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!

Porn Site Gave Federal Agents Free Rein

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the turn-out-the-lights-when-you're-done dept.

Crime 319

Frosty Piss writes "The operators of a notorious porn site Free6.com granted federal agents administrative access to the site, giving investigators the ability to monitor traffic and public and private chats in an effort to identify users trading 'a significant amount of child pornography.' Though some bloggers have speculated about whether law enforcement officials have secretly been given administrative access to sites where users have been known to post child pornography (like 4chan), the Free6.com arrangement is apparently the first such compact to be disclosed by investigators."

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

First FAP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505612)

First fap!

Re:First FAP! (0)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506058)

MOAR!

Good excuse (3, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505620)

giving investigators the ability to monitor traffic and public and private chats in an effort to identify users trading 'a significant amount of child pornography.'

-"I swear, chief, it's all part of an effort to catch a gang of child pornographers, that's why I've been browsing that site so much"

Re:Good excuse (4, Funny)

tacarat (696339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506162)

Oh good. I was worried those SEC guys lost their jobs. They just transferred.

This is much ado about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506228)

They were only recruiting to fill some job openings at the TSA.

You could easily tell who were the G-Men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505668)

Really leechy ratios.

I guess they wanted free porn. (2)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505672)

It would be my guess that the men in blue like porn and want it for free.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (4, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505924)

I think it's ridiculous that just possessing an image is illegal. Not only this law utterly fails to curb child abuse and child porn (sans fictional drawings!) production, but it also has the hilarious side effect of my tax money going to pay some dude for perusing 4chan. If you tell me you wouldn't want his job, you must be a girl or something.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (5, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506060)

The vast majority of crap on 4Chan is not worth looking at... whether you're a girl, a boy, or something else entirely.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506376)

something else entirely.

Linetrap?! LINETRAP!

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506866)

Hey now, the channels other then /b/ usually have a decent community. /tg/ for example is a good place to chat about D&D, and /v/ gave Minecraft an awesome word-of-mouth boost. They're communities with quirks, just like Slashdot or Fark.

. . . ok, "decent" may be a bit of a stretch, but they've got some interesting ideas every now and then.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506092)

Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?

The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography. I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same. Hopefully we can agree that abusing children and forcing six year olds into sexual situations is bad, and reducing the occurrence of said abuse is good.

Also, I don't want to be paid to peruse 4chan.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (2)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506280)

I'd rather have pedophiles get their fix by watching child porn movies than by actually going out and doing something to a real child.

I think Japan has the right idea on this, with their simulated porn is ok [wikipedia.org] approach.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506386)

And the children in the movies aren't real?

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (4, Insightful)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506438)

No, they’re not. They’re just pixels. The real children who were filmed have already been hurt and you’re not fixing it. I’m sorry.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506668)

By paying for it, you are encouraging them to make more.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (5, Interesting)

CookieForYou (1945108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506772)

Is there seriously any child porn "industry"?

I know it existed in the 1970s. You could buy it in the back room of bookstores in Manhattan, apparently.

But wasn't most child porn distributed via USENET? How does one go about paying for distributed copies of base7 encoded binary files? And if there was no money being exchanged, should it be legal?

Interesting questions without real answers...

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (5, Interesting)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506824)

False on multiple levels.

First of all, very little money actually changes hands anymore. Secondly, very few pedos do it for money (statistically speaking almost all abuse happens by relatives or family friends, i.e. crime of opportunity, not for profit). Thirdly, the ones who do try to make money tend to get caught. Fourthly, sharing their personal stuff at all is asking to get caught, so all the more reason they don’t want to sell it or give it away.

Source, assuming you can still access it (it was on wikileaks... good luck with that)... and probably also somewhat NSFW... http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks%20%22my%20life%20in%22 [google.com]

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506878)

So if they don't pay for it, it's ok?

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506864)

And why do you think the original child was abused in the first place? To satisfy someones desire for child pornography. Your logic is a bit flawed.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (4, Informative)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506930)

The reason that a rapist rapes women is to satisfy their desire for pornography? I think your logic is flawed.

Snuff films are legal (2)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506282)

There are plenty of videos of people getting killed, there's a series called "Faces of Death" I believe, that was sold commercially.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (5, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506360)

standard disclaimer, child porn is bad, etc etc

> I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same

Citation needed.

I find it hard to believe that throwing someone in jail and ruining their life for having a drawing of Bart Simpson having sex has any beneficial effect. (Here's my citation: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/bart-simpson-child-pornography-and-free-speech/ [nytimes.com] )

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506526)

I find it hard to believe that "illegal" copying of child pornography on the one side encourages production. We've been told for years that "Copy kills music", shouldnt it then also be that "Copy kills child pornography"?

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (5, Interesting)

TheFlamingoKing (603674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506408)

You're going to have to cite your "belief". Most studies I have seen have shown that an increase in pornography has resulted in a decrease in rape and child sexual assault.

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/#ixzz17eM23WmL [the-scientist.com]

Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet. The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. He showed that for the years from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increasingly became available, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level. Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last 2 decades, and in those countries that allowed for the possession of child pornography, child sex abuse has declined.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506880)

The country that allow it are not the country the make it. So it's a poor conclusion regard CP.

CP isn't about consenting adults, it's about kidnapped children who are abused.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506448)

So you've been in law school so long you can't NOT write like a lawyer anymore?

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (2)

Therilith (1306561) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506450)

Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?

(not the OP)
Absolutely.

The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography.

"I wouldn't normally rape that kid, but I would if I could legally upload it and get mad props from random people on the cp-ftw.com forums."
Now buying (or worse yet, commissioning) it is a whole other thing.

I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same.

You "believe that it has been shown"?
Do you have any actual statistics, or are you just making stuff up?

Snuff Films don't exist (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506462)

Snuff films don't exist. Yes, videos of people dying have been found/made - and collections of accidental death footage have been sold to the public, but nothing like the deliberate filming of a murder for sexual gratification. Videos with amazingly realistic special effects have been found (ask Charlie Sheen) but nothing like what is popularly defined as a "snuff" film has ever been found. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp [snopes.com]

Also "I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same." - citation needed. Don't get me wrong, I report all that shit to https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US [missingkids.com] when I see it, but what you suggest is, AFAIK, unproven - as well as the equivalent to arresting citizens for reading classified material on wikileaks.

Re:Snuff Films don't exist (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506572)

No cameras in the execution booth!

Re:Snuff Films don't exist (1)

CookieForYou (1945108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506816)

the equivalent to arresting citizens for reading classified material on wikileaks.

what an interesting analogy.

People reading the leaks must encourage more leaks. This is actually likely true.

Interesting interesting...

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (1)

CookieForYou (1945108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506620)

Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?

They are. In fact, realistic (simulated, of course) death is a regular part of our culture. CREATING a snuff film is certainly illegal, but possessing one is not and has never been, despite people's mistaken assumptions.

The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography. I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same.

Citation needed. I have never heard such a thing. I'm calling shenagins unless you can produce evidence.

Hopefully we can agree that abusing children and forcing six year olds into sexual situations is bad, and reducing the occurrence of said abuse is good.

Yeah, for sure, but does this? I mean other than "well yeah, sure, think about it". I've seen a couple of discussions about this and the conclusion is usually "uhm, we have no idea, really, so might as well do it".

Which seems to me to be an error prone approach (albeit understandable).

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506700)

The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography.

Uh, no. Allowing the SALE of kitty porn does encourage the production of more. How does giving it away for free provide incentive to exploit more children? The way to remove the profit motive for the production of porn is to make it easily available everywhere for free. Prohibition only drives up profits for (unlawful) producers, just as it does for alcohol and drugs.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506770)

There are people who do it for no money at all. How does giving it away freely help?

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (1)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506598)

> I think it's ridiculous that just possessing an image is illegal.

I agree. However, the article is about people distributing, not just possessing.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506852)

Yes, it does help curb CP and CA. I'm not sure where you get your data from.

There are vast amount of studies showing how wrong you are. Please look it up.

Nice story, /b/ro! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505682)

Hey Faggots, My name is John, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are fat, retarded, no-lifes who spend every second of their day looking at stupid ass pictures. You are everything bad in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten any pussy? I mean, I guess it's fun making fun of people because of your own insecurities, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than jerking off to pictures on facebook. Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty much perfect. I was captain of the football team, and starter on my basketball team. What sports do you play, other than "jack off to naked drawn Japanese people"? I also get straight A's, and have a banging hot girlfriend (She just blew me; Shit was SO cash). You are all faggots who should just kill yourselves. Thanks for listening. Pic Related: It's me and my bitch

Re:Nice story, /b/ro! (1)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506026)

Ernie [slashdot.org] , is that you??

a likely post by a known defamatory liar. (-1, Offtopic)

MichaelKristopeit215 (1947006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505692)

"Frosty Piss" has repeatedly falsely accused me of beating my wife and being raped by religious figures and molesting children while in a psychotic delusion.

so, piss, you dont just spend your full days falsely accusing others while fantasizing of them beating their wives and being raped by religious figures and molesting children, while you hold no evidence, but you also spend your days researching police activities into such matters.

UH OH sounds like someone has a bit of a problem....

you're completely pathetic.

Re:a likely post by a known defamatory liar. (0)

zorg50 (581726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505928)

Frosty Piss may be an asshole, but at least his submission is better than any of kdawson's.

Re:a likely post by a known defamatory liar. (0)

MichaelKristopeit181 (1940430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506246)

a defamatory liar with delusional tendencies of fantasizing of the powerless being molested and abused is not simply "an asshole".

you don't seem to understand the difference between submitter and editor

Re:a likely post by a known defamatory liar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506076)

By the looks of it, you were asking for it every step of the way. Take your sob story elsewhere, nobody gives a shit.

Re:a likely post by a known defamatory liar. (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit214 (1947004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506308)

i never asked to be accused of being raped by a religious figure. i never asked to be accused of molesting children or being molested or beating my wife.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

by the looks of it, you are exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

If they want access to something... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505706)

All the have to do is present a National Security Letter, ordering access and binding the site from talking about it. They probably have a lot of such access.

Slashdotted (5, Funny)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505744)

Now we are slashdotting porn sites. I'm ok with paypal or amazon going down, but loss of porn on the internet could cause serious consequences. If the world goes to war over this, don't say I didn't warn you.

Re:Slashdotted (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506298)

Indeed, porn is the glue that holds the internet together.

Re:Slashdotted (4, Funny)

Calydor (739835) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506838)

That's not glue.

throw away the key! (0, Troll)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505752)

if it catches the sickos, I'm for it, I'll even lend the feds my Mossberg if they need to take one by force.

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505792)

if it catches the sickos, I'm for it, I'll even lend the feds my Mossberg if they need to take one by force.

Why not let the boys in blue into your computer room while you're jacking? I mean, it's just so they can make sure you're not fapping to CP, right?

Re:throw away the key! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505916)

Yeah, actually. I've worked with them. In spite of the hatred spewed by the anarchists, the ones I've worked with were very professional, cared deeply about their country and the people they protect, and were honest with me. That being said, I ran everything through legal to make sure.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506352)

It's not just anarchists. It's also those of us that respect and appreciate the constitution. The FBI hasn't exactly gotten that reputation without a lot of work. From the abuses by J. Edgar Hoover to the more recent abuses of the national security letters, the organization hardly has a clean record.

Re:throw away the key! (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit217 (1947010) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505878)

ironically, "Frosty Piss", the submitter of the story, is the "sicko" the feds should be after. the user behind the account has spent the last 48 hours in a manic fury attempting to defame me through lies of child molestation among other things, such as being raped by a religious figure and beating my wife and children.

the thread was ironically their attempt to explain their use of "mental health" days at work which was incorrectly posted to the wrong story.

this site would be wise to remove access from the user. i am capable of taking justice into my own hands.

good choice on the shotgun, i have the 500 short barrel with a pistol grip... i'll be keeping it for myself... i've contributed enough for the feds to buy weaponry of their own.

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505912)

and do you have any proof of these claims?

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505974)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1900220&cid=34504626

Hilarity may ensue. Dude seems to need a lot of accounts...

Re:throw away the key! (0)

MichaelKristopeit217 (1947010) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506168)

you're too stupid to type their name in the search box? [slashdot.org]

about 1 message every 10 minutes for 2 days.

"Frosty Piss" spends their time baselessly accusing others of being rape victims at the hands of the catholic church while also beating their wives and molesting their children.

do you have any proof or reason to believe that i'm lying?

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506238)

In the mean time, you spend your time spewing death threats at anyone who calls you on your bullshit, like a fucking hypocrite.

Nobody cares if you're lying because nobody cares about you, your imaginary gun collection, your imaginary salary, your dump of a house, et cetera.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

MichaelKristopeit211 (1946194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506356)

i respond to lies with the truth... that is not even "like" a hypocrite. you're an idiot.

nobody cares if nobody cares.... you're the ignorant hypocrite.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506698)

you're completely pathetic

cower some more

Dude. You need new lines. These are old already =P

Re:throw away the key! (0)

MichaelKristopeit139 (1947028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506810)

ur mum's face need new lines.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505934)

nothing personal but i dont want to know your business or his.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

MichaelKristopeit170 (1939490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506208)

yet you ignorantly and hypocritically provide your own business?

take it however you want.

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506218)

cool story, troll...

Re:throw away the key! (1)

MichaelKristopeit213 (1947002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506326)

you're an idiot. [slashdot.org]

ur mum's face is troll

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506392)

My mom's DEAD you asshole.

Funny how you dish shit out but can't take it. Keep on cryin'

Re:throw away the key! (0)

MichaelKristopeit189 (1942404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506562)

did i say anything about your "mom"?

you find humor if baseless rape and molestation charges? that is very telling.

??? i'm not crying. i haven't taken anything from anyone... you are exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506470)

Really, I'm convinced he's not a bot per se, but he definitely has an auto-suffix-generator that keeps repeating the same endings to all his posts. It's like a dissociated press algorithm, in that it frequently comes through as pointless drivel, but sometimes is just sublimely hilarious.

But still, a troll is a troll. This specimen's just more amusing than most.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

MichaelKristopeit133 (1947020) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506590)

ur mum's face's just more amusing than most.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:throw away the key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506024)

Thank you for illustrating why the straw man tactic can make morons surrender their rights in response to a threat that doesn't exist.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

MichaelKristopeit211 (1946194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506454)

why have you not claimed an identity? you don't exist.

thank you for not embracing your personal responsibility further empowering those that would take your rights in response to NO ONE WILLING TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:throw away the key! (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506740)

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

'ow 'bout /.? ;) (2)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505892)

What do we, users, know?!

Given A55ange's background this is the place he might have visited.

On Soviet 4chan (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505922)

Blue is in the boys. Ewwww

I'm torn... (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34505926)

On one hand, I like porn. On the other, I only like porn where the women are sexy... which means a woman should look like a woman, not a little girl. (I don't care about the guys, but I find the "Jurrasic cock" series to be inspirational... hey, I'm getting older too!) Anyway, I also happen to love children "in the good way" and don't like the thought of them being exploited. So on one hand, I want people exploiting children to get stopped. (punished is another thing... "helped" might be better) On the other hand, the means and method of doing what they do needs to be carefully administrated and managed. I also recognize that the ends do not always justify the means and that once they do it for one purpose, they will find it easier to do it again for another purpose.... and another and another... getting easier each time.

So... damn... I'm just torn.

Re:I'm torn... (5, Funny)

sakasune (772886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506068)

On one hand, I like porn. On the other

...well, the other hand is busy :P

Re:I'm torn... (2)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506132)

The way I choose to view it, so long as $porn_site decided to, of their own free will, say "Hey feds, have a look at these things and start busting the child porn pervs", that's fine. If the access was requested by the enforcers.... That, I see as going a lot closer to the slippery slope you mention.

Re:I'm torn... (2)

psithurism (1642461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506684)

Why can't the Feds just cut out the middleman at free-porn.gov?

Re:I'm torn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506134)

I'm not torn at all. This is outrageously offensive and wrong. Child porn has nothing to do with it.

Re:I'm torn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506270)

I find the "Jurrasic cock" series to be inspirational...

...getting easier each time...

...So... damn... I'm just torn.

Please watch your language, there are impressionable young federal agents reading this (or might be soon).

Torn? Grease that slope! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506276)

I'm not.

The FBI overstepped.

When we start saying to ourselves, "Well it is to protect children, then it's OK." or "We're under attack and we need to prevent another 9/11" or "We need to take everyone's name down in order to stop this meth crisis!" or whatever, we start a slippery slope.

Think the "slippery slope" is an overused argument? Remember that when you are being felt up by a TSA guy because you were randomly selected for more screening - even though you did absolutely nothing to warrant such extra screening. Or coming into the country and having a some grunt with a badge and gun rifle through your laptop or even seizing it.

In our societal rationalization for these intrusions and spying by our government, we are just greasing that slope.

Better yet, you want to "protect the children"? How about "random" searches of people hard drives or monitoring of all your electronic communications? Or searching people's homes just to make sure they're not making any bombs. They'll do it randomly to make sure they're not singling out any ethnic or religious group.

The IP you were assigned for that day was linked to someone who visited a porn site at one time - doesn't matter that you had it only on one day and were on the Sunday Christian Prayer site. Nope. Someone had it while they were looking at "Young Hairy Fucking Girls". Gotta seize your computers for a full forensic analysis and search your home for any contraband.

Re:I'm torn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506594)

Good comment.

I didn't RTFA, but I think what it boils down to is two things. The first question, obviously, is "did they get a warrant?"; I suppose that the answer is yes, so we've got that covered.

The second question - or rather issue - is that this is a very non-specific form of trying to catch criminals. Compare it with tapping someone's phone, for instance. With a warrant, this is a legal and accepted way of catching criminals. However, it's specific: you only get to tap the phone lines of specific people, those targetted by your proceedings or, perhaps, those you have reasons to believe the target will discuss crimes with (and those reasons will have to convince a judge, too).

What wouldn't considered acceptable in our society would be for the police to e.g. take over the switch room from the phone company and listen to *everyone's* phone conversations. This is also true no matter what the phone company considers acceptable use of its lines and what rights they give themselves in the contract you have with them: your communication enjoys a certain level of protection, even if it's over the phone.

Giving the police access to *everything* that is done on a website, by *all* users, is problematic for the same reason; it's not specific. Even if you have a warrant to do it, it's a sweeping strategy targeting an unknown number of people who're not even specifically suspected of having committed a crime. Even with a warrant, it's wrong.

Re:I'm torn... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506910)

I don't believe a warrant is required. If the website puts a clause in the ToS prohibiting unlawful images, then they have the right to inform the Feds of posters who don't comply with the ToS. I agree, police shouldn't be given access to everything, only the data that some responsible party has good reason to believe is unlawful. And yes, I've never seen a site that doesn't have a disclaimer that says "Don't use this to do anything illegal, or there will be consequences."

By the way, the "wiretapping" laws were put in place to prevent one business for gaining unfair advantage by spying on competitors or even by modifying their communications (some unscrupulous individuals had bribed telegraph operators to do exactly that). They had nothing to do with protecting the privacy rights of individuals. As usual, laws are created by those with money and power for the sole purpose of protecting the status quo, not for the purpose of protecting the disenfranchised.

Re:I'm torn... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506730)

I am not torn at all. The feds having access to everybodies data means that everybody is guilty until proven innocent. You see child porn? You notify the feds. They should get a court order for that specific part of the site that is relevant, not for everything.

The fact that it is a (legal) pornsite or /. is irrelevant. What if I post child porn on this site or a link to child porn? Would you be happy that the feds get root access and are able to see your login AND password?

So absolutely not torn at all.

4chan (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34505930)

You're confusing 4chan with /b/ again. Please don't.

Re:4chan (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506196)

Is there a difference? Does anyone really care? This is just my opinion, but the difference between 'retarded, degraded internet trash" and "retarded, degraded, evil internet trash" is purely academic.

Re:4chan (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506474)

Because /gif/ has never, and never will, post a single immoral or illegal animated gif, by anyones standards.

Re:4chan (1)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506952)

and it never gets posted in completely irrelevant subforums.

OT: what is this, troll day? (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506050)

First an AC rant, then freaking MichaelKristopeitNNN makes an appearance...

Re:OT: what is this, troll day? (-1, Troll)

Mikey Kristopeity (1905328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506338)

i am not a troll. i am michael kristopeit.

would a coward participate in the winter oympics? [ompldr.org]

would a coward go karting down nottingham? [ompldr.org]

would a coward serve his country in iraq? [ompldr.org]

did your mother name you "martas"?

you are a pathetic, ignorant hypocrite.

you are NOTHING.

porn site gave federal agents free reins (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506052)

and stirrups, riding crops, saddles, bridles and other horseplay paraphernalia.

Sheesh. If you can't trust your porn site, ... (3, Insightful)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506082)

oh never mind.

Nothing to see here (5, Informative)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506102)

While Free6.com included a notice warning that the posting of “child pornography or other illegal material” would be reported to “local authorities,” Burdick had site administrators add a line noting that, “Free6.com may disclose these communications to the authorities at its discretion.”

Site says to stop posting inappropriate, illegal material. Site warns that it will report such content to authorities. Site acts on threat.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506898)

saying and implying to will report illegal activity is different then letting authorities have unfetter access to everything.

So. They found a lot of evidence. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506124)

So. They found a lot of evidence. Did they actually solve any crimes? I'm being a bit facetious here.

Child porn is regarded as a crime. IMHO, it ought to be regarded as evidence. If it were legal to posess the evidence, as long as you reported it to law enforcement, then it seems like it would be easier to catch the people that actually shoot the vids/pictures.

As it stands, if I'm taping and happen to catch a shooting in progress, there can be all kinds of blood and gore and stuff; but I'm not guilty of anything simply by being in posession of the tape. Everybody knows that, and most will willingly shares the tape with enforcement so they can convict the bad guys.

OTOH, if I found a tape by the side of the road, stuck it in my VCR and it turned out to be kiddie porn I'd be immediately guilty of posessing kiddie porn. Knowing that, simply destroying it is a likely reaction. It could be that the tape is the only clue they have that would lead them to save the lives of the subjects involved; but because the EVIDENCE is illegal to posess, that won't happen.

Re:So. They found a lot of evidence. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34506618)

This would create a very sticky situation.

On one hand I can see your point, however, if it were not illegal to possess child pornography then abusers would have no problem downloading the stuff (and perhaps more people than currently do would start downloading since it is not illegal) which in turn would create a larger black market for creators of child porn and in turn possibly harming more children in the process, even if there are a few more arrests as a result.

Re:So. They found a lot of evidence. (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506890)

So make a minimal amount 'legal' to hold and ONLY if you contact the police about it, not the other way around. Make it small enough to be a useless defense for the real perps, but large enough that the average guy who stumbled across it can safely contact the police.

Hmm... (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506176)

This porn site seems rather... submissive.

Re:Hmm... (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506530)

This porn site seems rather... submissive.

Very good! Subtle, but good!

'a significant amount of child pornography.' (3, Insightful)

a2wflc (705508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506274)

some people consider an ad for underwear 'a significant amount of child pornography' and our government is more than happy to use that term as an excuse anywhere they can to limit privacy. In this case it probably is accurate. But they also use it to shut down the Christmas Island data sanctuary, snoop on generic internet traffic, argue against apps like TrueCrypt, and on and on. So, I'm against using this argument unless they've done the police work to get a proper court order on a specific target.

Good idea. (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506522)

This is much better than that idea where they'd send you a URL and have you click it and get raided.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34506896)

free6.com is/was a Swedish site, why would they give any federationalists from Mexico, USA, Argentina or some other foreign country anything at all? If they like to keep their site free of child porn, fine, that's a good thing. But isn't that something that should be done by a) their abuse administrator and/or b) the police in their own country?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?