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!

Anonymous Hackers Take Down Child Porn Websites

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the value-to-society dept.

Crime 481

chrb writes "According to Security News Daily, Anonymous has taken down more than 40 darknet-based child porn websites over the last week. Details of some of the hacks have been released via pastebin #OpDarknet, including personal details of some users of a site named 'Lolita City,' and DDoS tools that target Hidden Wiki and Freedom Hosting — alleged to be two of the biggest darknet sites hosting child porn."

cancel ×

481 comments

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

Vigilances (1, Troll)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803392)

So vigilance actions are ok now?

I don't support them, but I sure as well don't support people who take it to their own hands to commit crimes like viruses and DDOS just because other people did wrong. They all should be taken to jail.

Re:Vigilances (3, Interesting)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803426)

I believe the word you were trying to use was Vigilante. As far as I am concerned, this is the first and only thing they have done that actually makes any sense or has any redeeming value.

Re:Vigilances (0)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803468)

So I take it you're a Scientology supporter?

Re:Vigilances (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803664)

He might as well be. Ditto, the individuals involved in busting the creeps.

Has anyone here read any of that "pastebin" material? It reads like what I can only imagine is bad fan-fiction of the most egregious sort. It is nothing short of pitiful.

Re:Vigilances (2, Interesting)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803472)

So if they were bringing down pirates or The Pirate Bay, would you support them as well? They're against the law too.

Anonymous vs Anonymous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803578)

And in other news today : Anonymous hack Anonymous into oblivion for their illegal hacking activities.

Re:Vigilances (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803598)

The Pirate Bay does not host any illegal content as such, it is sharing links on a P2P network.
The only thing they can have against piratebay is that they facilitate sharing illegal stuff.
But then you can argue that the bittorrent protocol is also facilitating and by extension every internet protocol such as HTTP and FTP.
Besides, can you really IP a string of bytes ?
if you say yes ... then my IP protects : 0110 0101 or 65 Hex or for the layman, the letter e in ascii.
All your 'e' belong to us !

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803642)

And here comes the layman's response: there is no letter 'e' in 'ascii'.

Re:Vigilances (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803722)

Really ? Then why does it sounds like asc-e ? :-)

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803892)

But then you can argue that the bittorrent protocol is also facilitating and by extension every internet protocol such as HTTP and FTP.

That's stretching it. HTTP and FTP aren't designed around sharing illegal files. The pirate bay is.

Re:Vigilances (1, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803656)

I approve of taking down the child porn sites because CP is disgusting and wrong; not simply because it's illegal.

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803512)

I believe the word you were trying to use was Vigilante.

Damn the AutoCorrect!

Re:Vigilances (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803698)

I believe the word you were trying to use was Vigilante.

Damn the AutoCorrect!

A good carpenter never blames his tools.

Re:Vigilances (-1, Troll)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803586)

TechLA's Microsoft shill software doesn't have spellcheck. I think this is a new Microsoft strategy to have their paid astroturfers comment on other posts to look more legitimate to the non observant.

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803828)

Either answer his points or shut up. Who cares where he's posting from? Does it make the points made less valid? No, it doesn't.

Calling people names is just a replacement for making a valid argument.

Re:Vigilances (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803430)

Sometimes in order to win wars you have to kill. In a way we are fighting a war against people who doesn't wish the internet to be free. ANONYMOUS, as much we love to hate them, are the extreme version of this ideology. When someone is fighting you with nuclear weapons I'm afraid martial arts can do you so little, hence the need ( in there opinion) for drastic measures such as DDOS and viruses. just think of them as the Dark Knight of the internet.

Re:Vigilances (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803440)

Vigilante actions were always ok. Anyone who says otherwise, I will enforce my justice on them!

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803688)

Enforce some vigilante actions on Microsoft shills like TechLA then.

Re:Vigilances (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803442)

when the cops abuse their authority with impunity in front of everyone and there's no repercusions
when the rich and powerful get more rich and more powerful by trampling on others in complicity with self serving politicians
when the judges consider smoking pot and stealing food way worse than ruining the economy of a nation in the name of profits

yes, vigilance must come

Re:Vigilances (1, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803456)

A DDOS, if properly executed, is the digital equivalent of a sit-in. If the machines used were hacked however, it's a lot harder to justify. But if you run a public server, and the public decides to all use the server at the same time, it's hard to classify that as vigilantism.

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803500)

No it's not. A sit-in won't cost you money because of all the added, useless, traffic. The public deciding to use your server all at once is not a DOSS attack.

A DOSS attack is the absolute lowest form of internet protest.

Re:Vigilances (0)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803800)

No it's not. A sit-in won't cost you money because of all the added, useless, traffic. The public deciding to use your server all at once is not a DOSS attack.

A DOSS attack is the absolute lowest form of internet protest.

I don't understand your post at all. At best, it's hopelessly incoherent. I expect you intended to say "DDOS". Beyond that, I'm less sure.

Thousands of people who don't buy anything showing up at a lunch counter, will interfere with said counter's business.

Thousands/millions/??? of packets showing up at a paid up server, will cost nothing but lost future sales/business, assuming your admin has any sort of clue.

Did you mean "lowest" as in "mildest"? If so, I agree.

Re:Vigilances (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803506)

Its not a sit-in.

When you try a sit in you take one place. When you DDOS you're using much more resources on purpose. So is the equivalent of sitting in and bringing 100 extra spaces with you.

Re:Vigilances (4, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803470)

Laws don't apply to the powerful, so why respect them at all?

Obey or disobey as expedient.

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803504)

murderers kill people, therefore we should too?

ok.

Re:Vigilances (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803564)

>murderers kill people, therefore we should too?

So far as I can tell, that *is* the argument for both the death penalty and modern wars.

Re:Vigilances (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803652)

murderers kill people, therefore we should too?

ok.

Actually, no--this is much closer by analogy to self-defense. Murderers kill people, and so when a murderer seriously threatens your life, it is okay to fight back.

The difference is that here the harm is much more diffuse, so more difficult to quantify, and the same things that creates harm have redeeming value as well. However, realistically, that thing is so institutionally entrenched that it is hard to see meaningful change being accomplished through the expedient of writing your Congressperson, for example. Defacing systems, while certainly not terribly moral, is also not something likely to injure anyone. (There is a slightly higher risk of causing consequential harm to real people when taking down police websites, but since we have the fairly universal 911 system in North America, it is not much higher.) The real result is (1) economic harm, perhaps amounting to as much as a few million bucks, (2) a bit of news coverage, (3) incentivizing people to run secure websites and (4) giving the clamp-down-on-the-internet-people an enemy they can point at.

From a utilitarian perspective, the question is whether the gain from (2) and (3) exceed the cost of (1) and (4), which is of course hard to quantify. Anonymous also does not really care about (1), meaning that there's a negative externality which they are not factoring into their calculus. (3) is great, but obviously (4) is problematic. I suppose you also have (5), the personal consequences of getting caught.

From a moral perspective, obviously it becomes more problematic. At that point, the question becomes whether the likely gain to society as a whole makes it worth the individual's cost in becoming a lawbreaker--which, of course, is a huge no-no. It is also possible to do the Miltonian "differences of kind rather than degree" morality, in which case one simply cannot break the law, even when it is the best thing for the largest number of people. This is where Eve biting an apple is as bad as leading a third of the host of heaven into open war against God--not terribly persuasive, but still a morality that many people believe they embrace. (The same people often tell white lies, of course.)

Re:Vigilances (2, Interesting)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803474)

So vigilance actions are ok now?

I don't support them, but I sure as well don't support people who take it to their own hands to commit crimes like viruses and DDOS just because other people did wrong. They all should be taken to jail.

Whenever children, especially child pornography are involved, the spoken opinion of most of society is "yes."

Re:Vigilances (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803806)

A witch hunt... for the children!

Re:Vigilances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803486)

Fine, you are right. This is wrong. On the global list of wrongs today I put this pretty far down on the list of "bad things." Please excuse me if I prefer to shed my tears for other atrocities going on in the world. I am not going to get too worked up over this one, although I prefer it does not spread. This is a bad thing in general but hardly the example I want to use as to why it is bad.

Re:Vigilances (1, Interesting)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803510)

I am 100% fine with vigilantism against child pornography.

Re:Vigilances (3, Interesting)

leathered (780018) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803588)

It's fine until a pediatrician has her home attacked, like what happened in the UK. We may well complain about injustice at the hands of the authorities, but vigilantes are far more likely to target the innocent.

Re:Vigilances (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803630)

But in this case, the target is correctly identified.

Excuse me if I don't shed a tear.

>but vigilantes are far more likely to target the innocent.

Citation needed, as they say on Wikipedia.

--
BMO

Re:Vigilances (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803804)

If you were working for anonymous, and wanted to screw someone over ,how difficult would it be to add someone's name to the list ?
It's easy to convince a group of people to lynch someone. History is full of examples like that.

While i think it's a good thing they took down those sites, i wouldn't trust the data just because it came from Anonymous.
That raises another question : how do you know it's Anonymous, and not some copycat ? ( I'm sure it is the real Anonymous though , but how can you know for sure ?)

Re:Vigilances (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803876)

This is a DDoS. It's not a lynching. Comparing a DDoS to a lynching devalues and denigrates the memories of those who were actually lynched.

I'm sorry if I can't find some sympathy, but I can't. Nope, not even a smidge. And coming from a background on the internet where we used to take care of our own problems, I don't even see this as abnormal or even slightly unethical. There are those who should suffer the Internet Death Penalty, and child pornographers and their deliberate have always been on that list.

--
BMO

Re:Vigilances (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803894)

I accidentally a word there.

Insert "enablers" after "deliberate"

--
BMO

Re:Vigilances (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803566)

I don't support them, but I sure as well don't support people who take it to their own hands to commit crimes like viruses and DDOS just because other people did wrong. They all should be taken to jail.

That's your prerogative. I on the other hand have a hard time respecting authorities and laws when most authorities these days just think about lining their pockets and side with large, multinational corporations instead of thinking of the general populace. That said, I mostly abide by the "don't harm other people unless they themselves are harming other people for their own advancement and/or pleasure" and what Anonymous did this time fits that bill perfectly.

I gotta admit though that I was pretty surprised by this news. What Anonymous did here is something I heartily condone of, but it still doesn't make me like them, they've simply pulled way too many stupid things over the years.

Re:Vigilances (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803744)

What Anonymous did here is something I heartily condone of, but it still doesn't make me like them, they've simply pulled way too many stupid things over the years.

I don't, it would have been much more effective to have turned what they had over to the FBI. The FBI would have put people in prison, Anonymous just tipped off the purps that their cover wasn't deep enough. Anonymous is good at making a lot of noise but all the "bad guys" have to do is wait until their ritalin soaked ADHD brains gets bored and they move on to something else.

Re:Vigilances (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803820)

Considering Anonymous' past history, I'd say it's likely that part of the reason they did it was to shame the FBI. After all, why hasn't the FBI shut the sites down and arrested the pedos themselves?

Re:Vigilances (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803592)

These sort of , like any other action , are right or wrong depending on context.
In this case ,the vigilance is about as right as beating up a perv trying to talk a kid into coming with him or something

Re:Vigilances (0)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803658)

Wild guess: you are against vigilantes like these, but pro-guns, amirite?

Ah to have such a simple mind (0)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803706)

It must be comforting to have such a limited mind as TechLA. The law is the law and it has to be obeyed at all costs (although I am willing to bet TechLA has a large number of traffic tickets and other stuff where he considered the law not to apply to him).

In the real world where there are many shades of gray the difference between hooliganism, vigilantism, rebellion and terrorism are often blurred. Many a freedom fighter has been called a terrorist. Often by the same side in their own life time.

Anonymous is upsetting the status quo, they are doing things others rather wish they didn't do. It depends on your own allegiance to those "others" what you think of Anonymous. OR on your desire to have the status quo continue uninterrupted because you don't want your boat rocked.

GODWIN ALERT.

Ich habe es nicht gewust (to any Germans wanting to complain about the spelling, remember, you lost) is not just uttered by Nazi's and their symphatizers who don't have the guts to stand up for what they believe. It is used by those that chose to look the other way. None so blind as those that don't want to see.

A while back there was a lot to do about a surveillance camera showing a toddler in China being hit by a car and left injured on the ground by an endless stream of passerby's and even driving over by another car. What kind of person could possible do that? Is it a chinese thing? No. All these people were people like TechLA. People that didn't want their little lives interrupted for even one second. It is not even that they are evil through actions, they probably comforting their empty souls with the thought, "Somebody else will fix it." I am not doing anything but surely someone else will so that is okay then.

All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing... TechLA is not a good man, he is a moral vacuum. While the real world has many greys that doesn't mean you can comfortable color yourself gray and say "Ich have es nicht gewust".

Anon has taken it upon itself to fight things it thinks it is wrong. Are they greenpeace? Slave liberators? Nazi-hunters? Or are they moral commitees? Witch-hunters? Free slave hunters? Are they jews fighting for their own homeland or palestinians fighting for their own? Is what they are fighting for good or bad? Depending on what you call it you make the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

Anon is in this instance fighting child porn producers (this is no "harmless" p2p users, the attacked forum users tend to exchange self made child porn). It is for me very hard to therefor not call Anonymous in this instance Freedom fighters.

TechLA either think childporn is good OR he just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of people fighting for a good cause. Either way, he is a morally reprehensible person. You can think differently but ask yourself WHY anon's action are really upsetting you so much.

Re:Ah to have such a simple mind (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803826)

TechLA either think childporn is good OR he just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of people fighting for a good cause.

False dilemma. Perhaps he just doesn't want to run the risk of vigilantes harming innocents (they may target the right people sometimes, but not always). Or some other reason that hasn't been thought of. Who knows?

Re:Vigilances (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803766)

So vigilance actions are ok now?

Wouldn't that depend on who you ask?

Brain explode (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803398)

Wow- maybe they can do something good, afterall! Hmm... wait, my brain is going to explode now. Moral........compass...........is............frelled . . . .

Re:Brain explode (5, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803496)

It's easier to think about them as an unguided mass that will attack targets at random. Sometimes the targets are assholes and people will cheer for them, but that doesn't make them freedom fighters. They reverted back to trolls some time ago.

Too funny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803404)

Losers trolling losers. It's like a battle of retards, except.. Well, it's just a battle of retards.

And no chance of mistaken identity... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803414)

I mean, who wouldn't use false credentials if they were into that sorta thing? Someone is gonna get wrapped up in a lynching who doesn't have the foggiest idea as to why, watch. It's a PR stunt to try to make Anon look like more than a group of petty thugs, as if their ideals deserved attention or merit. Frankly, they can all DIAF.

Is someone really going to cry about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803438)

Now the next step is to use their members' emails to find their facebook accounts and out them there. Could be a fun couple of weeks.

Re:Is someone really going to cry about this? (2)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803644)

Right. Until they release someone's personal info who made the mistake of not securing his wifi.

good stuff.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803450)

Anonymous seem to have found their calling in life .. perfect fit really

Tabloid Newspapers (3, Funny)

zcomuto (1700174) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803482)

The quality of the journalists for Tabloids will be tested with this one, how will they manage to spin this into saying it was an awful tragedy and no one thinks of the children? Assuming they don't just say hacking causes cancer, or something.

Covering up (2)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803522)

Well, so they took down those "porn" websites, but one has to ask, why the authorities have done nothing, preferring to sit on their backsides? Politicians or police using such sites and they want to cover it up?

Re:Covering up (2, Insightful)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803580)

Well, so they took down those "porn" websites, but one has to ask, why the authorities have done nothing, preferring to sit on their backsides? Politicians or police using such sites and they want to cover it up?

My guess would be a matter of jurisdiction - can't take down sites outside their country.

Re:Covering up (2)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803710)

No it's easy to leave them up and use them as the excuse for internet censorship. Like we are doing in Australia.

Re:Covering up (3, Insightful)

pyrosine (1787666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803716)

Are you kidding me? Have you seen the amount of attempts by countries trying to take down sites far outside their jurisdiction? Just look at the example of the pirate bay - endless american entities attempting to take down a swedish site. So what do they do? Alter political will in that country to bend it to their will - something that was actually shown to have happened in the leaked cables.

Re:Covering up (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803902)

TFA says they released a list with thousands of identities of pedophiles that haunt these sites. Why don't the authorities of the countries they reside in arrest them? Not many governments condone raping children.

Re:Covering up (5, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803790)

Well, so they took down those "porn" websites, but one has to ask, why the authorities have done nothing, preferring to sit on their backsides? Politicians or police using such sites and they want to cover it up?

Sigh. Quality of Slashdot readership is steadily going down.

These were TOR [torproject.org] sites. That means that the hosting servers are near impossible to track because the TOR network is meant to allow for anonymous hosting.

Subsequently, unless you manage to globally packet-inspect the entire Internet (which is the very thing that the child-porn crusaders advocate, along with introducing a totalitarian global police state to "protect the children") or somehow crack in and identify the location of these servers from whatever data is within, you cannot even tell what country they are in.

Freedom Hosting is an extreme libertarian host service, with 0% censorship rules, which is meant to host sites of political dissidents and other web contents that is likely to get you killed by a mob of raving religious lunatics for breaking whatever taboo in whatever nut-infested country you happen to live.

So Anonymous cracked into some sites hosted on Freedom Hosting and defaced them, stole some meaningless login ids (like those of people logging in with the names of their least-liked politicians or neighbours) and did not even get the IP addresses of the servers or the users because on the TOR network they would be meaningless.

End result: upgraded and hardened CP sites on TOR.

This action defines the very concepts of "pointless", "futile" and "counterproductive". Which not very surprising since it is usually the fate of all vigilante witch-hunts in the long run ...

This is the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803528)

Normal rules don't apply, good on them I say.

Wierd (-1, Troll)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803530)

I mean isn't anonymous pretty widely recognized as being associated with the child porn website 4chan?

Re:Wierd (2)

clintp (5169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803550)

>I mean isn't anonymous pretty widely recognized as being associated with the child porn website 4chan?

Yes, in the same way that Princeton University is widely recognized as being associated with The Jersey Shore.

Re:Wierd (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803736)

Most of the graduates from Princeton that I've met are just like the cast of Jersey Shore.

Re:Wierd (5, Interesting)

Zaldarr (2469168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803552)

Oh no. They hate the bastards. CP'ers DO use 4chan, but only to be met with a hailstorm of shit. They even got a guy a while ago, got his details and put the cops on his arse. So this I guess is a continuation on that theme of internet vigilante-ism. Hell, Pedo bear was created to MOCK CP'ers. 4chan and anon is responsible for a lot of things, good and bad, but CP is not one of them. I am not a channer by the way; I'm just sayin'.

Re:Wierd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803576)

cp is now forbidden on 4chan and gets reported

Re:Wierd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803584)

I mean isn't anonymous pretty widely recognized as being associated with the child porn website 4chan?

People are always laying blame on hackers for anything they disagree with. Don't believe everything you hear. Look only at what they DO, not rumours that are likely spread by people who want you to think all hackers are evil.

Re:Wierd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803594)

4chan is a anarchistic website with occasional posts from people who seem to be into CP...

i once posted my pamphlet on 4chan how we need to kill all Christians after the molestation cases in the christian church and was banned for an hour... so maybe there are many CP people on 4chan.. :O

Re:Wierd (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803674)

Or maybe they're just not into advocating genocide.

Nope (3)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803754)

4chan is hardly a child-porn website. Just that if you allow anonymous image postings, the child porn trolls soon follow. You might as well call Slashdot the GNAA hideout. Or a libertarian website.

Anontalk is a "splinter" group that does heavily favor free speech, totally unrestricted free speech... trouble is that there really isn't that much to speak about in the west except endless silly conspiracies. The only really censored type of speech is related to child porn. So... what do you? Either you have free speech and child porn is part of it, or you don't. Yahoo by the way hosts far more child porn, depending on what you call child porn? Does the art of David Hamilton qualify? It does for some.

Any posted child porn is quickly removed of 4chan but the nature of a public board is that the users really create the content. 4chan has a board for beautifull women. It USED to be mostly asian models because 4chan is a copy of the japanese 2chan board. But over time more and more people used it who had an almost insane hatred of anything non-white. Now the board is filled with "amateur" (read to ugly to be paid) western women. Users deciding content.

So is 4chan about porn then?

If you consider lolcats porn, then yes. 4chan is better known for endless lolcats then child porn which frankly in quite a few years of occasional use I have only seen in the form of deleted posts. Then again, I never ventured into /b/

Hidden Services (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803536)

It is likely that there are many more child pornography hidden services out there, that are not publicly listed. The hidden services architecture makes it difficult to say how many hidden services there are, and I doubt that the worst child porn websites are keen on being publicly listed.

My question is who noticed... (1)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803538)

...to report that these child porn sites were taken down.

Re:My question is who noticed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803610)

Read over the article again boss.

Verification? (5, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803542)

How are we even going to know whether or not this is true? Nobody in their right mind would try to verify whether those sites were taken down or not, and even if they did, they sure wouldn't talk about it publicly, what with the risk of the cops showing up just for visiting those sites. Anonymous can pretty much say whatever they want about this with impunity.

Re:Verification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803874)

Only requesting the front page is sufficient without actually requesting any images, that way it's completely legal.

You can put some browsers in text only mode, use a command line browser or use specific tools for that purpose...

All of your are disgusting and immoral (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803546)

You know the vast majority of pedophiles were also abused as children, right?

They suffered as much as you did as a child and now you're taking delight in them being denied their porn. They were likely abused and had hard lives, it's kind of sick to think that assholes like you are out there just waiting for them to suffer more.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803624)

You know the vast majority of pedophiles were also abused as children, right?

That does not, and will never, excuse them doing the same, or taking delight or being aroused at it happening to others. Now go fuck yourself with barbed wire.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (1)

Worthless_Comments (987427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803636)

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (2)

flosofl (626809) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803638)

Wah! The child-raper is a victim.

Fuck that. Child-rapers, while *perhaps* having been victimized as children, still had a choice as adults. They chose wrong.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803728)

We need to control these people, but assuming their brains are physiologically capable of making that choice just makes people want to punish them pointlessly.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803864)

Maybe we like punishing them because we're sadistic bastards ourselves and find child pornographers a conveniently defenseless target we can abuse freely.

After all, who would dare defend them?

Some say aggression is a basic need, and if it is why not go after creeps that nobody likes anyway?

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (1)

ACE209 (1067276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803830)

..., still had a choice as adults. They chose wrong.

I'm not sure if those people really have a choice.
It seems you can't choose your sexual urges.
At least I can't choose to not get a boner if a beautiful woman undresses in front of me.

Perhaps instead of demonizing those people we should offer them help to control their urges before they really produce more victims.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (1)

stabiesoft (733417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803654)

So are you saying it is better to let the cycle continue and not stop the pedophile? I hope not.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803692)

So the solution is to abuse more children to make child porn to placate them? That's a pretty fuckin odd argument.

Re:All of your are disgusting and immoral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803888)

The solution is to euthanize children who have been abused. That should eventually put a pretty big dent in the child abusing population.

Just wow (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803762)

Insane much? Child porn is now a right if you have been abused?

Even a UN human rights advocate wouldn't go that far... yet.

I thought they were supposed to be controversial (4, Interesting)

loafing_oaf (1054200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803570)

So they're tackling the only issue about which there is absolutely no debate, just like cable news anchors. Does Anonymous have a PR department now, improving their image?

NO THEY DIDNT (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803596)

http://www.vatican.va/

still up

Keep up the good work. (1)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803602)

Child porn people are one of those groups I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for. If Anonymous wants to lay the beat down on their ass I hope the cops let it slide. I know it's not just or legal, and it only encourages them, but this time I just don't care.

If someone told me a child molester died in a tragic car accident, you can bet I would dispute the word 'tragic'.

I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction.
~Mark Twain

Great PR tactic (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803616)

This tactic could work if it they relentlessly keep doing it and gets it publicized. Fighting pedophiles is tried and true way to win support for almost anything.

Next time some politician attack Anonymous:

- Oh you are attacking Anonymous?
- How come you, they are protecting our CHILDREN!

awsome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803632)

freakin champions !

Why are people surprised? (2)

dbrian1 (522049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803646)

I'm not sure why people are surprised. The general collective has always seemed to have a conscience. Their tactics may be illegal but they generally push forward a righteous agenda. Protesting rigged Iranian elections, exposing BofA corruption, defending WikiLeaks and in general defending free speech. I'm not saying they are saints or that they are justified in their actions, just that this fits their m.o.

I'm not sure how you justify the Sony attacks but I'm sure it had something to do with corporate greed and perceived threats to free speech.

Re:Why are people surprised? (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803748)

If they're targeting The Hidden Wiki, how is that "having a conscience"? The Hidden Wiki is not a porn site, it's a wiki site which has links to other hidden sites. It's like DDoSing Google because they are a "child porn website"...

Re:Why are people surprised? (0)

noems (942524) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803796)

Have you ever visited 4chan ??? if you don't understand that question then I can't help.

Don't worry (-1, Flamebait)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803650)

Don't worry, they won't be releasing any names. If they did, most of their own group would end up in jail.

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803702)

Wow, calling the whole of Anonymous paedos whilst not posting as AC?

That could best be described as "unwise".

Like "poking a hornets' nest with a stick" levels of unwise.

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803756)

Then 1589 Anonymous Pedobears will go to jail.

Good! (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803676)

Well, I guess you could say in some mixed up way they are doing "some" good. I don't like the idea of it being taken down unless it is a lawful order, but these sites are just plain wrong.

Vigilante society? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803764)

Call me what you will... but is this _really_ good news??

I mean, I'm all for dancing on child rapist's graves and stuff... but most people here are inteligent enough to see how Child Porn has (and still is, look at recent blackbox article) being used to pretty much justify anything normally unacceptable.

Here, we are seeing a group of hackers who may or may not have good intentions doing just the same... it's nothing short of social and political Karma whoring at its worst, sending messages suggesting that perhaps a vigilante society would be acceptable... or even good!

I am more than a little worried.

been there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803852)

we use to do this back in the late 90s. no one ever calls the fuzz to say their child porn site was hacked so it provided a good testing ground for intrusion skills. we always made sure any membership data was sent to the feds and to cps.

Who empowered Anonymous? (1)

Cat_Herder_GoatRoper (2491400) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803858)

What Anonymous does is wrong no matter who they are attacking. They are trying to gain support for their group by attacking something that is considered wrong by 99% of the people. Who appointed them to be the moral compass of the Internet? No one did! On the other hand why aren't the law enforcement organizations of the world not taking out these known exploiters of children?

But is the evidence legal? (1)

FyberOptic (813904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803896)

It's important to remember that just because Anonymous takes responsibility for something, it in no way means it's the same collective of individuals responsible for some other action under the name. That's both the advantage and disadvantage to using that umbrella to cover your actions. There was just a news story the other day of Anonymous hacking another police station. Can people find justification for that nearly as easily as shutting down child porn? What stops a judge from charging an individual with every crime ever done under the Anonymous name even if they were only personally responsible for a petty one? And let's not forget that parts of Anonymous are involved in child porn themselves, whether that's 5-year-old girls or "jailbait."

Anyway, the question though is how do police deal with this information, and how does a lawyer prevent it from being thrown out of court due to its questionable origin?

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>