a hijacked WiFi connection, neither of which being illegal to have. It's so sad when we sidestep common sense with laws like this.

Frameware? More like Plausible Deniability (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30025984)

So, someone got framed and is cleared of all charges. Which is good.

But, leaving the fun application of ruining peoples lifes forever using a simple piece of software aside: Personally, if I'd be a terribly evil fan of cp (which I'm not, dear FBI), I'd be searching the Internet for this exact piece of malware RIGHT NOW. Someone finds cp on your harddrive? Simple, "Yeh well, search my computer" and give your lawyer the "hint" that your PC might be infested with "malware" - get out of jail free card!

This exact case presents quite a good precedence for using this excuse.

mod points (-1, Troll)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026062)

I'm warning you now, I've been given 15 mod points, so any twat who posts something stupid will be modded troll. don't blame the player, blame the game.

Re:mod points (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026120)

I'd like to think that you spent all of your fifteen mod points over the course of the last thirty minutes, and then accidentally undid them all with this ridiculous post.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30026206)

Why not, that would be consistent with giving you mod rights.

An inhuman feat... (3, Interesting)

Nux'd (1002189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30026076)

...so of course he's innocent.

What if he intentionally contracted this 'malware'? It seems to do a good job of diverting the blame.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?