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!

FTC Takes Out Porn- and Botnet-Spewing ISP

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ayn-rand-would-approve dept.

The Courts 263

coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission today got a judge to effectively kill off the Internet service provider 3FN, which the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing, and all manner of malicious web content. The ISP's computer servers and other assets have been seized and will be sold by a court and the operation has been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC."

cancel ×

263 comments

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

Break out the champagne! (5, Funny)

peterb (13831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268576)

My heart overflows for this poor oppressed Botnet operator.

Re:Break out the champagne! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269100)

You should apply bound checking, otherwise someone could exploit it.

free market (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269268)

My heart overflows for this poor oppressed Botnet operator.

Damn government! Always interfering with the free market!

What about the providers? (4, Interesting)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269278)

Now, GOOD for the FTC, but where are the upstream / downstrem providers in this equasion? These guys where not operating from random DSL lines, SOMEONE sold them connectivity and KNEW what they were up to...

Re:What about the providers? (-1, Offtopic)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269336)

Now, GOOD for the FTC, but where are the upstream / downstream providers in this equation? These guys were not operating from random DSL lines; SOMEONE sold them connectivity and KNEW what they were up to...

FTFY

How is the porn part relevant? (3, Interesting)

rbanzai (596355) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268588)

Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (3, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268640)

Because it gets the religious types in a frenzy, and all those anonymous letters and leaflet campaigns carry a lot of weight around the FTC.

Botnets, spams and malware aren't good headlines, PORN (36 point Verdana Bold Italic) is !

Because Americans are a bunch of sexually-repressed prudes in public, but just as perverted and fucked up behind closed doors as the rest of us ?

Take your pick.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268694)

RTFA - "pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest"

Not necessarily the most legal porn. Sorry if I'm a sexually-repressed prude for not thinking kiddie porn and bestiality is OK.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (-1, Redundant)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268928)

I can't mod you up, but +1 on that.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (0, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269002)

>>>RTFA - "pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest"

None of which should be outlawed (freedom of expression). However the people that produced that stuff should be arrested for child abuse. Too bad the FTC's not going after those criminals, so they'll just keep making more of it.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Informative)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269112)

Freedom of expression is not absolute. You cannot incite to violence, panic or break laws.

Try yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269178)

Try yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.

Why is that always the example that gets trotted out? Did somebody actually do it?

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (5, Informative)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269280)

Did somebody actually do it?

Yes. [wikipedia.org]

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (4, Informative)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269134)

You think child porn is protected by freedom of expression?

Tell me, whose freedom are you thinking should be protected? The adult or the child? Is it OK if the adult's freedoms infringe on those of the child?

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269172)

The freedom of the person who’s looking at a picture and thinking something naughty.

The people who actually produced the stuff... the adults who abused kids to make porn... well, you apparently didn’t read his comment very well, because he already said you should go after them.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (4, Insightful)

Akido37 (1473009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269212)

You think child porn is protected by freedom of expression?

Tell me, whose freedom are you thinking should be protected? The adult or the child? Is it OK if the adult's freedoms infringe on those of the child?

You're protecting the freedom of the poor bastard who downloaded it by mistake and didn't nuke his hard drive from orbit.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268712)

Because Americans are a bunch of sexually-repressed prudes in public

Yeah, that's the impression I get from watching American mass media. We are all prudes....

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269038)

I was watching a German TV show the other day, when suddenly a young woman came strolling across the screen topless. Oooops. That's not allowed on U.S. broadcast television (although I wish it was). I'd say we're prudish, or at least the FCC is.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269344)

I can beat that -- the mainstream French channel FR3 [wikipedia.org] used to have a station ident in which three pretty female dancers suddenly took their tops off and stood there exposed, giggling. The jingle (if I recall correctly, the girls sang or mimed it) was: "FR3, c'est trois fois mieux" ("FR3, it's 3 times better"). In the UK we might get a young woman wandering around topless in a drama (after the 9pm watershed), but we'd not allow it in a station ident. Pity. I used to enjoy the FR3 one.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268900)

Or perhaps some sensationalist, anti-religious zealot like yourself can't figure out that BOTNETS don't typically distribute your garden-variety porn. There are normal nets for that sort of thing.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (3, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268914)

Because it gets the religious types in a frenzy, and all those anonymous letters and leaflet campaigns carry a lot of weight around the FTC.

Of course. You know that 1 complaint = 1 billion people, right?

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269030)

Of course. You know that 1 complaint = 1 billion people, right?

I hear they got 20 calls about that incident, which means that 20 billion people were offended by this. [allenhuntshow.com]

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269106)

>> 20 billion people were offended by this

Wow, that's one fifth the number of people that have been served by McDonalds!

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268648)

It's to outrage free speech advocates, of course. I'm surprised the summary even mentioned the other part, and didn't try to spin the entire thing as the FTC declaring war on porn and free speech.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (0, Flamebait)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268652)

Because porn is bad and it will melt your eyes. In fact we should ban sex too. No more sex in marriage either.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (5, Funny)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268718)

No more sex in marriage either.

Way ahead of ya, pal.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268846)

This was one of those comments that made me laugh, then immediately made me cry.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2)

bensode (203634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269138)

New moderation method ... +1 Relates

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268726)

No more sex in marriage either.

I do believe you've made the elementary error of assuming there's sex in marriage.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Funny)

Flozzin (626330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268752)

I can't think of anything else that would effect the geek community less than banning sex.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268866)

I can't think of anything else that would effect the geek community less than banning sex.

A giant shield to block the sun? There could be one deployed right now, i'd never know about it.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269292)

Oh, you'd *know* about it - it would of course get posted here and @other techblogs.

You just wouldn't be able to personally *see* it, from down there in your parents basem..., um, H@x0rs L@!r...

;) :D

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269256)

Banning sex would make it impossible to effect anyone! (Except through cloning). It would, however, not affect the geeks as much as the rest of the world (unless masturbation were included in the ban). :)

This post brought to you by "Grammer Nazis 4 Gooder Englush". :)

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268908)

You're not married, are you?

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269224)

Going on 6 years over here and I still have way more sex than my single friends :) And yes, my wife IS hot AND real ;)

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268674)

Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.

RTFA--they were hosting child pornography sites. That's a whole different animal from the usual porn.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268746)

And why counldn't that have been mentioned in the news snippet? 'c' 'h' 'i' 'l' 'd' a whopping 5 bytes more, and the aura of trolling for comments would have been blown away.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269016)

Because the “news snippet” is actually just the first 2 paragraphs of the article, copied verbatim, and the nature of the porn wasn’t mentioned until the 3rd paragraph:

The Federal Trade Commission today got a judge to effectively kill off the Internet Service Provider 3FN who the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing and all manner of malicious Web content.

The ISP's computer servers and other assets have been seized and will be sold by a court and the operation has been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC.

According to the FTC in June 2009, it charged that 3FN, which does business as Triple Fiber Network, APS Telecom, APX Telecom, APS Communications, APS Communication and Pricewert LLC, actively recruited and colluded with criminals to distribute harmful electronic content including spyware, viruses, trojan horses, phishing schemes, botnet command-and-control servers, and pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest. The FTC alleged that the defendant advertised its services in the darkest corners of the Internet, including a chat room for spammers.

This is Slashdot... what did you expect?

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (5, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268886)

RTFA--they were hosting child pornography sites. That's a whole different animal from the usual porn.

Which animal is in your usual porn?

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269260)

For me, it's usually a specific variety of primate.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1, Flamebait)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269266)

RTFA--they were hosting child pornography sites. That's a whole different animal from the usual porn.

Which animal is in your usual porn?

ManBearPig [wikipedia.org] , Manimal [wikipedia.org] or a Whoreasaurus [urbandictionary.com] ?

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

rgo (986711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268684)

Maybe the judge is an Apple fanboy.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268730)

I'm guessing it was a combo of child porn and porn popup advertising hosts.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268738)

Free porn: good. Porn spam: very bad (my daughter has an email address too.)

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (3, Insightful)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268754)

From TFA:

...harmful electronic content including...pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest.

The "children" part seems relevant...

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (1, Insightful)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268802)

One word: Americans.

Re:How is the porn part relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269054)

Supporting/controlling botnets I can understand, but where does serving up porn figure in the shutdown? I can't see how it did.

Because typically, the pr0n is not even real pr0n, just a hook for botnet infection. "Install this ActiveX control to see b00bz!"

couldn't they at least keep the porn part? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268592)

see title

Hey hey hey! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268606)

which the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing and all manner of malicious Web content

One of these things is not like the other

Re:Hey hey hey! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269186)

How long did your career producing segments for Sesame Street last?

Re:Hey hey hey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269220)

Score 0: Redundant

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday May 19, @03:15PM (#32268606)

Score 5: Funny

by Tanuki64 (989726) writes: on Wednesday May 19, @03:26PM (#32268748)

Only on Slashdot can you become retroactively redundant.

Re:Hey hey hey! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269288)

Maybe it was redundant because he cleverly bolded the word “porn” to make it stand out and then pointed out the rather obvious fact that it was unlike the others?

And maybe something that’s otherwise somewhat redundant can be funny if you put it to a witty rhyme?

Porn? (5, Funny)

jspenguin1 (883588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268610)

"FTC Takes Out Porn, Internet traffic slows to a trickle."

Re:Porn? (2, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268756)

Damn. Can they put the porn back online and just leave the botnet off please?

Re:Porn? (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269192)

Maybe now the employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission will start doing their real jobs.

Today "malicious content" (-1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268616)

which the agency said specialized in spam, porn, botnets, phishing and all manner of malicious Web content

That is the story today, but what about the story tomorrow?

While it could be true that this was an ISP where nothing of value was lost, could it have also hosted sites critical of the government and its policies?

Something interesting to look into...

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

mystik (38627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268666)

TFA also mentions child pornography, which is fairly universally forbidden.

If your gonna be critical of the government, don't give them any other reason to attack you. It helps bolster your case of "I did nothing wrong" and "they're just trying to take me down"

Re:Today "malicious content" (0, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268724)

However, CP is easily planted and things forbidding it are generally destructive of free speech and harm more children.

If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it. Since it is though, it has created a large economy dedicated to the production of it.

Re:Today "malicious content" (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268834)

If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it.

Huh? That argument flies with the War on Drugs because most drug addicts are consenting adults. How does it fly with something that requires sexual behavior on the part of those too young to consent to such activities?

Re:Today "malicious content" (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268930)

Because think about it. If there is already free porn of it, why make even more of it for what is a fetish for a small amount of people. If it was free and unregulated it would fill the internet making it hard for people to turn a profit producing it on their own which would lead to any economic benefit being reduced or eliminated.

If you have an audience who wants something and there is no where else to get it (because it is illegal and actively destroyed) you can set a rather high price on it and run a business doing it. On the other hand, if there is so much free CP floating around because it isn't actively destroyed the few people with that fetish go to that and don't even bother to purchase CP destroying the economy of it.

There are lots of really, really strange fetishes out there but none are so financially successful as CP because of the presence of regulation. In order to fill the small number of people who like CP, more CP has to be produced because it isn't out there anymore which leads to more children being abused.

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269104)

Because think about it.

That’s a dangerous way to start off an argument about something you know little about.

Re:Today "malicious content" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269150)

If it was free and unregulated it would fill the internet making it hard for people to turn a profit producing it on their own which would lead to any economic benefit being reduced or eliminated.

Right. Just like how "regular" porn is unprofitable because the internet is already full of it.

because it is illegal and actively destroyed

Right. Because CP doesn't exist in digital form with multiple copies floating around the world, and is therefore easily destroyed when it's found.

if there is so much free CP floating around because it isn't actively destroyed the few people with that fetish go to that and don't even bother to purchase CP destroying the economy of it.

Right. Which is why nobody is producing "regular" porn anymore, since there's more than enough of it available to satisfy everyone already.

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269302)

Right. Just like how "regular" porn is unprofitable because the internet is already full of it.

The difference is, everyone uses regular porn.

Right. Because CP doesn't exist in digital form with multiple copies floating around the world, and is therefore easily destroyed when it's found.

It is effectively destroyed when they raid servers, HDD, etc. Yeah, there might be a few copies floating around but they aren't generally hosted on the internet for fear of them being taken down.

Right. Which is why nobody is producing "regular" porn anymore, since there's more than enough of it available to satisfy everyone already.

The difference is the amount of CP produced because of the economy is disproportionate to the number of people who consume it which is directly caused by the fact it is illegal.

People are producing regular porn now because there is a -large- market for it that it hasn't hit its peak yet. CP is a -tiny- market, artificially exaggerated in economic worth due to it being illegal.

It would be like if BeOS was made illegal, there aren't many users or people who really want a copy of BeOS, but since it is illegal and has a dedicated fanbase however small, people would pay large amounts of money to continue to use BeOS if they were big enough fans.

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

ICLKennyG (899257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269286)

Because this has worked so well for the multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industr... oh wait. Nope. Your logic fails. Yes, there may be a shred of truth to your logic, but the only thing you state as likely that would actually come true is that there would be far more of it. Something we don't need.

I am not in any way against legal porn, and actually think it's a bit too regulated as it is.

Re:Today "malicious content" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269312)

Interestingly enough, your question begs the question.

The only reason that they are considered "too young to consent to such activities" is because the law says they are are too young to consent.

Another flaw in your post is that most drug addicts get started as minors.

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268890)

wait a moment...

If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it.

Isn't that the arguement for legalizing drugs?

Are you making some ironic comparison of the two that's wooshing over my head, or are you actually suggesting that the solution to child porn is to leaglize and regulate it?

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269066)

If CP was not so regulated and forbidden, there would be a lot less children harmed in the making of it. Since it is though, it has created a large economy dedicated to the production of it.

Ridiculous and untrue.

http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+my+life+in [google.com]

Re:Today "malicious content" (2, Interesting)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269246)

the only ground i would give on this issue is that some sanity should be employed as to what is considered "child porn"

1 father of a child has pictures of a non sexual nature OF SAID CHILD on his computer NOT PORN
2 parent of a child has pictures that include said child and possible other children (while not sexual) NOT PORN
3 Non parent has a bunch of pictures of children (with a number of them barely dressed) PORN
4 a set of pictures of a child in various poses (and clothing) being sold PORN
5 naked pics of a child PORN
6 obviously sexual pictures of a child PORN (with bonus charges)

the trick is Intent of the Collection

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269330)

Non parent has a bunch of pictures of children (with a number of them barely dressed)

a set of pictures of a child in various poses (and clothing) being sold

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=children+stock+images [google.com]

If you’re feeling really risque, add the search term “swimsuit”!!

Re:Today "malicious content" (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268816)

" been ordered give back $1.08 million to the FTC" - Why is it any arrest results in fines that some fed agency collects....and eventually keeps? It seems Law enforcement is now more a money generation then a cost center..

Re:Today "malicious content" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268958)

As someone who works for a government agency and, in fact, calculates those kinds of fines, I can probably answer that for you. Regulated entities have to agree to abide by certain rules with the agency that regulates them. Breaking these rules does not rise to the level, generally, of criminal acts so that kind of punishment is out. Besides, how do you throw a corporation in jail. The punishment for breaking these rules is usually a fine, which can be challenged before a judge (usually an administrative law judge). Also, part of that fine will be to recoup the costs of the investigation.

I'll buy their IP addresses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268618)

Only to sell them later this year when IPv4 runs out. I'll make a killing.

Oh god NO! (2, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268620)

Not the TITTIES!

Re:Oh god NO! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268916)

RTFA: It's child porn. So unlikely to have "titties".

Coincidence? (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268628)

Just checked the spam folder in my e-mail client--it's empty. I can't even remember the last time that happened.

Re:Coincidence? (1)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269058)

It was when you created the account.

Where/When is the Auction? (1)

endikos (195750) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268646)

I've always wondered how to get in on auctions like this. Anyone know how to find the pertinent information?

Re:Where/When is the Auction? (1)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268766)

I've always wondered how to get in on auctions like this. Anyone know how to find the pertinent information?

Yeah, there's gold waiting to be extracted from those disks ...

Re:Where/When is the Auction? (1)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268804)

I can see it now... as soon as you win they seize the servers again (they didn't wipe them) and have you up on the same changes as the previous owners...

One of These Things.... (4, Funny)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268748)

spam, porn, botnets, phishing

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
....

Re:One of These Things.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268826)

Phishing doesn't belong because it's a verb.
The others are nouns.

Hint for the graduates of Texas:
nouns=names

Re:One of These Things.... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269130)

Spam can be a verb.

Re:One of These Things.... (4, Funny)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268982)

Spam does not belong because it is a food item. The others are just ways to waste time.

Re:One of These Things.... (4, Funny)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269044)

Botnets doesn't belong because it's the only one without the letter "p" in it.

Re:One of These Things.... (1)

Garfong (1815272) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269108)

Pornography featuring children (RTFA) does not belong. The others prey on people who should know better.

Teabaggers (-1, Offtopic)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268800)

And where are all the teabaggers who go around saying the government never does anything right? Seems to me this is government working exactly as it should be, in the best interests of the public. A win for Washington, no?

Re:Teabaggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268924)

Yes, Obama has proven the value of his presidency and left the critics red-faced with this one.

Re:Teabaggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268932)

You do realize "teabaggers" isn't quite the insult you think it is - right? You are implying you are the teabaggie, thus the recipient of the teabagging.

Re:Teabaggers (1)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268944)

Way to troll on several things at once: 7.5

But I'll bite...

This single 'win' probably shut down .0001% of all spam traffic. In response, the price of hiring a botnet just went up .0001%. Yay. What a 'win'.

{yawn}

Re:Teabaggers (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268970)

Up there getting "Flamebait" mods for equating this to government silencing dissenters (using the tried-and-true slippery slope fallacy).

Re:Teabaggers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268990)

Censorship? A win?

Is criticizing the Great Leader 'malicious' content? He seems to think so, calling out bloggers in his speeches.

I'd be worried about an administration that deals with criticism the same way a 13 year old girl does.

Came in for the people who didn't RTFA on Soapbox (3, Informative)

ICLKennyG (899257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268808)

Found 'em.

Child porn will generally get you in trouble in just about every western jurisdiction. This is not news. This was not just a singular administrative action born in the middle of the night. This started over a year ago and was the culmination of a legal proceeding where they apparently proved that this entity was actively recruiting nefarious clients to host child porn and other illegal activities.

This one smacks more of sensationalist summary writing than of government censorship or unconstitutional takings.

Is 3FN 3FN.NET? (2, Interesting)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268878)

If so, it still seems eager to take my business:
http://www.webhostingstuff.com/company/3FNNET.html [webhostingstuff.com]

Re:Is 3FN 3FN.NET? (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269180)

Hmm a sleazy company is willing to take your money even though they might not be able to provide the service in the near future? Shocking!

Re:Is 3FN 3FN.NET? (3, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269208)

Maybe so, but their uptime graph really sucks.

Blocked at work so I can't RTFA - but... (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32269158)

I find it hard to believe than an *identifieable* ISP that is making money with legally dodgy stuff (spam) and legal but offputting stuff (bestiality, etc.) would jeopardize its revenue by hosting for-real child porn. That's just stupid.

Could someone who's not blocked from reading the article tell me - Was this *real* child porn? Or was it "under-18 in skimpy clothes" sites? Lots of politicians like to throw around an "entry-level child porn" label when they really mean "about as much skin as you can see at the beach". I'm just wondering what the FTC definition is.

Re:Blocked at work so I can't RTFA - but... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269328)

Could someone who's not blocked from reading the article tell me - Was this *real* child porn? Or was it "under-18 in skimpy clothes" sites? Lots of politicians like to throw around an "entry-level child porn" label when they really mean "about as much skin as you can see at the beach". I'm just wondering what the FTC definition is.

It's not generally advisable to try to find out more about what is classed as child porn -- you could become collateral damage to your own curiosity.

"sold by a court" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32269316)

Computers will be sold with no prior formatting of the hard drives I guess? Bad idea...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>