OSDN : SourceForgeShop ThinkGeekfreshmeatNewslettersTechJobsSlashdot Broadband Search »   X 
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Welcome to Slashdot Slashdot.org Hardware Patents Announcements Apache
 Login
 Why Login?
 Why Subscribe?

 Sections
 Main
 Apache
 Apple
 Askslashdot
  1 more
 Books
 BSD
 Developers
 Games
  11 more
 Interviews
 Science
  3 more
 YRO
 
 Help
 FAQ
 Bugs

 Stories
 Old Stories
 Old Polls
 Topics
 Hall of Fame
 Submit Story

 About
 Supporters
 Code
 Awards

 Services
 Broadband
 Online Books
 PriceGrabber
 Product News
 Tech Jobs
 IT Research

Gnutella's Wall Of Shame?
Privacy Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday May 04, @12:30PM
from the ah-yes-a-distributed-system dept.
Sleen pointed us to a ZD story about ZeroPaid.com's Wall of Shame. Its pretty amusing actually: since gnutella is truly distributed, you know the IP of people who download things from you. ZeroPaid is posting the IPs of people who try to download their faked kiddie porn. This is an obvious side effect of using a totally distributed application to distribute information: the information can be distributed like wildfire, but the privacy concerns are significant.

Employers Logging Keystrokes-What Can You Do? | SCO Answers Questions About Linux  >

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Go Create One. A user account will allow you to customize all these nutty little boxes, tailor the stories you see, as well as remember your comment viewing preferences.

Related Links
  • ZDNet
  • Sleen
  • ZD story
  • ZeroPaid.com
  • More on Privacy
  • Also by CmdrTaco
  • This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
    by atomly (atomly@dontspamatomly.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:39PM EDT (#2)
    (User Info) http://www.atomly.com/
    This is somewhat amusing but I don't get what they're really trying to prove. It seems they think they're fighting some sort of actual crusade this way. I agree that child pornography is a terrible thing, but this is just silly. It would be much worse, of course, if anybody tried to do anything with these lists (which I'm sure is not far off). Maybe I should set one up that logs the IP of everybody who downloads faked Country or Boy Band MP3s from me. :)
    -- atomly :: atomly(at)atomly(dot)com :: http://www.atomly.com/
    Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
    by helarno on Thursday May 04, @01:17PM EDT (#55)
    (User Info)

    It seems they think they're fighting some sort of actual crusade this way.

    In a sense they are. Pedophiles are so hated and hunted that just logging the IPs should be enough to scare the vast majority of them off the main net. Of course someone will try to use those IP nums to hunt these people down (ye old FBI) and chances are, they will actually find these people. I happen to like the benefits of this approach.

    It does disturb me a little that it is possible to keep tabs on people this way, but in the end, accountability for one's actions is a good thing. It's been said many times by others: if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. Accountability is good, unless you're an anarchist :)

    We have the possibility of losing a little privacy this way, but face it: no big corporation is going to be able to make much use of this information. Only law-enforcement types can. The main reason is because it is too much bother to do so ... most of us have dynamic IPs (even my DSL link) and the only way to get the information on the person at that IP at that moment is with the cooperation of the ISP. Can you imagine your local ISP bending over backwards to help out double-click on this? I don't think so.

    Hmmm ... then again, AOL could do something, if they aren't already ...


    Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @03:01PM EDT (#144)
    'Ye Old FBI' could not do anything. As these pictures do not contain porn then the law has not been broken. What if someone wanted a picture of a school girl for a web site and downloaded schoolgirl.jpg? They would be branded as a 'Pedo'. Thats Libel. Under UK law the ISP (who published the page) would be held responsible. Even downloading a picture with an incriminating name is not illegal, as it just tells them they have been 'busted'.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by Hentai on Friday May 05, @06:06PM EDT (#385)
    (User Info) http://vwep.telefragged.com
    Okay. A disclaimer before you read this, which SHOULDN'T be necessary, but years of getting slammed for voicing my opinions has indicated otherwise:

    I am posting this publically and non-anonymously because I am not afraid to stand behind what I say. The email address above is my real e-mail, so anyone who decides to respond to my opinion by mail-bombing me, finding my IP and teardropping me, or hunting me down through my ISP and harrassing me/turning me in/threatening me is perfectly capable of doing so. All the same, I'd like to hope that you WOULDN'T. I'm perfectly willing to listen to logic and am reasonably capable of holding an intelligent debate, and I find acts of violence in resposne to an unpopular opinion rather distasteful. I hope you do too.

    That being said, this entire situation sickens me - but for the opposite reasons. The problem here isn't child porn (in most cases), it's child porn laws, and worse, the culture that finds them necessary. It isn't sex with minors, it's statutory rape and "unlawful sex with a minor" laws, and worse, the culture that finds them necessary. If I haven't lost you let, hear out my reasons.

    Our culture treats sex and alcohol more or less the same. It's something that you're not allowed to do until you're a certain age, at which point you can do whatever the hell you want. We don't try to convince our kids to act responsibly, we try to keep them unable to act at all. This is coercive and ultimately disrespectful to them.

    My views on sexuality are admittedly a bit skewed. I recognize that humans past the age of puberty are inherently sexual creatures. That's the whole point of what puberty IS, right? The sexual maturation of the mammalian body? Any biologists out there, please feel free to give me any information on this. Anyways. The point is, once puberty has been reached, focus should be on educating minors (if you're under 18, you're a minor. If you're under puberty, you're a child. I will use these definitions throughout this post, so pay attention) on making mature choices for themselves, and not being afraid or ashamed of their bodies, their desires, or their needs. The sort of neurotic self-loathing that is induced by our society's fear-attraction of sex CREATES most of our sexual deviances, including pedophilia, incest, and rape. If we were allowed to act rationally and maturely on our desires instead of repressing them out of half-dead moral fears from thousand-year-old religions, maybe we'd all be a lot more relaxed and a lot less violent.

    My personal guidelines on sex are much more stringent than most. If I love a girl, and she loves me, and we're both capable of realizing and maturely understanding this, I don't care if she's 14 or 40 - sex with her would be a precious and beautiful thing. If we aren't, then I don't care if she's 14 or 40 - sex with her would just be wrong. Now, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with casual sex. I'm merely saying that there's something VERY wrong with casual sex FOR ME, which is a decision I was perfectly capable of coming to at age 13, and before I had lost my virginity. What other people wish to do is their own business, and those who don't know should be allowed to find out in a nurturing and safe environment.

    Love and sex should NEVER be used as a weapon, by ANYONE, on ANYONE. I don't care if you're 14 or 40. Sex is fun. For that matter, when done RIGHT, sex is the ultimate spiritual union between two (or more) people. I firmly believe that sex should bring us closer to God. It should not be cheapened. You want to do some good in the world? Stop imposing these neurotic restrictions on people and start teaching them to love each other instead of hate each other - or worse, see each other as disposable tools to use and discard at their leisure.

    On another note, if all the intense energy that people focus towards hunting down purveyors of child pornography and 21-year-olds with 14-year-old girlfriends was instead focused towards hunting down men who rape their 7-year-old daughters and women who force their own 10-year-old daughter to go down on her 7-year-old daughter to make a child porn video (all three children, btw, are people I have personally known), I think we'd find ourselves with a lot less sexually fucked-up people in the next generation. Most of the sexual problems I know of start in the home. I could care less what two people, both past puberty, do with each other as long as noone walks away feeling worse for the experience. If someone does, then we need to look closely at who's to blame - society for making us guilty, one of the two for forcing themselves on the other, or someone else who damaged one of their sexual identities and self-esteem?

    Here's the sort of society I'd like to see:

    Upon the onset of puberty (first menstration or first erection), the child is taken aside and calmly and lovingly explained the basics of sex by both of their parents. They must be explained all possible consequences of their actions, and shown this explicitly. They should be allowed to go to others for further information without fear of punative action on either party. After this, the minor should be allowed to make up their own mind, through reason and experience, on what they want to do.

    Repeat after me, people: Being male is not a crime. Being female is not a crime.

    Sex is not a crime.
    -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by jejones on Friday May 05, @09:14PM EDT (#392)
    (User Info)
    No, it doesn't mean that. Care to bet that someone hasn't already set up a web page with a link that reads "K00L WAR3Z, D00D!" and links to the child porn bait, with the goal of tricking someone into getting his IP posted as the address of a supposed pedophile? I'm amazed at people here bashing The Wave, but defending this, which lends itself just as easily to abuse.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
    by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:02PM EDT (#147)
    (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/
    > It's been said many times by others: if you have
    > done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be
    > afraid of. Accountability is good, unless you're
    > an anarchist :)

    Well actually I am an anarchist and I am all for
    acountability. However, I am certainly against
    this type of tactics.

    This reminds me of those right-to-lifers who
    stand in front of Clinics that perform abortions
    and take down the licence plate numbers of EVERY
    person who enters the clinic....
    then they take the licence plate numbers, find out
    who ownes the vehicle and harass them...never
    mind that they may have only gone to the clinic
    for counseling, or some other procedure, they
    get harassed just for parking in the parking lot
    and entering. (by harassed I mean recieve packets
    with pictures of stillborn babies that have been
    mislabeled as fetuses for impact and called
    "baby killers" etc)

    As far as using this information...well its not
    as hard as you might think. Require a valid
    email adress to get a "password" or any number of
    sinister methods. Call the ISP and demand the name
    of the user who had that IP...claim that they were
    distributing illegal copies of some IP you own,
    need to know who to sue.

    Never mind that ALL they did was download a file.
    You have no idea whatsoever what their intentions
    were. You have no idea what they thought the file
    was.
    -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by NerveGas on Thursday May 04, @06:50PM EDT (#229)
    (User Info)
    This reminds me of those right-to-lifers who stand in front of Clinics that perform abortions and take down the licence plate numbers of EVERY person who enters the clinic....

    Here's where that analogy breaks down:

    There are sometimes valid reasons for abortions.
    There are never valid reasons for the exploitation of children. -
    Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
    by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Thursday May 04, @10:04PM EDT (#275)
    (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/
    > Here's where that analogy breaks down:

    > There are sometimes valid reasons for abortions.
    > There are never valid reasons for the
    > exploitation of children. -

    This is not where the analogy breaks down, it is
    where you misunderstand it. I am not saying
    anything about the validity of an abortion
    or exploitation of children...

    I am talking about the harassment of innocent
    individuals, simply for their association with
    the issue. A person who walks into a clinic that
    performs abortions, for some other medical
    procedure (contrary to what some may think,
    most clicnics do not base their entire practice
    on any 1 procedure) are harassed.

    Even if you believe that abortion is NEVER
    justified, this has nothing to do with it anyway.
    I am talking about the harassment of innocent
    people.

    How would you react to find a group that had a
    nude woman walk down the street...then took
    the picture of every man who turned their head
    twice to gawk at her, and pasted their pictures
    up on a board with the title "Possible sex
    Offenders"?

    Whats worst...this banning of the porn itself
    is silly. I can see banning the production of
    child porn. Banning the mere free downloading
    or posessuion of it, is ludicris. Banning
    sex with children, or creation of "kiddie porn"
    is an attempt to ban the exploitation of children.
    Banning the simple (esp free) download or
    possession does NOTHING to stop actual
    explotation....it serves to PUNISH people for
    their sexual orientation. It serves to drive them
    further under ground. It serves only to take away
    what may be their only outlet to releaiving their
    sexual frustration.

    Banning production is banning exploitation.
    Banning mere posession or download is attacking
    individuals, not for their actions, but for their
    desires.
    -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by DaBunny (jonmarcus@mediaone.xpinkmeat.com) on Friday May 05, @03:03PM EDT (#379)
    (User Info)
    Your point seems to be that possessing child pornography should be okay. Simply downloading an image shouldn't be punished.

    You're wrong. Legally and (in my opinion) morally.

    The legality is unquestionable. It is illegal to possess child pornography. If the people who attempted to download these images had gotten what they hoped for, they be breaking the law.

    Should it be wrong? Yes, for a number of reasons. First, to avoid rewarding those who produce kiddie porn. Giving them money, eyeballs (on ads?) or even approbation should be banned.

    Secondly, it's disingenuous to claim that while it's evil to do something, there's nothing wrong with watching and enjoying the thing being done. This isn't a societal wrong that should be outlawed in all cases, but it certainly is immoral.

    Finally, your contention that "Banning mere possession or download is attacking individuals, not for their actions, but for their desires." is ludicrous. Until we come up with brain-controlled computers (and they are connected to your sub-conscious mind) possessing and download is not a result of desire, but of acting on that desire.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by jejones on Friday May 05, @09:04PM EDT (#391)
    (User Info)
    Is it immoral for the local news to cover a robbery in progress, then? They're displaying an illegal and immoral act for all to see--and who knows, maybe someone out there gets some kicks out of it!
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by NerveGas on Friday May 05, @03:12PM EDT (#380)
    (User Info)
    Even if you believe that abortion is NEVER justified, this has nothing to do with it anyway.

    I don't know where you got that from. If anything, I said the opposite, but that whole topic is, of course, irrelevant.

    Whats worst...this banning of the porn itself is silly. I can see banning the production of child porn. Banning the mere free downloading or posessuion of it, is ludicris. Banning sex with children, or creation of "kiddie porn" is an attempt to ban the exploitation of children. Banning the simple (esp free) download or possession does NOTHING to stop actual explotation....it serves to PUNISH people for their sexual orientation.

    I'll have to completely disagree. If consumption drops, then production will also drop. It's a plain, simple theory of economics. You don't see Ford building lots of Edsels, do you? : )

    Besides, banning production will never work so long as there are countries that won't enforce it.

    Banning mere posession or download is attacking individuals, not for their actions, but for their desires.

    No, if you ban someone from downloading, you ban them from an action. To ban someone from a desire, you have to take away their ability to think about it, which of course, is impossible.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by Helge Hafting on Friday May 05, @06:37AM EDT (#338)
    (User Info)
    <I>There are never valid reasons for the exploitation of children. </I>

    Correct, but how do you know that someone really tried to download child porn? You don't know how they got there.

    Anybody can set up a site with something different and attract some attention. They may then cause trouble by having mislabeled links into the logging site. Suddenly people get listed as child-porn users because they wanted info on something completely different.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by NerveGas on Friday May 05, @03:15PM EDT (#381)
    (User Info)
    Correct, but how do you know that someone really tried to download child porn? You don't know how they got there.

    That's true. you don't know how they got there. While surfing, I occasionally run across pages that have pornographic links, or even content. However, when I see something like "click here for young school girls", I can tell right away that it probably doesn't have the information I'm looking for.

    Some people will, of course, stumble onto them innocently. A few of those may inadvertently download them. They may go through a small bit of embarassment because of it. However....

    There are Good Things in the world. There are also Bad Things in the world. If we want to get rid of Bad Things, then Good People who do Good Things will have to put up with some inconvenience. If you want to have policemen arrest inebriated drivers, then be prepared to get pulled over if you *look* inebriated. It's for the good of society. If we want to stop child pornography, then we need to investigate those who *appear* to be using/producing it. There's just no other way. We can't stick our head in the sand and wish that the Bad Things in the world would go away on their own.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by W. Justice Black (wjblack.at.yahoo) on Friday May 05, @03:15PM EDT (#382)
    (User Info) http://schmong.w3.to

    There are sometimes valid reasons for abortions.
    There are never valid reasons for the exploitation of children.

    I would argue that, in the minds of many pro-lifers (not most, but a significant minority), there are never any valid reasons for abortions. I've known some that are extreme enough that they reject the big three "acceptable" abortion issues (rape, incest, life of mother).

    Further, so what if there are sometimes valid reasons for abortions? That doesn't explain the harassment described above. The fact remains that the need for privacy vastly outweighs the need of random, unqualified jerks to invade it. The police have strict entrapment rules for a reason, and there is no reason that these same rules shouldn't apply de facto to everyone else.


    "Time files like an arrow; fruit flies like a bananna." --Groucho Marx
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by NerveGas on Friday May 05, @03:17PM EDT (#383)
    (User Info)
    To counter your other point, suppose someone downloads a picture. It depicts an event which has already taken place. The child depicted has already been abused. Nothing further happens to the child as a result of the replication of the picture.

    That works out fine and dandy while we sit and type at the keyboards, but in the real world, it doesn't quite cut it. The reason that children were exploited in the first place was.... so that it could be downloaded. If people weren't interested in downloading it, then the exploitation would be almost nothing compared to it's current level.

    This is worse to you than the killing of an unborn child?

    I have absolutely no idea where you came up with that idea.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by jafac on Friday May 05, @06:21PM EDT (#386)
    (User Info)
    The child IS TOO still exploited!

    What if the person downloading the pr0n is someone that knows the child - or someone that child may meet at some point in their future? It's a horrible breach of privacy, and every new person that views a picture of an exploited child, exploits them further, and unless every copy of that picture is destroyed, that child, that individual human being, will be haunted by the specter that any person they meet may have seen them naked, performing that act.

    And while there are LOTS of pictures of adults like that on the net, and they all face this very same issue, the child was a child when the picture was taken, and by the law's definition, unable to rationally choose the correct moral behavior, probably having been either physically or emotionally coerced in some way.

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
    -OOPS! time to cut Lars another check!
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by ostrich2 on Thursday May 04, @08:00PM EDT (#259)
    (User Info)
    It's been said many times by others: if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of.

    Yes, I've heard this a thousand times, and I just can't follow the logic. Let's say I have some money in a bank, and I don't want you to know how much. If you tell me, "You can show me your balance, unless you're laundering money," I'm put in the position of showing you something I rather keep secret just to prove I'm not laundering money. I'm not laundering money. I don't want you to know how much money I've saved for retirement. The two things are not related.

    My question is: why do you have the right to know this about me? Is it worth it to further erode what fleeting privacy remains in this world to nab the 0.001% of people who abuse children so horribly? Am I hard-hearted because I'd prefer to keep the 99.999% safe and let the guilty walk free? It just doesn't make sense to me that I should have to prove I'm not doing anything wrong to stay in the good graces of some people who arbitrarily get to decide what's wrong in society.

    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by jrennie on Thursday May 04, @09:29PM EDT (#268)
    (User Info) http://www.ai.mit.edu/~jrennie/
    helarno said:
    In a sense they are. Pedophiles are so hated and hunted that just logging the IPs should be enough to scare the vast majority of them off the main net. Of course someone will try to use those IP nums to hunt these people down (ye old FBI) and chances are, they will actually find these people. I happen to like the benefits of this approach.

    The claims they are making sound a lot like the claims that can be made about the Web. It would take me all of 10 minutes to throw together a web page advertising child porn pictures and to submit it to most of the major search engines. I could then easily track accesses and file downloads and post the IP addresses of those who feel for the kiddie porn links.

    What's so new here?

    Also, if GNUTella ain't specific to music, why is it so special? Web servers/search engines seem to provide the same functionality. At least with Napster, you don't have to filter through the porn to get to the MP3s that you want...

    Jason

    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by Zeus305 on Thursday May 04, @10:03PM EDT (#274)
    (User Info)
    would there be some way that someone could not give an ip, or give a fake ip? I would think this would be an enticing formum for system hackers.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @12:02AM EDT (#298)
    someone will try to use those IP nums to hunt these people down (ye old FBI) and chances are, they will actually find these people

    It's called a root compromise. You take over someone else's box and hey presto - the system that they connect to logs the compromised machines IP rather than theirs.

    I happen to like the benefits of this approach.

    We'll see if you feel the same way after you are busted, have your name defamed and libeled in public only for it to then be shown that your only crime was not securing your machine after your exhonerated.

    It does disturb me a little that it is possible to keep tabs on people this way, but in the end, accountability for one's actions is a good thing.

    No arguments there.

    if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of.

    Do I have a deal foy you! I have some prime swampland for sale. It's sitting over the worlds largest deposits of oil, gold and uranium. Honest!

    Seriously though, lets put these two statements together. Accountability is only good if governments and corporations are just as accountable as private citizens. If this isn't the case, then accountability will allways effectively discriminate against the individual and until that changes, even people with nothing to hide are best served by privacy.

    Accountability is good, unless you're an anarchist :)

    Drop round some time. I'll show you how to make nitro-starch. ;)

    Can you imagine your local ISP bending over backwards to help out double-click on this?

    They will if they have a search warrent. This is my main objection to this kind of vigilantism.

    If Gnutella think that they have an issue that needs to be addressed, then the appropriate solution is to take it up with the existing law enforcement agencies.

    If nothing else, they have to go strictly by the book. Otherwise, any evidence of this type that is presented in court will be immediatly shot down as being illegal and therefore inadmisable.

    It's tempting to come to the conclusion that *you* personally have to do something about problems of this type, but it's important to remember that society delegates the responsibility for some things to people who have been specifically trained for that task.

    To do otherwise is foolish and illadvised. My advice is simple - let the proffesionals deal with it. If they ask for help, then do so. Until them, some things are best avoided.

    You might be strangling my chicken, but you don't want to know what I'm doing to your hampster.


    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by DrSkwid (drskwid@yahoo-co-uk) on Friday May 05, @07:09AM EDT (#345)
    (User Info) http://www.hardlight.couk.com
    show me someone who's never done wrong
    .oO0Oo.
    Politics is life. Vote with your self.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
    by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Thursday May 04, @06:42PM EDT (#222)
    (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/
    "They came for the pedophiles,
    and I didn't say anything.
    Next, they came for the rapists,
    and I didn't say a thing.
    Next they came for us serial
    killers... and there was no scum left to say anything."

    Disclaimer: Just in case the following should confuse anyone with poor reading comprehension, I find pedophilia as repugnant as anyone else does, and firmly believe that people who sexually abuse children (or adults, for that matter) need to be removed from polite society.

    That said, there is an important difference between pedophiles on the one hand and rapists and serial killers on the other. Pedophilia is a desire (a disgusting one, yes), where as rape and killing are actions. Not all pedophiles act on their desires.

    While 99.9% of us may find their sexual fantasies abhorant, we cannot legitimately make desires crimes. And we should not make fictional portrayals of abhorant acts illegal.

    It is a strange thing that if I had a videotape - real or faked - of two young teenagers who were having consensual sex (as consensual as immature people could have, anyway) and were discovered and grusomely murdered by some psychopath, the sex part of the tape would be contraband but the tape of the murders would be perfectly legal to own and view.

    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe

    Re:George Orwell had a term for this... (Score:1)
    by jwhyche (jwhyche@hotmail.com) on Friday May 05, @10:32AM EDT (#362)
    (User Info)

    Further note - shouldn't the Coppertone people / all the others who carried their ads, be charged with distributing child pornography for their shameless display of a 4 year old girl wearing only a pair of swim trunk bottoms?

    It is already happening. Several artist have already been proscuited under child pornography laws for taking nude pictures of children. Sally Man I think was one of them. There is a difference between porn and tasteful nudes that some people don't understand. Not all nude pictures, even those of children, are pornography.

    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by Cid Highwind (blue-dragon@tamu.edu) on Thursday May 04, @06:53PM EDT (#230)
    (User Info) http://people.tamu.edu/~wdr0717
    They came for the pedophiles,
    and I didnt say anyhting.
    Then they came for the pr0n kings,
    and I didnt say anything.
    They came for the MP3 pirates,
    and I didn't say anything
    They came for the skr1pt k1dd33z,
    and I didn't say anything
    They came for the anarchists,
    and I didn't say anything
    Then they came for the "subversives",
    and there was no one left to wave the 1st amenment for me.
    0 1 - just my two bits
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by Rombuu (rombuu@surfree.com) on Thursday May 04, @07:37PM EDT (#249)
    (User Info)
    How about:

    They came for the pedophiles,
    and I didnt say anyhting.
    Then they came for the pr0n kings,
    and I didnt say anything.
    They came for the MP3 pirates,
    and I didn't say anything
    They came for the skr1pt k1dd33z,
    and I didn't say anything
    They came for the anarchists,
    and I didn't say anything

    And the world was a much nicer place.

    Space is Big / Space is Dark / It's Hard to Find / A Place to Park - Burma Shave
    Actually.. (Score:2, Informative)
    by NoWhere Man (nicksworld@netscape.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:25PM EDT (#60)
    (User Info) http://hardwareshit.n3.net
    What this proves is that anyone can see what your downloading at anytime. If the police wanted to crack down on KiddyPorn, all they have to do is setup something like ZeroPaid did, get your IP address, call your provider, and nail your ass.
    Its the same with Warez, MP3z or Movies.
    Though I doubt any country has the man power to nap every single person on the planet. But if they got a few of them, it'd be just enough to scare people away from using it.

    Course then we'd have tons of "Free " banners everywhere...
    :)


    Imagination is the weapon in the war against reality
    Re:Actually.. (Score:1)
    by NoWhere Man (nicksworld@netscape.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:32PM EDT (#69)
    (User Info) http://hardwareshit.n3.net
    That should have been "Free [Insert Gnutella User Here]" Banners

    Imagination is the weapon in the war against reality
    Re:Actually.. (Score:2)
    by Ferzerp on Thursday May 04, @03:22PM EDT (#160)
    (User Info)
    Number one, these people never even downloaded actual porn. The pictures are those that show up on the main linked page. Of course, I read through the file lists and a large number of the files do not seem to suggest illegal pornography anyway.
    "youngest teen ever" What in that suggests porn? The word youngest? The word teen? The word ever? None of those seem extremely pornographic either. Maybe someone accustomed to downloading porn might think it's porn, but I think they're gonnna "Catch" alot of innocents with this. Others that don't suggest porn that I see on their lists are "veryyoung" (very young what? asparagus?), "nohairteen" (so we have a bald-headed child, so what?), etc.
        Then there's the problem of all these "teen" ones. 18 is a number, 19 is a number... Hmm, if those denoted ages, I don't see anything illegal here. I'm not a huge porn freak, but I have seen enough to know that "teen" attached to a website denotes >=18 but not too many years greater. It doesn't mean 13-17. I'm betting that very few of the people downloading most of these were truly looking for kiddieporn.
        Next are the ones that say "preteen" so what? Anyone not net savvy and not understanding that if it's ambiguous like that, it's probably porn, might download that confused. Then bam, they're posted onto this site.
        The should take all this stuff down immediately, it's poorly done. Most of the names look like they'll fool people. People looking for child-porn would download them, but so could someone not looking for that.
          If they want to keep this up, they need to do two things. First, they need to delete all current content to protect those that they're falsely accused, and I'm sure there are many. (Mostly on the ones that just say "teen" probably). Second, they must change all filenames to include XXX (who's gonna get confused then?) and also give them such depraved names that no one would for one second consider the file to be porn of the more legal type.

    (Should I go into their sharing of the iggy pop song as well?) Nah, I didn't think so, I'm assuming that's a copyrighted work....

    Oh, btw, I'm perfectly aware that I sound like I must be on there list, lol. But I saw this, and it just screamed at me as wrong.

    Re:Actually.. (Score:2, Insightful)
    by NoWhere Man (nicksworld@netscape.net) on Thursday May 04, @03:52PM EDT (#174)
    (User Info) http://hardwareshit.n3.net
    I think you are being a little nieve. The people using Gnutella are not your random surfers. These are the people looking for illegal material. If you can relate something else that might have the filename "youngest teen ever" that is not pornography, then by all means tell me.

    Imagination is the weapon in the war against reality
    Re:Actually.. (Score:2)
    by Ferzerp on Thursday May 04, @04:01PM EDT (#178)
    (User Info)
    Proud mother or father snaps a picture of their son or daughter on the instant they turn 13 to commemorate the event. That's what I think when I hear "youngest teen ever".

    It is downloaded by the mother of a college student who, upon seeing Gnutella, sets it up at his home. Either for his mom, or for himself. She starts messing with it (once it is set up, it's a snap to use, configuring throws people off). And she's a soccer mom type and wants to get pleasure off looking at someone else's proud moment for their child.

    You missed the point completely as well. In something such as this, all it takes is a tiny chance for error and the people running this become extremely irresponsible for doing so.
    Re:Actually.. (Score:1)
    by NoWhere Man (nicksworld@netscape.net) on Friday May 05, @10:00PM EDT (#394)
    (User Info) http://hardwareshit.n3.net
    Look you jerk...mom and pop aren't gonna download Napster or Gnutella to distribute baby pictures...all files downloaded using those 2 programs are infact illegal (movies, warez, mp3, etc). That is all they are used for. I don't know anyone who downloads free/shareware or any other file that is not illegal using this software. Be a little more realistic

    Imagination is the weapon in the war against reality
    But is ANIMATED child porn really child porn? (Score:1, Insightful)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @02:04PM EDT (#98)
    I'm talking about animated drawings of ficticious minors engaging in sexual activities that (1) never actually existed and (2) nor were based on any real children and in fact, (3) an animation who's creation made no use of any children whatsoever. Is this child porn? This is where some say yes and some say no.

    Confronting this issue is tough because no one wants to publically defend it. It's easier to moderate me down and ignore the issue. On the other hand, when you can go to jail for using pad and pencil, something is wrong with the law.

    Re:But is ANIMATED child porn really child porn? (Score:2)
    by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:10PM EDT (#153)
    (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/
    Noone? well hell I will openly defend it.

    Is Child Porn a tough issue? Yea, it deals with
    alot of issues. When is a person old enough to
    consent to sex? When are they old enough to
    consent to sexual photos?

    When you turn 18 there is no fairy that flies by
    and sprinkles dust on you and magically makes you
    able to make decisions for yourself. Its NOT as
    cut and dry an issue as legalists would have you
    believe.

    But anyway...drawings? Drawings! The very idea
    that a person can set pencil to paper and somehow
    comit a crime by merely moving its tip across
    the page! The very idea of that offends me.

    In fact...the very idea that someone could sit
    alone in their room, involve no other people,
    could possibly do anything, short of detonating
    thermonuclear devices, and somehow break a law
    is simply insane.

    I supose it is things like that which have led to
    the word SNAFU

    -Steve
    -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    Re:But is ANIMATED child porn really child porn? (Score:1)
    by Nate Eldredge on Friday May 05, @02:16AM EDT (#310)
    (User Info) http://www3.hmc.edu/~neldredge/
    That is a good question. I think the operative term may be "depiction".

    I seem to recall that some production of the film "Lolita" cast in Lolita's role an actress who was over 18 but looked younger (perhaps much younger, I haven't seen it so I don't know). However, the film was considered child pornography since the *character* was represented as under 18 and engaged in explicit sex. (If I've made any mistakes here, please correct me.)

    On the other hand, the novel on which the film was based is perfectly legal. And it could be argued that animation is closer to the novel than to the movie, since it's more abstract (involves no real people at all).

    Now, if someone were to create an animated film that was indistinguishable from live-action, then we'd have a sticky situation.

    Clearly, something is inconsistent, and I think it's the first case. There is nothing inherently wrong with films, novel, or animation of sex with children, in my opinion. The most that can be argued is that they may tend to encourage actual sex. But down that road, we ban all representation and discussion of violence, crime, and everything else that's illegal, since it might encourage people to do it. I'd be very much opposed to anything so draconian (though perhaps others might not be). We need to be able to have these things in the open, for their artistic, social, and political value. Censorship is not a good thing.

    Re:But is ANIMATED child porn really child porn? (Score:1)
    by pallex (p.a.l.l.e.x.@.m.y.-.d.e.j.a...c.o.m.) on Friday May 05, @05:01AM EDT (#331)
    (User Info) http://pallex.webjump.com
    "Now, if someone were to create an animated film that was indistinguishable from live-action, then we'd have a sticky situation. "

    Uhhh..huh.huhh....huhuh.. he said `sticky`....

    :)


    Re:But is ANIMATED child porn really child porn? (Score:1)
    by lizardbrain on Friday May 05, @07:46PM EDT (#390)
    (User Info)
    I seem to recall that some production of the film "Lolita" cast in Lolita's role an actress who was over 18 but looked younger (perhaps much younger, I haven't seen it so I don't know).

    Actually, I know that the actor in the most recent Lolita was 15, and I believe the one in Stanley Kubricks original version was underage too...
    In both of these movies sex was depicted, and this was perfectly legal, because they weren't actually having sex. (There are alot of movies like this: Brooke Shields was 15 in the Blue Lagoon , a very explicit film)
    The laws of child porn say that you can't show anybody under 18 doing sexually explicit things for real I assume, thats all.
    Re:But is ANIMATED child porn really child porn? (Score:1)
    by Helge Hafting on Friday May 05, @06:43AM EDT (#341)
    (User Info)
    <I>On the other hand, when you can go to jail for using pad and pencil, something is wrong with the law.</I>

    You can use the pad and pencil to send explicit death threats to your prime minister or president or whatever. I have no problem with imprisoning such types.
    Well.. (Score:1)
    by kampit on Thursday May 04, @02:05PM EDT (#100)
    (User Info)
    Maybe they should fix their own pages before starting to make any lists, the date on their webserver is May 4, 100 .. Personally, i wouldnt trust anyone who cannot be bothered to fix details like that..
    Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @02:25PM EDT (#114)
    I agree. The article didn't exactly go into much depth about what kind of kiddieporn it was exactly (or, hell, maybe it did, I don't know , the site was /.'d)

    I would think this would be a case where intent mattered, It is illegal anywhere to download kiddieporn, but is it illegal just to TRY to download it? I mean, this wasn't real porn, maybe some of the people who downloaded it were perverts, but all of them? maybe they were local law agency's planning on investigating, maybe they were people who were curious, maybe they were just idiots, but I seriously doubt they were all cold blooded pedophiles.

    And if it was real porn, wouldn't the server be just a liable for posting it as anybody would be for downloading it? if not more so... Not to mention, if this were a 'real' police operation, it'd be entrapment and never hold up in court. I dunno, maybe our sex laws (in the world, not just the USA) have become so insane that just somebody downloading a text file that's entitled 'kiddieporn.txt' is reason enough to convict em or it's ok to entrap somebody if it's for something like this.
    Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
    by look (fran0382 -(a)- tc.umn.edu) on Friday May 05, @03:16AM EDT (#315)
    (User Info)
    Yo, shout outs to my man, atomly! Still trying for that score:5, buddy? ;)
    Ouch... (Score:1)
    by Ron Harwood (harwoodr-AT-technologist.calm) on Thursday May 04, @12:43PM EDT (#3)
    (User Info) http://theGEEK.org
    Hmm, this could come back and bite them legally...

    Did your Slashdot submission get declined? theGEEK will take it!
    Re:Ouch... (Score:1)
    by drwiii (douglas@min.net) on Thursday May 04, @12:51PM EDT (#25)
    (User Info) http://www.min.net/~douglas/
    Bite whom legally?

    Certainly not the people who posted the IPs. Would you get in trouble for posting a Caller ID log? Or your web server statistics?

    Re:Ouch... (Score:1)
    by Doomdark on Thursday May 04, @06:44PM EDT (#223)
    (User Info)
    If you are collecting Caller IDs of incoming calls (in which case you are part of the communication) that's quite different from snooping IP-numbers n'est pas? Also, in some places (in Europe) lawmakers are quite strict about companies collecting information to databases, and so creating this kind of a black list (not to mention publishing it), so it might well backfire. In ye bad ole US, of course, any company (or individual) is probably free to collect all kinds of black lists for any purpose (to the raise the lynching spirit, for example) . :-)
    they should fix some of the file names.. (Score:5, Insightful)
    by medicthree on Thursday May 04, @12:44PM EDT (#5)
    (User Info)
    Okay, some of the file names do indicate that there would be child pornography to be found. But others aren't so clear. For example, "hot teen.jpg", "schoolgirl.jpg", and "teen-sucking.jpg" aren't really too indicative of child pornography. There are plent of sites / images out there touting "teens" and "school girls" that don't have anyone under 18 pictured. Now, I realize that they do indicate which files the particular IP addresses have downloaded, but even so, this has potential to get out of hand and I think they should be a bit more responsible trying to choose their fake file names.
    Re:they should fix some of the file names.. (Score:1)
    by Felinoid (correct@e-mail.address.on.website) on Thursday May 04, @10:29PM EDT (#280)
    (User Info) http://www.meowpawjects.com/
    What the wall of shame seems to forget is that teen is 13 to 19 not 13 to 17...

    Usually "teen porn" is 18 and 19 year olds...

    Other vage terminology "Young" by whos standard? I'm 30 years old and to my 90 year old grandmother I am young. Usually with porn it means under 21.

    "My little sister" and "insest" are usually fantacys involving (yet again) adults...

    In my view only the term "PreTeen" indicates only childporn and not fantacy or other adult (just turnned 18) porn..
    However you'll find porn sites will freqently throw out pedophile catch terms like "Teen" and "PreTeen" to trick them to a paid adult website. I can see the logic of this..
    Would a person so sick and twiested as to desire images of nude children be able to resist high quality porn (admittedly images of adults). Not sure myself not being a mental health profesional. But I'd guess it's a good bet.

    Add to that human curreosity and you have a whole lot of explainning to do when an innocent finds himself tagged... Oh and then there is law enforcment... whops.. Can you say "Interfearing with an investigation of child pron?"

    There is a whole can of worms here you do not wish to open...
    Bending space and time sence 2035
    Re:they should fix some of the file names.. (Score:1)
    by Cyberdyne (JamesSutherland@gmx.net) on Friday May 05, @05:31AM EDT (#332)
    (User Info)
    More to the point, why do you pick 18 as a relevant age? The age of consent for heterosexual sex in the UK is 16. It's not exactly my field of expertise, but I think 16 and 17 year olds can pose for newspapers etc. (although, being under 18, they can't sign the contract themselves).

    In other countries, I suppose it could well be 21. You need to be 16 to have sex or get married, 17 to drive, and 18 to drink, in the UK.

    Re:they should fix some of the file names.. (Score:1)
    by r0rsch4ch on Friday May 05, @11:37AM EDT (#371)
    (User Info)
    Dear fellow Cyberterrorist and Child Pornographer
    (once called netizen)

    The Gnutella folks should stick to the current naming scheme, because it´s all a schism anyways.
    They are just doing what seems necessary right now for every netizen to not be called a Cyberterrorist or Child Pronographer, accuse the others of being it, and enter the lines of the
    (Proud And Tall) army of the american djihad on sexuality and world domination neuroses.

    I´m so fuckin bored by this crap, not only because it´s just a vehicle for everyone engagin into it. The Politicians are only interested in the possiblities to make the internet what goerge orwell thought of it, the transparent citizen. The Publisher´s engaging cause of hi sales figures for news papers and their angst of the digital future.

    For anyone really interested in the matter of children and sexuality, please refer to this article:
    http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
    As it points out what damage has been done so far, to our children, by denying the existence of their sexuality.

    And, after all, isn´t one of the problems that lead to the existence of such horrible scenarios like the sexual abuse, or violence induced in general on children, that they are considered not fully human, and therefor them are denied the Human Rights (and these transferred to parents, educational instutions or the like).


    Re:age of consent and pedo... (Score:2, Troll)
    by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:33PM EDT (#163)
    (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/
    > I'd be more willing to convict a guy of
    > statetory rape if he did it to a pre-16 girl.
    > Shouldn't that be what age of consent is about?
    > First, what bennefits these teens, and second,
    > what we as a society find accepable.

    I have a problem with statutory rape. The thing
    is, OK rape is bad. No IS no. But Statutory rape
    says "Yes is no" if the other person is too young.

    The real problem is simply this...it is not a
    a charge brought by th esuposed victem, it is
    brought by their parents. It is not a device for
    protecting anyone, its a device for legitimising
    parental dominion over the lives of their
    offspring.

    I tend to think that by the time a person is
    physically capable of sexual activity, they
    should be able to decide for themselves what
    they wish to do. At that point the law needs to
    leave it alone. If a person can't decide by then,
    there is either something wrong with them, or
    their parents didn't do a very good job of
    teaching them.

    > So we lock away people for something we don't
    > have much knowledge about, or lock away someone
    > who seriously needs mental help.

    Its not too hard to understand...the public
    doesn't get it, but the general public tends to
    not get alot of things (esp when the media finds
    it more profitable to use it as a scare tactic
    to keep people afraid and watching the news)

    I think its simply a fetish. Have you read the
    Cryptonomicon portion where some guys were "van
    eck phreaking"? there was a long letter about
    fetishes where the writter said he was very
    thankful that his was stockings and not little
    children...afterall that type of sexual preference
    is well laid into the brain by age 7.

    These people are not "sick", they simply have a
    sexual fetish that is not "socially acceptable".
    There is no way to "cure" someone of this, any
    more than you can "cure" someone of homosexuality.

    Our society always seems to take the least healthy
    and most problimatic aproach to social issues.
    Make it illegal and hope it goes away. Shun them,
    that will make them stop. Just drive everything
    underground, make it a black market affair.

    Why deal with a problem when you can just jail it
    away and call all the people who have any interest
    in it at all "sick"?

    Just say no to .

    -Steve
    -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    Re:age of consent and pedo... (Score:1)
    by Cogent (davidhand@davidhand.com) on Thursday May 04, @05:37PM EDT (#210)
    (User Info) http://www.davidhand.com/

    Actually, if you want this subject in some pretty serious depth, try Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov. It's a really good book, but not a happy one.


    sexually mature != responsible (Score:1)
    by tylerh (garbage1@home.com_nospam) on Thursday May 04, @06:50PM EDT (#227)
    (User Info)
    Steve,

    You appear to have some major misconceptions about sexual development and sexaul predations. Your post is full of misunderstandings, but to keep matters short I will focus on one statement:

    I tend to think that by the time a person is physically capable of sexual activity, they should be able to decide for themselves what they wish to do

    This is seriously out of step with reality. My mother achieved menarch ( a commonly used physical marker for physical sexual maturity) at age 11. This is not exceptional. Do you honestly believe that 11 years olds are mature enough to evaluate the risks and responsibilities of parenthood?

    While one can argue with the arbitrariness of the 16 year old designation, the statutory rape laws exist for sound reasons well-supported by extensive clinical data: the vast majority of people who have sex with underage children (1) were abused themselves as children, (2) have a high recidivism rate and (3) cause long-term emotional damage to their "partners". Your "pedophiles aren't sick" is so completely out of step with clinical reality that I'll just assume you have the same cluelessness about this topic that many Windows users have about OS's.


    "one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs

    Re:sexually mature != responsible (Score:1)
    by ODiV ((my nick)@subdimension.com) on Thursday May 04, @07:27PM EDT (#244)
    (User Info) http://www.crosswinds.net/~odiv
    "Do you honestly believe that 11 years olds are mature enough to evaluate the risks and responsibilities of parenthood?"

    What about 30 year olds who aren't mature enough to evaluate the risks and responsibilities of parenthood? I'm sure they're out there. Basing rape on how long you've been alive seems to be a bit off base. Although I suppose they don't really have a more practical way to protect children. Perhaps a clinical evaluation? *shrug*... I don't have the answer, I just don't think the above quote was put very well.
    - I am ODiV, hear me type
    Re:sexually mature != responsible (Score:1)
    by jafac on Friday May 05, @06:39PM EDT (#387)
    (User Info)
    heh. I was 19 and I did some SERIOUS screwing up.

    Partly because - probably I didn't get laid enough at age 16.

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
    -OOPS! time to cut Lars another check!
    Re:sexually mature != responsible (Score:1)
    by sredding (sandman nine three five at yahoo dot com) on Saturday May 06, @03:15AM EDT (#396)
    (User Info) http://home.earthlink.net/~sandmanr/index.html

    Right... Sexually maturity in the U.S... Once you get out of the country, you'll find that to be a load of crap.

    I can't speak for the women but there seems to be this notion among American males that if you get to see the breasts, you get to touch the breasts too. The U.S. military goes through great contortions trying to integrate females into predominately male duty assignments simply because we as a nation are horribly prudish and immature.

    Now if you want to define sexually mature as "old enough and financially secure enough to be able to afford the inevitable child", then I'll go along with that.

    Insert sig here.

    Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Brand X (yospe at hawaii's university) on Thursday May 04, @09:05PM EDT (#264)
    (User Info) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe
    To most of the world, the net is a buzzword. The image is a mess of pornography, hackers, and lawlessness. The reality is... partly the same. The issue is... nothing's wrong with this.

    But pedophilia is a wholly different issue. They use the internet to network, to trade both pornography and victims. They use it to stalk. They use it to lure out new victims.

    There is a real issue involved for any of us who administer any service online... public backlash against any community that makes itself pedophile friendly will cause no end of headaches. Moreover, it will cause some of us to attack you by means other than legal.

    I am both a geek and, in one state, a licenced therapist for victims of sex crimes. I know pedophilia. I've dealt with it, run up against it time after time. It is not a sexual fetish that is simply not socially acceptable. It is the worst form of mental illness I know, and one of only two things that tends to make me physically ill. The other is extremely bad shellfish. I have never met a pedophile that was even remotely well in the head. Why deal with a problem when you can just jail it away? Well, the problem is, we can't. Too many pedophiles get away with it. There are virtually no exhibitors of the disease who do not practice its manifestation... this is something I've become sickeningly aware of. The least harmful still cop feels from victims too young or too terrified or ashamed to speak up. If we could just jail it away, it wouldn't be a problem.

    The issue with age of consent isn't (or shouldn't be, in any case) the choice of minors to be sexually active. It is the choice of adults to exploit minors. The best law, from a therapist's point of view, would be a sliding scale... five years for seventeen, four for sixteen, three for fifteen, two for fourteen and down... I've seen it go to one at twelve, with prosecution shifted to parents, but I'm not sure that's well thought out...

    The reason for an age of consent is simple. Sex should not be something a person with power extracts from someone without. Rape can be committed without physical force: blackmail, threat of firing, threats of any other kind... or exploitation of authority status. In short, adults having sex with children are committing rape, in the same sense that that rev. Moon character was...

    We geeks are people with power... but often, we are people with neither ethics nor conscience. We consider ourselves a breed apart, above those petty issues. Unfortunately, some of those issues are far from petty.
    -- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
    Well put. Moderate up! (Score:1)
    by Bedemus (emilNlerO@ShPhAs.nMet) on Thursday May 04, @10:08PM EDT (#277)
    (User Info) http://www.neorants.com
    Very well spoken... Wish I was one of the lucky few to be able to moderate this up today!
    -- www.neorants.com -- Where it's one geek ranting against the world -- and that's the way he likes it.
    Re:Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:1)
    by Dave-Bert (davebert@NOSPAM.dwp.net) on Friday May 05, @01:20AM EDT (#306)
    (User Info)
    > Rape can be committed without physical force:
    > blackmail, threat of firing, threats of any
    > other kind... or exploitation of authority
    > status. In short, adults having sex with
    > children are committing rape, in the same sense
    > that that rev. Moon character was...

    Rape can also be committed without any kind of coercion at all: Most pedos choose victims who generally have a low sense of self-esteem or children who have a lot of problems at home.

    They then will (for lack of a better term) stroke their egos, they will tell them that they understand them, that they are sexually attractive, and that they are mature enough to make decisions for themselves and that their parents are being unreasonalble. Some apparently will even offer them assistance with running away from home.

    Basically, they build the child up and make them feel good about themselves for the sole purpose of having sex with them. It's a mind fuck, but from the eyes of the victim, it seems consensual.

    I think it might even be more evil and insidious than physical sexual assault or sexual assault through threats of losing your job or blackmail.

    I like the idea of the wall of shame, though you do have to wonder if some of the people who download the files might be law enforcement types investigating child porn on the net.


    [1] Done rm -rf *

    Re:Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:2)
    by Hard_Code on Friday May 05, @09:09AM EDT (#356)
    (User Info)
    "The best law, from a therapist's point of view, would be a sliding scale... five years for seventeen, four for sixteen, three for fifteen, two for fourteen and down... I've seen it go to one at twelve, with prosecution shifted to parents, but I'm not sure that's well thought out..."

    I don't think I'm understanding you. Are you saying that people who assault /younger/ victims should get /less/ time in jail??

    Jazilla - Pure Java Browser
    Re:Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:1)
    by pingflood on Friday May 05, @10:29AM EDT (#361)
    (User Info)
    "The best law, from a therapist's point of view, would be a sliding scale... five years for seventeen, four for sixteen, three for fifteen, two for fourteen and down... I've seen it go to one at twelve, with prosecution shifted to parents, but I'm not sure that's well thought out..." I don't think I'm understanding you. Are you saying that people who assault /younger/ victims should get /less/ time in jail??

    I think that what he was saying is that for it to be considered statuatory rape, the difference in age would have to be five years for a 17 yr old, 4 for a 16 year old, etc etc...

    -pf

    Re:Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:1)
    by Brand X (yospe at hawaii's university) on Friday May 05, @12:31PM EDT (#374)
    (User Info) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe
    think that what he was saying is that for it to be considered statuatory rape, the difference in age would have to be five years for a 17 yr old, 4 for a 16 year old, etc etc... Thanks. That's exactly what I was saying.
    -- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
    Re:Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:1)
    by ZNemesis on Saturday May 06, @02:26AM EDT (#395)
    (User Info)
    >There are virtually no exhibitors of the disease who do not practice its manifestation... this is something I've become sickeningly aware of.

    So what if someone likes to look at kiddie porn, but they have never commited that crime? Does this mean they will commit it in the future?

    Just because you like to look at something, does not mean you will do it.
    -----------
    "I used to live in Real Life(TM), now I live in my computer"
    Re:Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:1)
    by Brand X (yospe at hawaii's university) on Saturday May 06, @05:17PM EDT (#403)
    (User Info) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe
    So what if someone likes to look at kiddie porn, but they have never commited that crime? Does this mean they will commit it in the future?

    Just because you like to look at something, does not mean you will do it.


    Statistics support the assumption that they will commit it in the future.

    Given opportunity, most people will choose to enact fantasies. Unlike most crimes, pedophilia feels unthreatening... the sicko isn't at any risk if he thinks he can't get caught.

    People who don't have the potential to commit this crime are generally revolted and nauseated by the images. This is, of course, less than 100% verifiable, but it hasn't been falsified yet, either.

    We discovered, through monitoring of traffic, seventeen regular viewers of child pornography in the pre-luser-proliferation era. We monitored them. We've managed to catch eleven of them red handed, to date. Not terribly good statistics.

    There are many more of these people online now than there were seven years ago. Perhaps there are more sick fscks who only want to fantasize out there than there are sick fscks who indulge their fantasies. I'd be surprised, but I've been surprised before.

    -- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
    Re:Pedophiles/Statutory rape and the internet (Score:1)
    by Brand X (yospe at hawaii's university) on Friday May 05, @01:04PM EDT (#375)
    (User Info) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe
    Get a *clue* halfwitt! The internet is a *global* medium. Don't try to impose your own local values on it. Hmm. AC and troll, and using the favorite PC crap of every group I've come to hate, US or not, first world or third.

    The statutory rape proposals are based on the work of the social work community - mostly educated with graduate degrees and extensive real world experience, and, interestingly, with substantial exposure to various cultures and societies.

    They are not cultural imperialism or local values. There are cultures that support sixteen year olds having relationships with twenty year olds. There are also cultures that support dictatorship, genocide, and ritual genital mutilation. Just because it isn't part of the devil american cultural empire (sic), doesn't mean it is exempt from ethical evaluation.

    I will conceed some culture-by-culture flexibility on this, but cultures that sell fifteen year old girls off in marriage (and far more do that than fifteen year old boys) are not going to get any sort of blessing from me, on the basis of cultural preservation. Some parts of some (all) cultures do not deserve preservation, or, in some cases, acknowledgement beyond military action.

    Gor the record, I am neither christian nor redneck. I should also point out that a huge percentage of the people who have incurred my wrath on this topic in the U.S. are, indeed, "narrow minded bible thumping rednecks".

    This is my ethical creedo:
    By your actions, never harm another for personal gratification alone.
    By your inactions, never allow another to come to harm for reasons of laziness or petty fear.

    Generally, this includes understanding, and, where aplicable, accepting those that are different... which, for me, means just about everyone.

    BTW, I didn't offer to throw you into prison for four years, I offered to make it a criminal action for you to sleep with a sixteen year old if you were 21... which seems pretty damned reasonable to me. On a *global* scale. Not that I make the rules worldwide.
    -- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
    Re:age of consent and pedo... (Score:1)
    by ODiV ((my nick)@subdimension.com) on Thursday May 04, @07:21PM EDT (#241)
    (User Info) http://www.crosswinds.net/~odiv
    "Curing" homosexual people with LSD doesn't seem much of a feat. You could probably "cure" heterosexual people with LSD.
    - I am ODiV, hear me type
    Re:age of consent and pedo... (Score:1)
    by mikpos on Thursday May 04, @05:05PM EDT (#201)
    (User Info) http://mikpos.dyndns.org
    OK first the off-topic part: your ideas on treating child molestors and rapists is interesting, but honestly I can't remember the last time I'd heard such sweeping generalisations. Is it too much to ask that people who are disrupting society be judged on an individual basis instead of being treated as "molestors" or "rapists"? As far as I can tell, rapists look different from one another and, woah shit, they might even be different people.

    As to the topic on-hand, judging people on the filenames they're interested in is extremely poor, especially in the shady world of pr0nography. It's not difficult to find pictures of (what appear to be) 20 year olds saved under filenames which contain "14" or "15" or what have you (presumably indicating their age). Likewise, it's not difficult to find "very questionable" material passed off (possibly accidentally) as adult. It's not impossible to believe that if someone were *really* into pr0n, they'd be willing to take their chances and get some of the supposedly pre-15 year old pr0n just because there are so many post-18 year olds in the mix.

    If you've ever used *shudder* Alta Vista to search for anything (even something as banal as, say, garden hose), no doubt 70% of the hits will be pr0n sites. Many of them offer child pr0nography and are presumably just a bunch of banner ads with kiddie pr0n terminology scattered about. I'm doubtful that everyone going to one of those sites is sincerely interested in getting some kiddie pr0n.

    Overall, their methodology is pretty weak and it seems as though they were just going for sensationalism.

    -- yay for 6 ish!!
    Re:age of consent and pedo... (Score:1)
    by mikpos on Thursday May 04, @07:00PM EDT (#235)
    (User Info) http://mikpos.dyndns.org
    Oh please. I'm sure there isn't a man among us who doesn't know the inner workings of the Internet pr0nography scene. I say it's common knowledge.

    -- yay for 6 ish!!
    FreeNet (Score:1)
    by doctorwes on Thursday May 04, @12:44PM EDT (#6)
    (User Info)
    I believe that this kind of thing is not possible with FreeNet - would that make it a better project to support?
    Re:FreeNet (Score:1)
    by Betcour on Friday May 05, @04:20AM EDT (#328)
    (User Info)
    Indeed - Freenet can't hide the IP number - but it hides the keyword you search as well as crypt the data you download. So basically the only thing someone else can know is that you downloaded something.

    Freenet is the ultimate in freedom of information. This is a one way street that will make ineffective any law restricting information - be it copyrights, censorship or - yes - illegal pictures.
    they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Atticka (Skip_co@hotmail.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:44PM EDT (#7)
    (User Info)
    I find this really amusing, sic kiddie pr0n freaks get what they deserve! shame on them! seriously though, I think its good, it goes back to the argument that if your not doing anything to be ashamed of you have nothing to hide.

    Atticka
    no time for a sig, sorry

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by doctorwes on Thursday May 04, @12:49PM EDT (#19)
    (User Info)
    It's hard to argue with attempts to catch pedophiles. But these methods eventually get used to control political dissent as well. I'd be uncomfortable with the FBI monitoring which files I was downloading.
    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Atticka (Skip_co@hotmail.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:57PM EDT (#34)
    (User Info)
    I have to agree with you on that one, that’s why it should stay open so everyone can see, people would think twice about DL'ing the latest set of 14 year old photo shoots. On top of this, I'm sure the FBI are already monitoring Gnutella content for kiddie porn and where its coming and going.

    Atticka
    no time for a sig, sorry

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Score Whore on Thursday May 04, @02:02PM EDT (#96)
    (User Info)
    So what you are saying is that a 15 year old boy shouldn't be looking at a 14 year old girl? Come on here. There's no point in ostracizing a young kid because he has natural interests in the opposite sex. This sort of "monitoring" borders on the criminal. First if the person here is presenting this material as if it were kiddie porn, that's illegal in some jurisdictions. Second he may be collecting information about the actions of some young kids, which is illegal in the US. Third some of those filenames are not clearly indicative of pedophilia. This is not a lot different than some king of vigilante action to stop, oh, door to door salesmen.
    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:2, Informative)
    by Maxintern9 (butt@stinky.net) on Thursday May 04, @03:01PM EDT (#145)
    (User Info) http://www.toshistation.com/funk/Dm.htm
    Mr. Whore, whether or not you like it, the law prohibits ANYBODY from possessing nude pics of an underage girl, no matter what their age.

    Monitoring the people who do this is no different from publishing a caller ID log to a sex chat number. You give up your privacy when you contact somebody's network.

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:2, Insightful)
    by Score Whore on Thursday May 04, @04:07PM EDT (#180)
    (User Info)
    Rather than being a complete reactionary, why don't you address the issue of the irresponsible way the moron at ZeroPaid is handling this. Why do you think that we don't hear about kids being locked up, fined, etc. for child porn all the time? They do have pictures of each other. They do get caught. Yet they don't get persecuted or prosecuted. Why? Because it's normal and natural and as minors the laws are applied to them in very special and carefully considered ways.

    The whole point of disagreement here is about how dumb this is being handled. Other than a few obvious trolls nobody is saying that child porn is good or even protected. The problem is that there is no regard for correctness of the information he is putting out. Even the filenames he uses as bait are ambiguous and clearly not indicative of the conclusion he wishes that everyone will arrive at. His approach is inept and clumsy.

    (And you are wrong about the law prohibiting the possesion of nude pictures of underage girls.)
    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:2, Insightful)
    by jejones on Thursday May 04, @01:08PM EDT (#48)
    (User Info)
    That's right...who needs that pesky Bill of Rights, anyway? If you refuse to answer a question or let the cops ransack your house, you must be guilty, otherwise you wouldn't have anything to hide.

    You are joking, aren't you, Atticka?

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Rand Race (RRace@prosolar.mx) on Thursday May 04, @01:12PM EDT (#50)
    (User Info)
    "seriously though, I think its good, it goes back to the argument that if your not doing anything to be ashamed of you have nothing to hide."

    Yes an old and completely moronic argument. I love how it's evolved past the illegal stage to the ashamed stage. I'm not ashamed I fucked my (29 year old) girlfriend last night, should I do it in the streets now? Is it OK for the government to install a camera in my bedroom since I'm not ashamed? Oh shit! Sodomy is still illegal in my state... hope they didn't get that blowjob on the tape! Gee I guess those framers of the 4th amendment really did know what they were talking about (not to mention presumption of innocence that these people are totally ignoring).


    -=RR=-

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:2)
    by helarno on Thursday May 04, @01:38PM EDT (#74)
    (User Info)

    I'm not ashamed I fucked my (29 year old) girlfriend last night, should I do it in the streets now?

    Actually, doing it in the streets is probably illegal in most states :)

    Seriously though, no one ever said that the Internet is a private, anonymous place. If you're going to use it, use it the same way you would behave in public. If you have to scratch your crotch, do it discreetly. :) If you want to get stuff that you would rather not have other people know, wear shades or something (i.e. get an anonymizer) and go to places where you're sure you won't be tracked. Otherwise, it's your own fault, just like if you were buying a naughty magazine and your local Parish priest/Rabbi walked by and caught you paying for it.

    The presumption of innocence still holds, because for anything to happen, the authorities would still have to build a solid case, haul that person into court and prove to the judge/jury (who are presuming the person is innocent) that said person is a pedophile.


    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Atticka (Skip_co@hotmail.com) on Thursday May 04, @01:47PM EDT (#88)
    (User Info)
    are you trying to justify the downloading of naked kids? ARE YOU?!? I could care less who or what you have sex with, but I do care if you go around DL'ing illegal material that has a negative affect on our society.

    your whole view on the subject is narrow, and you seem to be too engrossed with yourself to have a truly valid argument. nobody cares what you do at home in your own privacy, but people do care what you do in public (and yes, the internet IS public property), so no, we dont want to see you getting a lewinsky in the street (maybe some people do.....)

    supose you're gooing ot flam m3 for bad grammer and speeling.....

    Atticka
    no time for a sig, sorry

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Rand Race (RRace@prosolar.mx) on Thursday May 04, @03:07PM EDT (#149)
    (User Info)
    "are you trying to justify the downloading of naked kids? ARE YOU?!?"

    Nope, I'm trying to point out that the statement "If you aren't doing anything to be ashamed of (or illegal) then you have nothing to hide" is counter to the ideas put forth in the 4th and 5th amendments to the constitution of the United States and is all in all a very simplistic idea.

    "...but I do care if you go around DL'ing illegal material that has a negative affect on our society."

    So DLing illegal material that does not have a negative affect is ok? Who decides on what has a negative affect? I think guns have a negative affect on society, so can I post people who buy guns' names on the internet as murderers?

    "your whole view on the subject is narrow, and you seem to be too engrossed with yourself to have a truly valid argument."

    My view is narrow!? You are the one who cannot see that such arguments while sounding good fighting kiddie porn can be used to stifle political dissidence, free speech, and all of our other freedoms. Ken Starr has shown that when you can't hide your actions all it takes is someone willing to look hard enough to find something you have done illegal to get you into trouble.

    "nobody cares what you do at home in your own privacy..."

    You may not care who I have sex with in the privacy of my own home, but the state of Georgia does care who (or at least what gender) and how.

    "...but people do care what you do in public (and yes, the internet IS public property), so no, we dont want to see you getting a lewinsky in the street (maybe some people do.....)"

    But I thought if I wasn't ashamed it was OK. The people that care so much can bite me, tell 'em to mind their own fucking business. I sure as hell can tint my windows, hide things in my pocket, and encrypt my data in public so what on earth is your point?

    "supose you're gooing ot flam m3 for bad grammer and speeling....."

    Why?


    -=RR=-

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:3, Funny)
    by TheCarp (sjc@delphi.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:40PM EDT (#165)
    (User Info) http://people.delphi.com/sjc/
    > are you trying to justify the downloading of
    > naked kids? ARE YOU?!?

    DOwnloading naked kids? hmmm can I download a
    hamburger and french fries too? hmmm No Make that
    some prime rib, and some good red wine....now
    where exactly do I go to download this stuff
    again?

    > if you go around DL'ing illegal material that
    > has a negative affect on our society.

    hmmmm the transfer of bits from some other
    computer to my hard drive can have a negative
    effect on our society? Please explain. Also please
    quantify the actual harm done per kilobyte.

    > your whole view on the subject is narrow, and
    > you seem to be too engrossed with yourself to
    > have a truly valid argument.

    A complete moron said something to me once, it was
    the only thing he ever said that was correct...
    "When you point your finger at someone, you point
    3 back at yourself"

    > (and yes, the internet IS public property)

    Yes but....people are allowed to have private
    conversations in public places. Personally, I
    think laws saying people can't have sex, or
    walk around without cloths are pretty draconian...
    course...I only see 3 functions to clothing,
    1) protection from the elements
    2) pockets
    3) naugahide (ever sat on it not wearing long
    pants?)

    Given those being the only 3 functions of
    clothing that I recognize (special clothing
    designed for extra suport aside), I don't see
    any real problem with walking around naked (esp
    on a hot day)

    If you are offended by something, then its your
    own fault for choosing to be offended. Can't
    blame others for your choices.
    -- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Atticka (Skip_co@hotmail.com) on Thursday May 04, @05:10PM EDT (#202)
    (User Info)
    I have to agree with you in the naugahide bit.....especially on a hot day!

    what I meant by DL'in of illegal material, was not that the act of downloading was bad.....just the material that might be contained within could have an adverse affect of people's behaviour in society (snuff films for example)

    everyone has very good arguments, and good views on the subject, but the discussion is subject to opinions, and using such a medium as slashdot, tempers flare when opinions collide. if this were a debate, then a lot more progress could be made.

    Atticka
    no time for a sig, sorry

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Atticka (Skip_co@hotmail.com) on Friday May 05, @02:03AM EDT (#308)
    (User Info)
    goto www.stileproject.com

    check out there video library......

    Atticka
    no time for a sig, sorry

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Score Whore on Thursday May 04, @04:24PM EDT (#187)
    (User Info)
    (and yes, the internet IS public property)

    No it's not. It's a collection of private networks. Companies like Sprint, AT&T, Qwest, own their national networks and lease the bandwidth.
    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:2, Insightful)
    by Croaker (croaker@kmfms.nospam.com (remove nospam)) on Thursday May 04, @01:42PM EDT (#82)
    (User Info)

    OK, "Atticka" why aren't you using your real name? Got something to hide? And is your real, main e-mail address really at hotmail? Hmmm? Why don't we see your full name, address, and phone number on each post? Ashamed of something?

    Of course not. Privacy isn't only about hiding criminal misdeeds or things you're ashamed of. It's about not having everyone knowing things they have no reason to know.

    Sure, it's hard to argue that people who seek kiddie porn are nothing but scum. But, let's say that a site was out there logging attempted access to more "gray areas." Files like:

    • taking_drugs.doc
    • bomb_making_101.doc
    • 0wning_luzer_sites_howto.txt

    All of them are pretty shady, but unlike kiddie porn, they are all protected free speech. By tracking this, people could determine political, religious, and other "innocuous" affiliations. Information, generally, that they wouldn't normally have. Do you think potential employers should know if you're straight or gay? Have certain religious affiliations? Do you think your life insurance company has a right to know that you're interested in sky-diving, or perhaps you like rich french food with plenty of artery clogging cholesterol? You don't need to be ashamed of information for you to want it not made public. The second you have to start thinking about what they would think about the information you are looking for, you've already gone past the point of losing your rights.

    The problem here is that people and institutions feel secure in jumping to conclusions based on vanishly small amounts of evidence. Download a file on bomb making, and you must be a terrorist. Download a file on bungee jumping, and you must be a bad insurance risk. Do we really want a world where you have to staop and think, now and again, while you're excercising your first amendment rights?


    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russell

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Atticka (Skip_co@hotmail.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:00PM EDT (#141)
    (User Info)
    if you really wanted to know who I was, I'm sure you could find out. I never used to enter any of my info (RL name, ##'s, etc....)

    its safe to say there are exceptions to every rule and everyone has a little something to hide, insurance company's are looking out for themselves. The internet will do the same, its an evolving entity and will always find a way to survive, the least we can do is help it along and embrace things that make it a little more pleasant to interact with, and if publishing people's IP's accordingly (as to what they download) then so be it.

    its nice to a see a coherent thought out post, unlike some that have responded, thanks for your time to respond with an intelligent post (sometimes they are hard to come by!)

    Atticka
    no time for a sig, sorry

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Crosseyed & Painless on Thursday May 04, @02:09PM EDT (#103)
    (User Info) http://slashdot.org
    Good idea. Maybe someone will report you as a kiddie pr0n supplier. Have fun proving you have nothing to hide. Hope you don't need your computer while it sits in a property room for years.
    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by Rico_Suave on Thursday May 04, @02:37PM EDT (#118)
    (User Info)
    Absolutely.

    --
    C'mon..... Score: -5, Troll!!!!

    Re:they get what they deserve! (Score:1)
    by DustyHodges on Thursday May 04, @07:57PM EDT (#258)
    (User Info)
    I think this whole situation is pretty damned funny, however, there is one problem I have. The idea 'that if your not doing anything to be ashamed of you have nothing to hide.'

    Hell, you're not doing anything wrong, are ya Atticka? Mind if I come over to your house, rifle through your drawers, and check your computer for warez and pr0n? While I'm at it, I should probably go through all of the kitchen cabinets too. After all, you don't have anything to hide, right?

    -Dusty Hodges
    Isn't that illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @12:45PM EDT (#10)
    I believe (it has been a while since I read about it) the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (1996) makes it illegal to even insinuate such material. To photograph a nude or engaged 20 year old and call him/her 16 is illegal according to this statute. So then would be "reaming_a_12yo_butt.jpeg" by definition, since it alleges and describes an act that is contained within.
    this law was overturned... (Score:5, Informative)
    by SethJohnson (seth@*REMOVETHIS*mac6100.dhs.org) on Thursday May 04, @01:16PM EDT (#53)
    (User Info) http://mac6100.dhs.org/~seth


    This law made it a criminal offense to have images that appeared to depict children in illicit sexual acts while the subjects are actually of legal age. It was overturned just before that guy from Infoseek went to trial over having solicited a woman posing as a 13 year old to come have sex with him in Santa Monica. Half of the evidence against him (the child porn he had e-mailed said woman) was thrown out of court because of the overturning of the afformentioned law. It would have to be PROVEN that the people in the pictures were underage after the law was overturned.

    Also, since this law was overturned, it was disputed that he should even get in trouble for soliciting the woman because she wasn't really 13 and it was all play-acting.

    He ended up plea-bargaining, I think.

    If this law were still in effect, I am pretty certain that American Beauty would have been a difficult movie to release in the US.



    Seth

    Want a cool job?
    Actually, no, it isn't. (Score:2)
    by SvnLyrBrto on Thursday May 04, @01:24PM EDT (#59)
    (User Info)

    FYI

    It was tested and thrown out in court, last year I beleive.

    The chief litigant??? None other than Larry Flynt, of Hustler fame. Not too supprising there, eh?

    Anyway, the crux of that case was a publication of his entitled "Barely Legal". "Barely Legal" seeks out eighteen and nineteen year old girls who look younger than they are, say fourteen to sixteen, and is every bit explicit as Hustler.

    And it's all perfectly legal, and Mr. Flynt is making a good deal of money off of "Barely Legal"

    john

    Resistance is NOT futile!
    Re:Actually, no, it isn't. (Score:1)
    by delysid-x on Thursday May 04, @08:00PM EDT (#260)
    (User Info)
    Barely Legal is a damn fine porn mag. Not that I buy porn mags, I get all that for free on the net now.


    Slippery Slope (Score:2, Insightful)
    by sqlrob on Thursday May 04, @12:46PM EDT (#11)
    (User Info)
    How much has this damaged the usefulness of Gnutella (and similar programs)?

    Does RIAA/MPAA already have these servers out? If so I bet they are PISSED that someone publiclly brought out the possibility of this. Before this, how many people gave a second thought to this possibility?

    What next? Government monitoring?

    Re:Slippery Slope (Score:1)
    by wishus on Thursday May 04, @03:02PM EDT (#146)
    (User Info)
    The internet is a public place. No one ever said your IP address was confidential.

    This bait-and-switch tactic has been used by the government for years. Under-cover cop drug dealers spring to mind.. "Sting operations"...

    The illusion of freedom offered by the internet is extremely deceptive. You should act on-line how you would act in public. If you would lift up 12 year old girls' skirts in public, then by all means get on with your kid porn trading!

    wish
    ---
    $ su
    who are you?
    $ whoami
    whoami: no login associated with uid 1010.
    my concern... (Score:1, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @12:47PM EDT (#12)
    What concerns me right now is that you seem to be worried more about the privacy issues than the fact that Gnutella is being used by pedophiliacs. I applaud ZeroPaid.com for their efforts.
    Re:my concern... (Score:1)
    by nlymbo on Friday May 05, @07:55AM EDT (#350)
    (User Info)
    Should you take sharp instruments away from surgeons because criminals can use them to stab someone? No, and like knives, Gnutella is more about constructive use. To eliminate child porn you'll need to get rid of all photograpic equipment first, and then to be safe, get rid of all children too.
    Elegant solution (Score:1)
    by john_many_jars (reece@iwon.com?subject=Slashdot) on Thursday May 04, @12:48PM EDT (#14)
    (User Info)
    This is an elegant solution to a disturbing menace. As for privacy issues, it is impossible to conduct a transaction of any sort without knowing at least the location of both ends of the transaction, unless a third party is used (ie napster, gnutella, web pages that link to other sites, etc.) In which case, the third party must know where to send traffic. I don't think there is any agreement set up before hand that locations will remain secret.

    Caveat emptor


    Yeah, but whaddaya gonna do?

    Re:Elegant solution (Score:1, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @12:54PM EDT (#32)
    ...it is impossible to conduct a transaction of any sort without knowing at least the location of both ends of the transaction... [more ignorance deleted]

    Bzzzzt. Sorry. As a quick example off the top of my head, consider IP broadcast/multicast with public-key encryption such that only the intended recipient can read the contents of a message. There are others.

    Please try to limit yourself to things you actually know something about before pontificating.
    Re:Elegant solution (Score:1)
    by john_many_jars (reece@iwon.com?subject=Slashdot) on Thursday May 04, @02:01PM EDT (#95)
    (User Info)
    I'm sorry, did you say IP multicast? In other words, there is an address that information is being sent to? (albeit lots of addresses)

    My post did not concern the information but rather 1) it orginates somewhere (IP address--which may be spoofed I know, but the response would go to that IP address) 2) it goes somewhere (IP address-- though it may be multicasted

    On a single network, MAC address is good enough to see who sent and received it. Besides, for a transaction of any signifigance to occur, a response must be forth coming. They do the smae thing, got both sides.

    And if you want to apply my third party reasoning, consider the multicast as the third party. You post an encrypted message on a mulletin board. Everyone can read it, only one person can understand it. That one person is the destination and someone could have seen the other put it up.

    Though you may not know exactly who understands it, you can know who sent it and reduce down to who understands it (though this is computationally difficult with the scenario you describe).

    In otherwords, there is a sender which can be identified and a receiver that (in theory) can be identified.

    If there were such "perfect anonimity" and "perfect signatures," then lets see it. Of the scenario above, I can identify the sender, who has taken my advice of caveat emptor. (s)He has made it computationally difficult to figure out the recipient. But it can be figured out by a check of all who got the multi-cast. (not trying to approach cracking codes, but rather focus on the transmission of the info. don't care what it says)

    And if you don't think its possible to do, just remember the census bureau counts everyone in the US (250M+).

    While not easy, it is possible.


    Yeah, but whaddaya gonna do?

    No shame! (Score:2)
    by (void*) (voice@void.) on Thursday May 04, @12:48PM EDT (#17)
    (User Info)
    if your not doing anything to be ashamed of you have nothing to hide.

    Urrm. So does that mean that the kiddies should download their p0rn brazenly? :-) It might be good that - teach them not to be hypocrites!

    I've seen this before (Score:2, Funny)
    by ReadbackMonkey on Thursday May 04, @12:49PM EDT (#18)
    (User Info)
    I had a friend in university who had a special section of his web page called:

    "Dirty Pixxx"
    "Hard Wood" and,
    "Filthy Pixxx"

    When you clicked on them you would get pictures of:

    Dirt
    A Tree
    Dirty Laundry

    He then logged your IP address and ISP name and put it up on his web-page with the headliner "People with dirty minds"... it was pretty funny.
    It was a good link to feed the "anybody got some pRon" trolls.

    Re:I've seen this before (Score:2)
    by generic-man (jweill@andrew.cmu.edu) on Thursday May 04, @01:39PM EDT (#76)
    (User Info) http://www.weill.org
    And of course, don't forget two horny females.

    Don't worry, I won't post your IP address if you're curious enough to take a look. It's a great way to piss off perverts on IRC, too. :)

    Jason Weill Web Productions -- now with webpoll!
    Re:I've seen this before (Score:1)
    by Big Ben August (ben@SanDiegan.earthlink.net) on Thursday May 04, @07:29PM EDT (#245)
    (User Info) http://www.bradmojo.com/ben
    A friend of mine used to have a link entitled:
    "A picture of some naked chicks"
    And sure enough, there were some baby chickens.
    We weren't 31337 enough to do logging at the time, but it was amusing.

    --Ben
    IP addresses (Score:1)
    by new500 (new500@________hotmail.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:49PM EDT (#21)
    (User Info)
    since when did an IP address give you anything other than an indicater of a pseudo geographic pool eg dialup1.xsrvr.ny.myisp.sucks.com , and really, even if th eisp someho wmanages sessions on this dyn ip, how does that help shame someone?
    Re:IP addresses (Score:1)
    by Maxintern9 (butt@stinky.net) on Thursday May 04, @03:07PM EDT (#150)
    (User Info) http://www.toshistation.com/funk/Dm.htm
    Many people have static IPs. These can easily be traced back to a computer by law enforcement. If you are assigned an IP dynamically, law enforcement goes to the owner of the IP and says "Who was assigned this IP at this exact minute?" and the ISP gives them the info. AOL and all the big ISPs do this for law enforcement all the time. I can only imagine that without this effort, there would little to stop child pornography.
    Not just Gnutella.. (Score:2, Informative)
    by drwiii (douglas@min.net) on Thursday May 04, @12:49PM EDT (#22)
    (User Info) http://www.min.net/~douglas/
    This is a problem with any peer-to-peer file sharing app, including the centralized Napster system. Unless there's a third-party available to proxy the transfer through, your IP will be available. And it's likely we won't see download proxies springing up, simply because of concerns over bandwidth saturation and liability.
    I think I posted about this before ... (Score:4, Interesting)
    by SuperDuG (dug@dug.zzn.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:49PM EDT (#23)
    (User Info) http://www.dugnet.com
    I do believe I posted about this before. Without any means to trace or stop distribution of files illegal files will run rampid on systems giving free reign to anyone who wants them. This does involve copyrighted material and other lude materials.

    I think condemned.org has it right on actually doing something besides complain about kiddie porn. They not only take a stand they do something about it. I am very proud of this group .

    There needs to be a to moderate distributed file systems. If theres not then we will have a problem. This is just the tip of the iceberg.


    My name is DuG, so most of yours can't be.

    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:5, Informative)
    by ecampbel (ecampbel@!SPAM.mediaone.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:45PM EDT (#86)
    (User Info)
    I believe the is truly a bad thing. Assuming if someone searchs for "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", young-tits.jpg, .etc are necessarily looking for pedophilia is wrong and quite possibly illegal.

    If I saw my IP address on their Wall of Shame after searching for a innocuous term like the ones above clearly labeling me as someone who is looking for child pornography, I would sue them for defamation of character because they would have no proof that I actually desired child pornography, yet still went ahead and labeled my search as shameful and me a pedophile.

    Also, they really should not consider themselves holier then thou when they clearly advocate Internet users to break the law by distributing copyrighted music. Remember, outside of the Fair Use portion of our copyright law, an author of a copyrighted work has the sole desecration of how their work is distributed. They can't pick and choose the laws that they wish to uphold.


    My favorite palindrome: a man a plan a canal panama
    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by Score Whore on Thursday May 04, @02:12PM EDT (#104)
    (User Info)
    I agree. It was pretty ironic to see them hiding that copyright violating who managed to get mixed in with their child porn.

    How funny do you think it will be when they get a visit from the FBI investigating the distribution of child porn. I don't think Agent Bob of the FBI will be too forgiving when he finds his time wasted. With such a nice collection of copyright violations right there it looks like these guys might just be asking to get the free asshole size upgrade by drawing attention to themselves.
    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by Maxintern9 (butt@stinky.net) on Thursday May 04, @02:55PM EDT (#138)
    (User Info) http://www.toshistation.com/funk/Dm.htm
    . Assuming if someone searchs for "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", young-tits.jpg, .etc are necessarily looking for pedophilia is wrong and quite possibly illegal.

    How would "making an assumption" be illegal? I can post my assumptions online without fear of legal action, assuming you don't repeal the First Amendment.

    Anyway, they aren't saying "This IP is connected to a pedophile." They are saying "Someone at this IP looked for suspicious file names." Finally, if you really believe searching for "schoolgirl.jpg" or "littlegirls.jpg" is not an indication of pedophilia, you are either a fool, or totally disingenuous. What the hell else could it be? Whether or not it makes you happy, pedophilia is very illegal, and very wrong. Using this tool to embarrass perverts is totally justified.

    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by Shadowlore on Friday May 05, @03:20AM EDT (#317)
    (User Info) http://www.libc.org/Members/ucntcme
    No, looking for 'schoolgirl.jpg' is not anywhere near a gaurantee that the seeker is a pedophile. Neither is 'littlegirls.jpg'. These types (and in the case of the latter, the explicit instance) are not only devoid of any indication of desire for sexual pictures of children, they are examples of names people use for their own pictures of family members. A family with daughters may very well have a picture of them titled 'littlegirls.jpg'.

    After visiting the site, I noticed another alleged CP file 'mylittlesister.jpg' How do you justify this being an indicator of pedophilia? I have pictures of my children, a boy and a girl. I have filenames such as 'mylittlegirl', 'myfirstbath', and 'caughtonthetoilet'. Would you consider these pornographic titles indicative of pedophilia? In some cases (which I will not list here due to the obviousness fo them), the filename may be indicative, but some of the ones noted on this forum, and referred to specifically by yourself are not.

    To assume that _any_ of these are indicative of pedophilia is not only absurd, it is quite telling.

    Would you likewise assume that someone searching on the net for 'touchmyself' is looking for porn? If so, you make a very critical error. Especially given this is the title of a pop song from a few years back.

    Perhaps a little introduction to searching would be in order. If you search for 'school girl', 'school', and 'girl' on a system like GNUTella, it will likely return 'schoolgirls.jpg'. Heck, searching for 'jpg' would as well.

    Now, why is this important? Do you think they just came up with these names? Some, sure. But what about those that do not clearly indicate sexual nature or content, such as the two you chose 'schoolgirl.jpg' and 'littlegirls.jpg', not likely. My bet is they sat and watched the search list, and came up with adding these, for the sake of drawing traffic. IOW, they tried to meet what they tailored their empty content to meet what they watched.

    This is no different than a company tailoring it's message on a mailing list or newsgroup. Lurk a bit, figure out what is going on, and adapt. Even further, they deliberately attempted to get people to 'fall into their trap'. If police do this, it is usually considered entrapment.

    As far as the argument goes regarding the alleged shameful person, has the thought ever occured that perhaps some of them are actually law enforcement agents of investigators? Or perhaps other investigatory agencies private and public? Are these possibilities beyond your realm of acceptibility?

    Having worked in the NOC of a national ISP, I can say that there is a lot of this latter activity going on. posting CP is against nearly all ISPs (I say nearly because I can't honestly say all) to provide CP, or use their services to aquire it. If there are reports of such activity taking place (there have been since this started), they are fully justified in verifying these complaints. Will you label them 'pedophiles' or 'people who should be investigated'? Given that some sysadmins and netadmins may peruse this site and block the IP's involved, this may consititute unlawful obstruction or interference in an investigation if it happens to be an investigator's IP. When questioned, the admin will point to this site. New can of worms gets opened.

    Another note:
    Most surfers aren't using static IPs. So labelling it 'wall of shame' is not only a misnomer, it is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get people to see it. It takes investigation by an ISP to determine who _possibly_ may have had that IP, at that time. So where is the alleged shame? How can one be shamed if one cannot be identified on the 'wall of shame'.

    I say _possibly_ above, due to such things as corporate and ISP firewalls, Masquerading, NAT, etc. It is not always possible to track down a user. Then we also have the can-o-worms known as IPSpoofing. Want to get an ISP/individual with a stayicIP on the list? Why not spoof the IP?

    Yet another point or two...

    In some countries it is legal to have these type of images. Like it or not, not everyone searching for various kinds of pornography is commiting a crime. AIUI, it is legal to possess these types of pictures in British Columbiai (Canada). In the Netherlands, it is legal to pose for pornography at the age of 14, in much of Europe, the age is 16. In Canada, the legal age fo consent for sex with a minor is 14, in other countries it is down to 12. Thus, pictures of 12-18 year old people in sexual contexts is legal in various parts of the world. Remeber as well, that eighTEEN and nineTEEN year olds are both 'teens', and 'legal' in the US.

    While on that subject, do you even know what pedophilia is? Is it sexual attraction to under-age people? If so, then yo uwould have to have never been sexually attracted to one under the age of X (where X is 18 in the US, and clearly other ages in other countries). This would include when you yourself were under that age.

    But pedophilia as clinically defined is not what people here seem to think it is. Pedophilia 'is the chronic sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children'. There is no fixed age limit. It is usually accepted that the sexual attraction to a young person that presents signs of puberty (breasts in women, and pubic hair in both men and women) is not considered clinical pedophilia.

    So, could this not be just a big marketing ploy? A trick to get people to their site? Certainly something to think about. Certainly a cheap way to get 'advertising' on /., MSNBC.com, etc.

    Could it be a different kind of ploy? Have you considered that some of these 'titles' are the same as 'legal pornography' picture titles? If you insist that someone is looking for pornography when looking for 'schoolgirl.jpg', and that it must be child pornography is to demonstrate a very narrow concept. How about an adult pornstar playing the role of a collegegirl in a college uniform? Certainly qualifies as a 'schoolgirl', and not requiring any children be implied or involved.

    Do you know how little, by way of comparison to the claims, child pornography is actually 'traded' over the internet? Could this be a scare tactic, designed to bring more support for such attempts to control the Internet as the CDA? Another possibility.


    "GO!!?!", Windows aren't used for 'going' anywhere , they are used for watching other people go places. Like that penguin over there

    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by cgadd on Friday May 05, @03:21AM EDT (#318)
    (User Info)
    > Finally, if you really believe searching for "schoolgirl.jpg" or "littlegirls.jpg"
    > is not an indication of pedophilia, you are either a fool, or totally disingenuous.
    > What the hell else could it be?

    Ever heard of stock photos? Look thru some common everyday magazines (like in Women's Day, etc) and see if you can find any photos of girls. The people putting together articles and ads don't always take the pictures. The net is VERY useful for finding good stock photography.

    How about maybe a film/tv agent who is looking for a new child star?

    It doesn't matter if those are the most likely people searching. Those are completely possible scenarios, and those users would be slandered by suggesting that they are pedos. I know I'd sue.
    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by hollebeek on Thursday May 04, @06:49PM EDT (#226)
    (User Info)
    Copyright owners DO NOT have control over how their work is distributed. In the event that fair use does not apply, the copyright owner has the right to sue for damages he sustained from unauthorized copies, and the right to seek punitive damages under certain circumstances, as well as certain other rights.

    But this is very, very different from "control".

    Caveat: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:2)
    by ecampbel (ecampbel@!SPAM.mediaone.net) on Thursday May 04, @07:46PM EDT (#252)
    (User Info)
    You are probably right. But could you give an example where statements 1-4 don't imply #5:
    1) A person is distributing someone else's copyrighted work
    2) They are distributing the work in a way that fair use doesn't apply
    3) The creator of the work doesn't want their work distributed in the way the person is distributing it
    4) The person continues to distribute the work
    5) The person is considered to be breaking the law

    If statements 1-4 necessarily imply #5 , then it seems to me the copyright holders have control over how their work is being distributed.

    I would consider a hypothetical country to have control over a person's religion if a citizen was punished for practicing another religion. Would you consider this country to have control over religion?

    The distribution of copyrighted work is analogous to my hypothetical country's control over religion. The people of the United States are punished if they distribute a person's copyrighted work against the wishes of the copyright holder (fair use issues aside). So, I would argue that the copyright holders do have control over the way in which their work is distributed

    Perhaps your definition of control is different then mine, but I think the threat of getting sued for punitive damages is a very effective means of controlling distribution, just as the fear of being punished in a country for practicing the wrong religion is an effective means of controlling the religion of its people.

    My favorite palindrome: a man a plan a canal panama
    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by EJB (ejb at klomp dot org) on Thursday May 04, @07:09PM EDT (#239)
    (User Info) http://www.klomp.org/~ejb/
    I don't understand why this is not everybodies first reaction; you're talking about their holier-than-thou attitude, and that attitude is most clear because they advertise having child pornography.

    How can it be worse to search for "little girl*" than to offer files with such names implying horrible pictures.

    They say there aren't really horrible pictures in there; they say that the file names have nothing to do with the contents of the files.

    But how is downloading a file that only pretends to contain horrible material more illegal than offering pretend-horrible material? Aren't these guys creating a market for these kinds of pictures?

    Just like police operations of this kind: how do you know that somebody would have bought illegal drugs had the police not offered it to them?

    Now, if you want to find out if it is actually true what they say: that these files don't really contain horrible pictures. How do you do that without being labelled a pedophile by them?

    I wouldn't yet say that these guys are as sick as those people who create a market for these pictures by collecting them, but they really need to check their heads IMO.

    EJB

    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by ODiV ((my nick)@subdimension.com) on Thursday May 04, @07:33PM EDT (#248)
    (User Info) http://www.crosswinds.net/~odiv
    "They can't pick and choose the laws that they wish to uphold."

    Why not? I do it all the time. I bet the majority of people here do it as well.

    I only adhere to laws that I think make sense. Well, and I think I break some of the ones that I agree with (I really have to cut that out). I also probably break a lot of laws that I don't know about.

    - I am ODiV, hear me type
    Re:I think I posted about this before ... (Score:1)
    by god_of_the_machine (slashdot.SPAM.ME.NOT@ryanthiessen.com) on Thursday May 04, @10:31PM EDT (#281)
    (User Info) http://www.ryanthiessen.com
    If I saw my IP address on their Wall of Shame after searching for

    If you look at their site, they list only people who are downloading the files, not those who do searches for the files. While many of the files were named in confusing ways (I agree with you about "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", "young-tits.jpg") but others were less ambigious, such as "preteensuckandfuck.jpg" and "incest12yrsold-forreal.jpg" were not. A person would have to be sick and confused to be looking up those types of files, and should be investigated. really

    -rt-
    ** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy here **
    Can disgruntled sysops .... (Score:3, Interesting)
    by euroderf (fred@moremagic.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:51PM EDT (#26)
    (User Info) file:index.html
    log in as their bosses and go hit the fake porno ?

    publicised surveillance => public spoofs

    #include <std_disclaimer.h>

    implications (Score:1)
    by mrdlinux on Thursday May 04, @12:51PM EDT (#27)
    (User Info)
    This will make using Gnutella just that much more exciting now that you never know what the server you are getting your MP3s from is doing with your IP address. I suppose that some encryption authentification scheme could be thought of that assures that the MP3s are real, but that would just lead to live-bait IP-logging servers. So while Gnutella creates an distribution method impossible to stop, it also cannot protect against the inherent risks in obtaining files across the internet. What is even more dangerous is that one person could obtain the IP addresses of everyone on the network, by recursively requesting the IP address list from every IP address they get. A good solution to that would be to have many separate networks (like IRC). But the baiting method of obtaining IP addresses will probably be used by the copyright 'police' and should result in a cat & mouse type game. I can see Gnutella networks (and other similar ones) becoming fragmented into smaller networks of trusted individuals. Time will tell.

    Re:implications (Score:1)
    by asdffdsa on Thursday May 04, @02:17PM EDT (#107)
    (User Info)

    To stop people from using a file sharing system like Gnutella, you don't even have to shame them or threaten them with embarrassment. All you really need to do is make it hard for them to get what they actually want. Make it hard enough and even the most determined pirate/pedophile/innocent person looking for legal content/whatever will give up and look elsewhere.

    It would be pretty easy to flood a network like this with lots of servers that claim to have the content that people are looking for, but actually contain garbage. White noise (or advertising!) masqerading as Metallica songs would be just as effective as bogus kiddie porn.

    Private, invitation only networks seem like the next obvious step.

    Aneel
    Re:implications (Score:1)
    by jonfromspace (dogma@spammeanddie.yourmojo.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:19PM EDT (#159)
    (User Info) http://www.itpwebsolutions.com
    Private, invitation only networks seem like the next obvious step.

    Does that not defeat the purpose of the Gnutella "comunity"?


    Lotteries are a tax on people that suck at math
    A stunt, and not a very good one. (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Badgerman on Thursday May 04, @12:51PM EDT (#28)
    (User Info) http://www.seventhsanctum.com/
    This smells to me of a publicity "look how much we care stunt." Probably in light of the Napster controversy (notice how Napster and such are discussed on the main page) they're putting their best face foward. I mean, who can argue with folks that don't like pediophiles?

    However, looking over the pages with the file names, few of them seem to be any different from the usual dross you find on the net or here about in spam or see in newsgroups. The names are rarely distinctive.

    I wonder if this is a new trend - trying to find ways to look good so you don't get caught up in the recent controversies over the net and technology.
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    Re:A stunt, and not a very good one. (Score:1)
    by Score Whore on Thursday May 04, @02:15PM EDT (#106)
    (User Info)
    Or finding ways to draw attention to yourself and your other illegal activities. How stupid is it to do this? These guys are probably going to make a point of collecting IP addresses so their going to get connected regularily. Now all the RIAA has to do is search for some of those keywords from their site and then go visit. If these numbnuts weren't distributing other illegal material this might be a vaguely less stupid action.
    Social Limits (Score:2, Interesting)
    by Kailden (kaildn@yahoo.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:51PM EDT (#29)
    (User Info)
    If you think about it, every society sets up limits on what is proper/normal and accepted within that society. Some of these things are taboo or left unspoken (out of sight/out of mind) while yet others are actively punished. Thats why we set up laws and prisons. The internet is a society and people will set up limits--even if they are hard to regulate. One of the oldest ways to curtail unaccepted behavior is to shame the person involved (i.e. the scarlet letter). This is probably just step one in the world defining what will be accepted and what will not be accepted on the internet. I think that a society that can not be regulated enforcably by law, regulating by shame may become the only way to notify others of thier acts against society. You still have a choice whether or not you want to do something not acceptable by the majority, but you face the chances of being uncovered...not unlike the cops who pose as hitmen...
    Re:Social Limits (Score:1)
    by vanix on Thursday May 04, @01:43PM EDT (#84)
    (User Info)
    I agree with you--in fact, punishment by shame is in some ways superior to punishment by litigation. It is puts the power back into the hands of individuals to say "I think your behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it" without infringing on the civil rights of the accused. It really addresses the fact that people *know* when they're doing something Wrong, and they deserve to feel bad about it.
    Re:Social Limits (Score:2, Interesting)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @03:11PM EDT (#154)
    Have you read The Scarlet Letter?

    Whoever said that kiddie porn is a wedge issue was very correct. People overlook a lot when it comes up in a discussion like this.

    The problem - what is kiddie porn? Who defines it (I know it when I see it?)? In the US, anyway, laws need to be very clear about what is and what is not legal. (Remember the Montana non-speed limit?)

    There are *hundreds of thousands* of people out there who have pictures of their kids taking a bath, naked at the beach, or whatever. Is that illegal? Just because the kid is under 18? Or do you have to _enjoy_ it for it to be kiddie porn? Maybe you have to be male? Or a "pedophile"?

    The law is decidely unclear. We have, instead, delegated responsibility for defining the law to web site operators, photo-mart technicians, and small-town cops.

    I completely and totally reject the idea that you and others who think like you do should be able to define what is wrong for me. That's why we have government - so that everyone can have a say in creating the law and so that everyone gets a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

    For you to suggest that seizing control and forcing your own laws on others is desirable puts you in league, 100%, with the abortion-clinic bombers.

    What if I'm not breaking the law and I don't feel that I'm doing something wrong? Should I be fired because my employer disagrees? (Not because I surfed at work, but because he/she saw my IP listed there.) Should I need to worry about some "save the children" crusader firebombing my house?

    I feel strongly that it's wrong for a 40-year-old to molest his 10-year-old daughter and I certainly don't want to watch. But I also don't want to get killed because some unnamed, undated jpeg on my hard drive happens to be of a 17-year-old or a 40-year-old masquerading as a 16-year-old. (Not illegal, but I would get 'caught' by these standards!)

    Peer pressure works with clothing styles. It doesn't work so well with more serious issues.

    (Salon had a good article about this in Mothers Who Think a few weeks ago.)
    Awwww... too bad (Score:1)
    by Rombuu (rombuu@surfree.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:51PM EDT (#30)
    (User Info)
    Wow, I'm realty upset that everyone's favorite piracy tool has a privacy issue. Maybe someone should sue the company that makes it... oh, duh, I forgot its open source, so you are stuck...



    Space is Big / Space is Dark / It's Hard to Find / A Place to Park - Burma Shave
    This is good, but not very useful on its own (Score:5, Interesting)
    by anticypher (cypherpunks@anti.co.uk) on Thursday May 04, @12:54PM EDT (#33)
    (User Info) http://127.210.19.3/index.html
    I've tracked back some of the IP addresses they have posted. Some of them are dial up connections to ISPs, some trace back to .edu and seem to be static addresses.

    Without matching the time and port to a specific user login at an ISP, this is mostly useless. But matching can be done quite easily, as most ISPs keep login records and will willingly give them over to law enforcement when asked or marketing research firms when paid.

    This is good because it will make people a little nervous about using gnutella and similar distributed file systems to spread around questionable material. If it helps keep the worst pr0n and blatantly ripped copyrighted material off, then gnutella will be more acceptable in areas such as universities. PR stunts such as this will also raise the knowledge level of how anonymity on the internet is a rather dodgy concept. It is so very easy to track you through your IP address, but most of the clueless people believe the hype you are completely out of reach of repercussions when connected to the internet.

    We'll have to see if other services like this one pop up, especially those who have an evil political agenda. Marketers who harvest IP info and match it up to other records in doubleclick to spam you more effectively. Imagine a company putting out files named "christs_love.txt", and seeing who DLs it, and then targeting them with religious ads. Or "suicide_help.doc", and then selling the results to insurance companies.

    Expect to see more of this in the near future.

    the AC


    Re:This is good, but not very useful on its own (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Tackhead on Thursday May 04, @01:39PM EDT (#75)
    (User Info)
    I always wondered why FBI never set up a series of "sting" sites for just such logging. It wouldn't take much to convince a judge that regularly searching for, and downloading, files with names like those mentioned on the site could constitute reasonable grounds to begin an investigation. And while we're on the subject, why hasn't RIAA/MPAA done the same thing for Gnutella or Napster.

    Of course, maybe they have. Oops, here come the men in black...

    Bottom line, if you're (l)using anything that involves direct connection over IP between your box and the other guy's box, you have to trust the server on the other end of the connection.

    Meanwhile, why hasn't anyone posted that the logs mentioned in today's article are available as screenshots, not text, and are consequently unlikely to be indexed by search engines? I'd say the loggers went as far out of their way as they could to preserve the loggees privacy while still making it very clear that Everything You Download From Someone Else's Computer Can Be Logged.

    Meanwhile, for sheer laughs, dig The Misanthropic Bitch's list of referrers.

    And no discussion of stupid people on the 'net would be complete without a link to Baiting.

    Re:This is good, but not very useful on its own (Score:2, Insightful)
    by TheTomcat (sean@nbnet.nb.ca) on Thursday May 04, @02:20PM EDT (#110)
    (User Info) http://riptear.dyndns.org
    I always wondered why FBI never set up a series of "sting" sites for just such logging.

    I'm probably mistaken, but isn't that 'entrapment'?
    "If there is hope it lies in the proles." -George Orwell, 1984
    Re:This is good, but not very useful on its own (Score:2, Insightful)
    by ethereal on Thursday May 04, @02:34PM EDT (#117)
    (User Info) http://slashdot.org/users.pl

    I don't think so. It's only entrapment if you weren't going to do something illegal, but the undercover agents talked you into it. If you did something of your own free will but actually you were talking to a cop, you have only yourself to blame. That's what generally happens when undercover cops pose as streetwalkers, for example.

    "You can open self extracting archives using PKZIP25.EXE or unrar."

    Re:This is good, but not very useful on its own (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Trailer Trash (mdchaney@michaelchaney.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:38PM EDT (#164)
    (User Info) http://www.doublewide.net/

    I'm probably mistaken, but isn't that 'entrapment'?

    There's a difference between being active and being passive. When the feds worked hard to get John Delorian to run drugs for them, it was active. He had no history of such behavior, and they should have never did it. In the same way, ATF agents asked Randy Weaver to saw a couple shotguns off just a little bit shorter than the legal minimum length. Again, it's entrapment, we don't know if he was into that sort of thing before (or if he even knew it was illegal).

    The basic idea is that in these cases and others like them, the crime is actually created by the law enforcement personnel who convince someone else to actually commit it. I don't know why they did that to Delorian. They did it to Weaver so they could subsequently blackmail him into helping to entrap someone else. Charges were pressed only after he refused to go along with them.

    The irony of the Weaver situation is that we have one of the whiniest government agencies, the BATF, actually making up crimes for themselves to fight. It's like a fire department setting fires. The BATF whines about needing more money, yet they apparently have enough that they can make up crimes to fight. If I didn't know better, I'd have to guess that actual crime no longer exists and these guys are wandering around trying to look busy.

    The situation here (gnutella & zeropaid) is one which I actually have no problem with. Rather than actively recruiting would-be criminals, they are passively providing some bait, and keeping track of those who bite. It seems likely that people who bite in this situation are actually looking for kiddie porn and probably already have some.

    So, obviously they've broken no laws since they downloaded something legal. But the fbi now has a list of folks to start watching. I don't think that's so bad.

    -Michael


    Re:This is good, but not very useful on its own (Score:1)
    by Chao (firemote@hotmail.com) on Friday May 05, @10:10AM EDT (#358)
    (User Info)
    I always wondered why FBI never set up a series of "sting" sites for just such logging

    who's to say that we're not? just because you don't know about it...
    This is *sort* of good, yes. But there is a danger (Score:3, Funny)
    by torpor (jay2teklab.com) on Thursday May 04, @02:19PM EDT (#108)
    (User Info)
    I have to wonder how long it will be before services like ZeroPaid, which are clearly controversial in nature, become sponsored promotional sites.

    "This anti-pedo web site brought to you by Nike, because only we know how to properly abuse children in factory conditions!"


    j. --
    On the contrary (Score:4, Interesting)
    by FascDot Killed My Pr on Thursday May 04, @02:22PM EDT (#113)
    (User Info)
    "This is good because it will make people a little nervous about using gnutella and similar distributed file systems to spread around questionable material."

    Right, so they'll start using anonymous remailers and the like, spoiling THOSE for everyone else also.

    There is only one way to make someone not do something: Make it against the person's interest to do it. This takes many forms:

    1) Money (charge more for products you want to discourage, like cigarettes)
    2) Shame (make fun of the person who broke the rule, like the Wall o' Shame in this article)
    3) Punishment (typical method of law enforcement, tickets, fines, prison, etc).

    #1 works very well because it applies to every instance. #2 is pretty rare because not everyone has any shame and other people want to be "polite" and "nice" (in quotes because real etiquette has no problem with punishing miscreants). #3, if spottily applied, loses its effectiveness. To me, this is the best argument in the world against creation of new laws (and removal of many existing laws). Having unenforced or unenforcable laws weakens the power of ALL laws. With the Internet's current technology, there is no reliable way to link an act to an individual. Making laws that assume there is only makes things worse.
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
    Try MailOne for Linux!
    Re:On the contrary (Score:1)
    by Salant on Thursday May 04, @04:26PM EDT (#188)
    (User Info)
    Hopefully this whole post was in humor...

    If not I'd have to also suggest we get rid of these silly doctors and hospitals to, cause if you can't save all the people it just makes it to hard to save the rest of them.

    :)

    Flaws in the reasoning... (Score:1)
    by Watts (watts@elite.laer.nu) on Thursday May 04, @12:58PM EDT (#36)
    (User Info)
    The fact that you can find the IP of a person requesting a file has nothing to do with the fact that it's "truely distributed," as there are very few file sharing networks where there is not a direct connection between the person sharing the file and the person getting it. Unless you want a lot of servers that have massive amounts of traffic, or you have a group of people that don't mind if files are cached on their systems, you'll have to do direct transfers.
    The other problem with this IP posting strategy is that this in no way reflects people who are actively searching for child pornography. You could log searches for things such as "kiddie porn", but searches are anonymous. Only file connections are direct, and there are some people who go crazy and do things like download every possible jpg image.
    The good turning bad (Score:1)
    by pyronicide on Thursday May 04, @12:58PM EDT (#37)
    (User Info)
    One of the things that i value most about the internet is the privacy. You can have true free speech and not have to worry about what is going to happen to you, or who is going to take it bad. Privacy can be done different ways however, even though you are publishing your ip address whenever you look for a file over Gnutella, it is kind of like opening your door. Some people respect your privacy and stay away, unless they ask. Others however, like ZeroPaid, barge in, look at everything, and try to steal whatever they can. What an awfull world we live in where people do this regularily (such as script kiddies). Now, i view kiddie porn as free speach. Please don't take this wrong however. Porn, especially kiddie porn is wrong, and takes advantage of people who do not know better. Seeing how this country is supposed to be free though, i see it perfectly ok if you want to corrupt your mind that way. Distributed networks, such as Gntella or Napster, are vessels of free speech, they allow us to say what is good or bad in the digital world. As an example Napster lets us show the MPAA or the publishing companies that it is time to start doing something different in their distribution methods. However, the beauty of the internet is tainted when people take advantage of that free speech and start showing people's personal habits for all to see. This is kind of like running the looser in high school's underwear up the flag pole. Why do we need to show that other people are worse or better than us? Ok, now i am done raving.... Just food for thought.
    Re:The good turning bad (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:41PM EDT (#80)
    Hmm. So searching for child porn is free speech and should be protected, but publishing people who search for child porn is not free speech and should be shut down? What a load of crap. This argument doesn't make logical sense.

    In fact, your example of someone running the loser's underwear up the flagpole is actually better suited to the anti-porn argument. What if you stripped the loser naked and took pictures of him, and then ran that up the flagpole? Do the people who did that get to remain anonymous?

    The reason child porn is illegal is because children can't be reasonably expected to consent to having pictures of them taken--never mind being raped while having their pictures taken.

    Civil liberties cut both ways. And, by the way, so does free speech. If the KKK marched in my town, it is their right to do so. However, it is MY right to stand beside them and yell anti-racist slogans. Free speech does not guarantee anonymity. If you bother with U.S. legal precedent, you'll remember that the KKK tried to march in NYC with masks, and were told that they had to march maskless.

    Furthermore, some kinds of speech are illegal (fire in a crowded theater, etc.), because they have social harms. Child porn certainly meets that test.

    I do care about free speech, and have been a member of the ACLU for 10 years. But "free speech for me" arguments don't just come from people who want to censor--they come from people who don't want to be criticized. This is, in fact, what makes free speech work--people
    allowed to say whatever they want, INCLUDING that what someone else said is wrong. That is, the benefit of free speech is that BOTH sides can express themselves. You seem to think that free speech means that someone else can't respond.

    Besides that, let's not forget that what we're talking about here is the exploitation of children. It's not just producers who should be punished (and, again, judicial precedent agrees with me). I think people who produce it AND
    consume it should be locked away in a deep dark cell, if not subjected to the same kind of torture they either (a) put kids through or (b) enjoyed watching. Every picture tells a story. These things were created out of real human suffering. DB

    P.S. I'm only anonymous because Slashdot took forever to send me my password. My username is/will be wdball. And you can post that wherever the hell you want.
    Justice: Who screams the loudest? (Score:2)
    by guran (Reply to this@bottom of post) on Friday May 05, @07:49AM EDT (#348)
    (User Info)
    Look, there are two ways to discuss this. Either we can discuss principles, i.e Privacy vs kiddie porn vs free speech vs vigilantism etc
    Or we can talk about what really happened, and reasonable consequences if this becomes common.

    Discussing abstract principles is something I love to do, especially after a beer or two. However it seldom leads anywhere. I think (as a matter of principle) that speech should be free, anonymous access to information should be possible (or rather, not necesary) and that children (and adults) never should be forced to pose for porn pics.
    *I* have no trouble combining those views. Neither (I guess) have you. Unfortunately there are those who like to act out those liberties to the full extent, and they become uncompatible. 'tis called "real life"

    Regarding the *actual* event, though, I have a serious problem with the wall of shame method.
    It goes against fundamental priniples of justice, like "innocent until proven guilty" and "right do defend yourself"

    Yes if you trace down the IP number you might find a child molester, who gets scared off once he's out in the open. You might also find an average innocent Joe. Wether because (s)he downloaded the file "by accident" or was wrongfully pointed out by a forged IP adress, someone will never be able to clear his name. (to a large group of people, accused==guilty)

    I could go on talking about how you could log anything, not just that dreaded kiddie porn, the same way, but it's too obvious and allready done.

    All opinions are my own - until criticized

    Re:The good turning bad (Score:2, Insightful)
    by Guttata on Thursday May 04, @01:45PM EDT (#85)
    (User Info)
    Now, i view kiddie porn as free speach. Please don't take this wrong however. Porn, especially kiddie porn is wrong, and takes advantage of people who do not know better. Seeing how this country is supposed to be free though, i see it perfectly ok if you want to corrupt your mind that way.

    So, kiddie porn is "perfectly ok if you want to corrupt your mind", but posting IP addresses is not?! Oh, is it because you are afraid posting IP addresses may hurt somebody? What do you think kiddie porn does? It is not some innocent, victimless crime - kiddie porn is evidence of child abuse. The very existence of kiddie porn means some child was abused - but that is "perfectly ok" huh, since it is somehow "free speach" [sic]. Yeah.

    I find it amazing that someone can defend kiddie porn as "free speach" [sic], and then complain about somebody using free speech to post IP addresses of people searching their hard drives. Amazing, and very pathetic.

    Not the issue... (Score:1)
    by Rico_Suave on Thursday May 04, @02:41PM EDT (#123)
    (User Info)
    "Seeing how this country is supposed to be free though, i see it perfectly ok if you want to corrupt your mind that way. "

    I could care less if some sicko gets off on kiddie pics. What DOES piss me off is the fact that these kids depicted have to deal with the abuse that was forced upon them. THAT is the issue.

    --
    C'mon..... Score: -5, Troll!!!!

    Acceptable behavior from a private citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Pariah (reedted@netcom.com) on Thursday May 04, @12:59PM EDT (#38)
    (User Info) http://pc.izap.com/~reedted
    If the government set up a sting operation to prosecute people in this fashion, I'd be outraged. If a company tried to convince people to use their site and then did this, I'd boycott. But this is being done by someone who is TRYING to get people to quit using his site. (He wants pedophiles to stop using Gnutella.) I have no problem with that. This would be bad behavior from the police, but it's just fine for a person- he's not making anybody use his stuff.
    Re:Acceptable behavior from a private citizen (Score:2, Insightful)
    by acvh on Thursday May 04, @02:56PM EDT (#139)
    (User Info)
    Actually, this is analagous to a fairly common police activity, that of a cop pretending to be a 14 year old girl to entice a pedophile into a meeting, and then busting him.

    Which prompts the question, in my mind anway, if the alleged victim doesn't really exist has a crime been committed?

    Or in this case, if there are no illegal pictures to download, how can someone be accused of downloading illegal pictures?

    Re:Acceptable behavior from a private citizen (Score:1)
    by Helge Hafting on Friday May 05, @07:09AM EDT (#344)
    (User Info)
    <I>Which prompts the question, in my mind anway, if the alleged victim doesn't really exist has a crime been committed? </I>

    No, it was planned, and there was the intent to carry it through. Wether the victim exists isn't interesting. (If it were, cops could hire a 14-year old for setting the trap, and then bust people.)

    Can you accuse someone walking into a bank waving a gun? Before he has time to say anything?
    Re:Acceptable behavior from a private citizen (Score:1)
    by acvh on Friday May 05, @07:13AM EDT (#346)
    (User Info)
    Can you accuse someone walking into a bank waving a gun? Before he has time to say anything?

    Yes. I'm sure that waving a gun in a bank is a crime in and of itself. Not a good analogy.

    Couldn't our hypothetical pedophile's response be, "I could tell by your messages that you were a cop pretending to be a 14 year old girl, and I really have a jones for guys who pretend to be little girls"??

    Re:Acceptable behavior from a private citizen (Score:2, Informative)
    by Score Whore on Thursday May 04, @03:25PM EDT (#162)
    (User Info)
    So you're saying you're outraged at the government then? Local governments do this all the time. Ever hear of the vicesquad? It's not illegal or wrong for the police to respond undercover to all sorts of illegal propositions. Everything from prostitution to assasination for hire have been pursued using these methods.

    The main difference is that the police are usually much more interested in being right in their accusations than this fellow. What happens to the guy who is looking for pictures of Sean Young, types in "young", clicks on the first name in the list, grabs the scroll bar and pulls it down to the bottom, shift-clicks on the last name in the list and hits download, all without ever reading each and every filename? "Golly Gee Batman! He just inadvertantly downloaded a whole slew of files called 'youngassfuck'." Without having any desire or tendancy towards pedophilia. Do you think this irresponsible fellow at ZeroPaid is going to do any checking to see? No, he's going to stick their name up there in some righteous fit of holy retribution.

    Oh, he's not trying to get them to stop using his site. If he wanted to get them off his site he wouldn't have filenames that drew them in. Gnutella is not his personal property to dictate what is appropriate or not. And given that he seems to be completely behind the rampant copyright violations, he's not even working from a moral high ground. Apparrently he feels he's some kind of moral policeman. The only problem is that he doesn't have any of the checks and standards that a police force would have in place to protect people who may inadvertantly get involved in his little sting operation.
    STUPID STUPID (Score:3, Insightful)
    by logicnazi (gerdes@invariant.org) on Thursday May 04, @01:06PM EDT (#44)
    (User Info)
    Quote from the web page:

    > I'm all for freedom of data sharing but not when it comes to exploiting children.

    Quick vote who here thinks he is really concerned about children and who thinks this guy just wants some attention.

    Moreover while we all know molesting children should be illegal why to we legislate against child porn? Does not for profit child porn increase the number of children abused or decrease it?

    Who gets busted in regards to free child porn? middle aged men sitting in their basements harming no one. While the commercial rings encourage the abuse of children the man next door just needs some conseling not jail time. Moreover does the availibility encourage more molestation of children or discourage it because their impulses are satisfied other ways?

    Does the laws against non-commercial distribution make it easier to catch the actual molesters or harder by encouraging everyone else involved not to squeal so they themselves are not prosecuted.

    We don't know the answers to any of the above questions. But we do know making non-commercial consumtion illegal seriously infringes on our rights.

    How often have you heard someone say they support freedom of expresion except for child porn. What other crime can you commit in the privacy of your own home with GIMP and artistic skills (yes in order to make child porn laws enforceable they also made images which only appear to be child porn illegal).

    The child porn issue is a wonderful wedge which convinces otherwise stalwart defenders of free expresion and privacy to cave and make allowances. It is the first step on a slippery slope which will eventually make illegal bondage photos.

    First womens groups campaign and get images of women getting raped made illegal (sounds reasonable just like child porn). But then we need to make images which only appear to show women getting raped illegal as otherwise everyone may just claim they thought it was fake. Eventually all bondage porn is illegal. Then eventually all porn.

    This is the issue where we finally see the true color of internet libertarians. The truth is they do nothave a great respect for the first ammendment and the willingness to tolerate that which offends them but rahter they just like porn so they don't want to see it banned.

    rot 13 my email xor with the first 20 letters of the king james bible and run crypt to mail me.

    Re:STUPID STUPID (Score:1)
    by 198348726583297634 on Thursday May 04, @02:52PM EDT (#133)
    (User Info) http://WWW.YELLOW5.COM/pokey/
    "Who gets busted in regards to free child porn?"

    Answer: the kids involved in making that child porn. Those kids are going to be pretty fucked up, and it's going to take them a lot of effort to overcome the incredibly damaging effects of being molested and being photographed. Think this is bogus? Try talking to any adult now who was molested as a child. Ask them if they liked the experience.

    "does the availibility encourage more molestation of children or discourage it because their impulses are satisfied other ways?"

    I'm guessing it doesn't discourage it. I'm just speculating, and I encourage any of the social-sciences slashdotters to correct me or give me new insight, but here's why- if these mythical "dirty old men" (remind anyone of the linux-powered grandma? ;) ) can sit around and get all the child porn they want off the net, it satisfies their impulses now, sure. But being able to get it, they come to realize that someone's making it, and it begins to legitimize child porn more and more in their minds. And then they decide that, rather than being consumers, they could be producers, too. After all, if you're into kiddie porn, and you can get it, and it's OK to get it, why shouldn't you be able to make it, too? ... but again, just speculation.

    I know I'm all for free speech, except where child porn is concerned. Why? Same reason I'm opposed to rape porn. Same reason I'm opposed to snuff porn. All of those things involve a form of coersion that is very damaging to the people who really suffer from it. S&M is not damaging, because it involves two consenting adults. (Duh.) Rape porn involves one man (or woman, to be fair) fucking up a woman's life forever. Child porn involves the same- an adult, fucking up a child's life forever.

    And no, I'm not a bleeding heart, nor am I a victim, but my friends have been, and what they've gone through isn't something I'd wish on anyone.

    POKEY FUN-TIME PARADE

    Re:STUPID STUPID (Score:1)
    by logicnazi (gerdes@invariant.org) on Thursday May 04, @02:41PM EDT (#122)
    (User Info)
    No, my right to artistic expresion i.e. lollita or etc..

    My right to privacy because of enforcement measures.


    rot 13 my email xor with the first 20 letters of the king james bible and run crypt to mail me.

    Vigilance at the price of privacy (Score:1)
    by errittus (errittusatipitythefewlwhospammedotorg) on Thursday May 04, @01:08PM EDT (#47)
    (User Info) http://www.ethernaut.net
    Hey, deliberatly putting "kiddie porn"-like files on a server they control ain't exactly condusive to what they wanna accomplish. SO WHAT! Even if they wanted to "turn someone in" for downloading FAKED child pornography, what will they prove?

    By increasing the content and adding blood to the water they're acting retrograde to what they're trying to do. I hate the thought of child pornography. period. But hypocrisy is almost as bad. Not to mention the false pretenses that they act under.
    you never lose in ure razorblade shoes......
    anonymized downloading has been around for years (Score:1, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:15PM EDT (#51)
    At least two years ago, two schemes were published in Communications of the ACM for avoiding this problem, namely for doing web browsing (a kind of file downloading) anonymously in distributed fashion.

    The danger is not about napster anymore than about anonymous ftp or the web; it's inherent in downloading from a server, whether those servers be distributed or centralized; the people running that server know what you're doing. The difference is in how much you "trust" servers when they're in the hands of "joe user".

    Freenet, I believe, isn't quite there yet, but they are talking about doing a scheme like this--at the moment the "time to live" data in requests provides too much information. By randomly decrementing time to live while forwarding requests, it becomes impossible to know whether a given request is a "true" request or a proxy request. That was the premise of the schemes in CACM, and is (if I understand correctly from browsing the FreeNet mailing list archives) a proposal for FreeNet.

    no presumption of privacy for logs? (Score:3, Interesting)
    by ethereal on Thursday May 04, @01:16PM EDT (#54)
    (User Info) http://slashdot.org/users.pl

    As far as I know, there is no presumption that logs of your accesses will remain private on a particular service. People already post aggregate statistics (so many .edu hits, so many from Japan, etc.) that although posting information about individual IP addresses is quite a large step, it is probably legal.

    That being said, the real issue is security through legal means versus security through mathematical means. Even if it a law made it illegal to publish non-aggregate server logs with specific access information, you still really aren't safe. Anybody could be sniffing your packets between dialup042.aol.com and pr0nserver.net, whether they publish logs or not.

    The situation is analogous to the whole DeCSS issue. Sure, you could just use weak encryption and depend on the law to prevent people from doing something, but there's always going to be someone out there with the tools and the desire to get around that. You can make it illegal to keep or publish access logs, but the tools exist and someone will be able to monitor your access whether you like it or not.

    Not that I'm interested in helping out child pornographers here, but if, for example, you're reading this in China and searching the 'net while planning your revolution, don't depend on any laws to prevent your identity from being known. Your only real protection on the Internet is strong cryptography, in this case probably augmented with anonymous proxies in several different countries with - shall we say - recalcitrant attitudes towards cooperation with global law enforcement.

    Bottom line: you are ultimately responsible for your own safety and/or anonymity, not the government.

    "You can open self extracting archives using PKZIP25.EXE or unrar."

    Fun fun fun (Score:5, Funny)
    by Greyfox (nride@uswest.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:21PM EDT (#56)
    (User Info)
    Code up a gnutilla client that forges its return address and requests files. Set the return address to whitehousel.gov, christiancoalition.org or godhatesfags.com and let the fun begin!

    Someone had to put all that chaos there!

    Re:Fun fun fun (Score:1)
    by no-s on Thursday May 04, @10:40PM EDT (#283)
    (User Info)

    f u r r f u ! !

    better yet, alter gnutella to forge it's return as zeropaid.com - then see what happens!

    Re:Fun fun fun (Score:1)
    by Sloppy (sloppy@spam^H^H^H^Hrt66.com) on Friday May 05, @11:14AM EDT (#369)
    (User Info)

    Code up a gnutilla client that forges its return address and requests files. Set the return address to whitehousel.gov

    "But Hillary, it was a forgery! A prank by one of those Linus longhairs."

    "Then you won't mind telling me the root password on your laptop, Bill."

    "Um, er, I can't. National security."


    ---
    Have a Sloppy night!
    Re:Fun fun fun (Score:1)
    by fishexe on Thursday May 04, @06:25PM EDT (#219)
    (User Info)
    ...on what charge, smartass?

    Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
    Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
    Protocol (Score:2)
    by Hard_Code on Thursday May 04, @01:21PM EDT (#58)
    (User Info)
    If I understand the Gnutella protocol, there is no way to determine who originally requested the file, because each server acts as a client proxy to every other server it knows.

    Jazilla - Pure Java Browser
    Re:Protocol (Score:2)
    by ecampbel (ecampbel@!SPAM.mediaone.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:38PM EDT (#73)
    (User Info)
    No, when you actually request the file, you make a direct connection to the machine that has the file on it. It's just like Napster in this regard.
    My favorite palindrome: a man a plan a canal panama
    Re:Off topic (Score:1)
    by ecampbel (ecampbel@!SPAM.mediaone.net) on Thursday May 04, @07:49PM EDT (#255)
    (User Info)
    :)
    My favorite palindrome: a man a plan a canal panama
    Re:Protocol (Score:1)
    by mmmbeer (bmayland@leoninedev.com) on Thursday May 04, @02:21PM EDT (#111)
    (User Info) http://capnbry.dyndns.org/~bmayland

    Actually, there are ways of spoofing an address on this list. You can send a client push request for the file index/name with a dummied IP and Port. This could cause the gnutella to attempt a connection back from it to you. You'd still show up on the list, but you'd dissapear after the socket connect() fails. Script kiddies know you can do this in a timed loop to keep the spoofed connection on the list indefinately.

    Not that I think anyone should do that
    CapnBry


    Those sick minds... (Score:1)
    by coolkees on Thursday May 04, @01:25PM EDT (#61)
    (User Info)
    So they offered faked kiddie porn? I wonder how they faked them.
    Did they just use small grown-ups? Or maybe they used clever photo manipulation tricks.
    I would almost download the pics just to see for myself, but hey, I kindof like my privacy ;-)

    Re:Those sick minds... (Score:2)
    by generic-man (jweill@andrew.cmu.edu) on Thursday May 04, @01:41PM EDT (#78)
    (User Info) http://www.weill.org
    Did you check the web page? When a user downloaded one of the "temptingly titled" images, he was presented with one of the two pictures shown. They both say, quite simply, "you're busted" plus some extra text to add to the humiliation.

    Jason Weill Web Productions -- now with webpoll!
    Wolf watching the Foxs in sheeps clothing? (Score:1)
    by joetee (I have A M I G A @ mindspring . com) on Thursday May 04, @01:26PM EDT (#62)
    (User Info)
    With enough eyeballs you can allways catch one peeking. Espec. if you really BAIT the TRAP with some FRESHMEAT:
    New PizzaPoweredColdFusion-QuadTransmetta-TotalbodyDolbyElectrostatic-Panoramic2meter3D-TFT-LC D-FreeWireless-DistributedNeural-Tradesecret-TeledildonicExoskeletal-TempestCloaked-AntiCo rporateCaffinated-LifeExtendedRemixMP3-EASY-to-HACK-InternetAppliance that
    Runs LINUX for ONLY $29.95

    Even if they have to click or sign an agreement!

    Re:Wolf watching the Foxs in sheeps clothing? (Score:1)
    by Greg W. (wooledge@kellnet.com) on Friday May 05, @09:28AM EDT (#357)
    (User Info) http://www.kellnet.com/wooledge/

    PizzaPoweredColdFusion-QuadTransmetta-TotalbodyDolbyElectrostatic-Panoramic2meter3D- TFT-LCD-FreeWireless-DistributedNeural-Tradesecret-TeledildonicExoskeletal-TempestCloaked- AntiCorporateCaffinated-LifeExtendedRemixMP3-EASY-to-HACK-InternetAppliance that Runs LINUX for ONLY $29.95

    <slashdot>"Would those be good in a Beowulf cluster??"</slashdot>


    Extreme state of US pedophilia laws in USA (Score:1)
    by lythander on Thursday May 04, @01:26PM EDT (#63)
    (User Info)
    First, let me state that Pedophilia is wrong, sick, and should be illegal.

    But this brings up the question of the state of the laws against kiddie porn in the US. Possessing it is illegal (as in federal felony), as is looking at it. So despite the fact that they are supposed to find people who use/view/possess his stuff, no agent of the United States can have legally ever seen it! One gets quickly hung up in the, "I know it when I see it..." argument.

    Also illegal (although not upheld in court yet) are images which are altered to create what appears to be kiddie porn (cut and paste kid's picture on Pamela Lee's body, etc.). Does this mean every pigtail-wearing porn star is in violation?

    Now, are files named to indicate they contain kiddie porn going to illegal as well? What do these files actually contain? If I put up a video of an 18-yo chick doing something maughty, but I mistype and title it 16-yo.jpg, have I felonied?

    I don't mean to make light of the crime, but to show that the US in it's zealotry to expunge this activity creates extremely vague and poorly written laws.

    As an aside, I have read somewhere that an extremely large percentage of all kiddie porn is maintained and distributed my law enforcement to trap potential pedophiles. Even they admit that the actual creation of new kiddie porn is extremely rare.

    Anyone have details on this?
    Do something useful. Go read a book.
    Not without precedent (Score:5, Funny)
    by / on Thursday May 04, @01:27PM EDT (#65)
    (User Info)
    For example, this guy has used a semi-intelligent bot script to troll for pathetic horny teenagers on IRC. The difference there is, however, that the human experience is published without publishing the exact identities of the humans involved.
     
    The Wall-of-Shame fellow ought to be careful about slapping names like "pedophile" on random people. He's just begging for a libel suit.

    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
    See also baiting.org (Score:2)
    by Sloppy (sloppy@spam^H^H^H^Hrt66.com) on Friday May 05, @11:22AM EDT (#370)
    (User Info)

    At baiting.org" there's some (semi)amusing logs of people trolling for pedos.


    ---
    Have a Sloppy night!
    Re:Not without precedent (Score:1)
    by / on Thursday May 04, @10:56PM EDT (#286)
    (User Info)
    Nah, that's not half as funny as this bit of conversation:
    *allway*> let's talk about something else
    *allway* ok what about?
    *allway*> allright
    *allway* what about?
    *allway*> what is it you are getting at?
    *allway* pick a topic
    *allway*> continue, please
    *allway* now
    *allway*> right now?
    *allway* yes now
    *allway*> are you sure?
    *allway* YES
    *allway*> really?
    *allway* YES
    *allway*> you sound quite positive
    *allway* stop fucking around
    *allway*> could you be more precise?
    *allway* either have netsex or pick another topic
    *allway*> I want some turkey
    *allway* you can have my bone
    *allway*> I don't seem to understand you.
    *allway* bone cock
    *allway*> hmm
    *allway* dick
    *allway* boner
    *allway* penis
    *allway*> Bigamy is having one spouse too many. Monogamy is the same.

    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
    What this should do (Score:2)
    by scumdamn (scumbucket@austin.rr.com) on Thursday May 04, @01:30PM EDT (#66)
    (User Info) http://www.wildwoman.org/slashdotnames.html
    This should scare a few legitimate people because "Today kiddie porn, tomorrow politicol statements."
    It should scare enough kiddie porn searchers because "Today kiddie porn."
    Eventually, both camps will move toward freenet or another way to stay anonymous. I believe that anoynimity is a good thing in certain circumstances. It doesn't matter that this time the kiddie porn people are looking for it, because next time it could be someone else. Hell, next time it could even be you!
    Here's an "Ask Slashdot": How can we remain as anonymous as possible on the internet while we're downloading porn^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmaking politicol statements?

    Are you speaking to the real John Carmack or ESR? Check here:
    I don't know what to say about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
    by Millennium (millennium@spam.spam.eggs.bacon.andspam.mac.com) on Thursday May 04, @01:30PM EDT (#67)
    (User Info)
    I don't like kiddie porn. i'd love to see it all disappear from the Net in one huge system crash. As for rape/snuff film, I'd rather not see those disappear immediately, but rather have the last of the films be made starring the people who had made them before (can you tell I really don't like this?)

    But no one has the right to force these things to disappear, least of all the governments. I don't think Gnutella will affect production of either of these much; the spread in popularity that might occur due to increased availability is more or less negated by the fact that no one makes any money off of it. But at least un the U.S., "free speech" is supposed to mean all speech, and that's simply the way it has to be; it's the only totally fair way. And yeah, it means we have to put up like crap like kiddie porn, but it's better than the alternative: a world where we have to watch very carefully what we say or totally innocent speech will land us in front of government and/or private death squads or worse.

    My point in all this? It's one thing to protest the availability of kiddie porn on the Net. Protest all you want; you have as much of a right to free speech as the sickos do to download their pr0n. But this crosses the line. This is simple, outright invasion of privacy.

    However, I do think it's time for a new feature to be added into Gnutella programs, one which could help cancel out these attacks on Gnutella users without changing the protocol. Simply put: an Ignore list. You put an IP in this list, and your machine will ignore any messages that come from it and reject any actual attempts it makes to connect. If enough Gnutella users do this, you do have an effective ban, but the fact that it's distributed means that the user has to be doing something particularly heinous (such as, say, a Wall of Shame) for everyone else to agree, and it would have to be more or less everyone else to care enough to make it work out.

    And even if you didn't get a full ban (probably more like a Usenet Death Penalty, actually), it would still allow individuals to filter out servers they didn't like. A useful feature even if it never actually gets someone effectively kicked off of Gnutella.
    Taking back Slashdot: United Coalition of Slashdotters for the Strengthening of Moderation
    Re:I don't know what to say about this... (Score:1)
    by rullskidor (/dev/null) on Thursday May 04, @02:55PM EDT (#135)
    (User Info)
    One thing is speech as in expressin your oppinions, another thing is abusing children which is illigal and probably always will be. You will be able to think and argument pro childporn but wont have any right to do or spread it.

    I definitely know what to say, find and stop all who deal whith childpornography, it's not legal and should never be
    De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
    A question for you... (Score:2)
    by Millennium (millennium@spam.spam.eggs.bacon.andspam.mac.com) on Friday May 05, @12:15AM EDT (#299)
    (User Info)
    You are correct. Chold pornography, in its current state, is made using some of the most hideous abuses of children possible. This abuse is illegal and has every right to be.

    Now, a question. Suppose that someone drew child-porn pictures, using no live models. In other words, not a single child was exploited to create the image. Or perhaps they were created using other means which, again, do not involve actual children in any way, shape, or form. What would you say then?
    Taking back Slashdot: United Coalition of Slashdotters for the Strengthening of Moderation
    Re:A question for you... (Score:1)
    by rullskidor (/dev/null) on Friday May 05, @11:51AM EDT (#372)
    (User Info)
    Where I live, it's illegal to for example say "Heil Hitler" in public. The same could go here: should it be allowed to encourage child abuse? nope but as far as I'm concerned to draw or fake child pronography sould be legal even though it's offensive. Maybe it even should be encouraged IF(bif if) it could prevent real abuse, why not?
    De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
    Re:I don't know what to say about this... (Score:1)
    by Oarboat_7 on Thursday May 04, @04:47PM EDT (#193)
    (User Info)
    If you study what the framers of the Constitution intended, you discover that they were talking about Free Political speech. Free Political speech guarantees the right to participate in political activities without your voice being censored. It has nothing to do with frivolous things like pornography.

    It's ridiculous how much this has been twisted in the time since then.

    And I apologize in advance to those who are disturbed when common sense is interjected into these discussions. Sorry.

    I must disagree... (Score:1)
    by cqnn on Thursday May 04, @07:31PM EDT (#247)
    (User Info)
    While I grant that much of the basis in the adoption of the
    First Amendment was to protect the interests of those
    who wished to critisize the monarchy of King George, it
    is evident that the ideal was to benefit more than just
    political speech.

      The Constitutional Congress was not of one mind on many
    of the issues surrounding the founding of the United States,
    but what they could agree upon was the neccessity of
    allowance for Dangerous Ideas... Ideas such as Democracy,
    and the rights of individual citizens, were considered
    in compleat opposition to the idea of Divine Right that
    gave the Rulers and Lords of the old world their power.

    Such ideas came forth not only as political idealism,
    but also as philosophy, scientific, and even religious
    discussion. As such, even the founding fathers had to
    acknowledge that the protection of all speech must be
    considered, as no-one could say where new ideas might
    spring from.

    Um... no. (Score:1)
    by Millennium (millennium@spam.spam.eggs.bacon.andspam.mac.com) on Friday May 05, @12:31AM EDT (#301)
    (User Info)
    If you study what the framers of the Constitution intended, you discover that they were talking about Free Political speech. Free Political speech guarantees the right to participate in political activities without your voice being censored. It has nothing to do with frivolous things like pornography.

    Wrong. So wrong it's laughable. Read the other writings of these people, at least those who have other writings out there. In some cases (such as Thomas Jefferson) it's more dramatic, but in every single work you will find a common thread: the necessity of the spread of knowledge and freedom. Knowledge is not always political; I may know that the sky is blue but I fail to see how that could possibly become politically important.

    No, read the other writings of the Framers, and you'll find that they truly believed in freedom, including freedom for all speech. And yes, this does mean that you will be offended sometimes. You don't, however, have the right to be an immature clod and demand that it be eradicated; we were supposed to have evolved beyong that long ago. Yes, everyone feels the urge to censor sometimes; even me. But it's as wrong as killing, for while murder takes a human life, censorship takes the human spirit, and I'm not sure which is worse.

    It's ridiculous how much this has been twisted in the time since then.

    Indeed it has. By people like you who would destroy beliefs opposed to your own. The Constitution is an extremely specific document. Do you have any idea how much time was spent poring over the wording, just to ensure it could not be twisted? The Framers would not possibly have allowed such an oversight as to omit the word "political" from "free speech" unless they wanted all speech to be covered.

    And I apologize in advance to those who are disturbed when common sense is interjected into these discussions. Sorry.

    Apologizing to oneself is generally a sign of self-esteem problems. I suggest you see someone. And while you're at it, I suggest you learn to respect beliefs other than your own, no matter how much you may disagree. I deplore pedophilia. I consider it among the sickest perversions in existence. But I have no right to condemn those who have not acted out on their sick fantasies, and someone who merely downloads kiddie-porn is not acting out. Those who make the stuff generally are, but even then there can be exceptions; I refer you to my post "A question for you..." in reply to another respondent in this thread. What, then, do you do about that?
    Taking back Slashdot: United Coalition of Slashdotters for the Strengthening of Moderation
    Oh, REALLY? (Score:1)
    by Millennium (millennium@spam.spam.eggs.bacon.andspam.mac.com) on Friday May 05, @12:20AM EDT (#300)
    (User Info)
    child pornography is not "speech".

    Then what is it? Please, feel free to enlighten us. Very likely, you won't be able to link it to anything else which is not already protected, and you cannot apply double-standards.

    "free speech" is not absolute. If it were, there would be no such things as libel and slander.

    Again, correct, however this is not quite the same thing. Free speech is absolute. But that does not mean you can use it to commit some other crime. For example, libel and slander are crimes of defamation (or character assassination, if you prefer). Free speech will not protect you from that. As to where kiddie porn fits here, I refer you to my post "A question for you..." in reply to another respondent to this thread.
    Taking back Slashdot: United Coalition of Slashdotters for the Strengthening of Moderation
    Legal Nightmare (Score:4, Interesting)
    by MattBaggins on Thursday May 04, @01:30PM EDT (#68)
    (User Info)
    What are these morons thinking?? Yes this will result in defamation of character. IP addresses can be traced back even if only to the point of writing a note to the sys admin. How many corporations allow their employees to dial into the corporate server from home as a perk? What about .edu's? Some guy does a wildcard search on *suck* and gets 500 returns, one of which includes younggirlsucks.jpg. Who wants to look through all of them first? Download all of them at once, convert to thumbnails, preveiw them and delete the trash? I look at lots of porn (I'm an adult and this is my right) and this is how I do it. I have gotten lots of pics that were down right illegal or just plain grossed me out. They went to the trash. Now how do I explain to my boss or school officials that I was not by any means looking for child pornography? If I were to loose my job because someone pointed out to the sys admin, that my name had appeared on this site, I would file a law suit in seconds. A law suit against my and employer and one against zeropaid.
            Want an even scarier scenario? Look at abortion doctors who get murdered. Look at the gay man who was murdered after the Jenny Jones show. Wasn't her show held responsible for liability? I can't really remember if they were. What if one of these whacko's, willing to kill abortion doctors manages to trace an IP back to the user, and decides to play vigilante. Some guy downloads youngtits.jpg and gets shot for it? You bet zeropaid will be hauled into court. Very extreme scenario, but not impposible.
            Who gives these guys the right to play thought police? I am personally biased against public displays like this anyway. I feel that police blotters in newspapers are a violation of consitutional rights. This is no different. Public humiliation is unfair punishment. Not to forget the fact that you are being publically humiliated before even being convicted of anything. This is exactly like putting someone in the stockade to allow people to walk by and spit on them. I had a freind who came home one day to find a party being thrown at his house with the police handcuffing people. He was arrested as well. Some of the people were underage. His name was in the police blotter with the notation "endangering the welfare of a minor". Judge found him innocent of anywrong doing, but he still had the pleasure of explaining to his boss that he didn't have sex with a 15 year old. This is wrong, wrong wrong. Let me make this clearer. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
    Petard hoisting (Score:1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @02:46PM EDT (#128)
    Your arguments about this situation wrongly implicating innocent people are accurate and I agree with you. I'd suggest, however, that zeropaid might have more to worry about than a law suit.

    Imagine someone who is guilty as hell, and who becomes aware that his IP address has been listed as being a pedophile on zeropaid's list. What is such a person likely to do: panic. The penalties for doing that kind of thing are quite rightfully severe and last the rest of the person's life. So not only will they panic, they'll likely know what's coming and be full of despair.

    Some people, when they panic and despair, have been known to grab guns and go to the places that upset/paniked them, and start shooting. I'd seriously suggest to everyone involved at or with zeropaid to be very very careful from here on out.

    Remember, if you can break the pedo's privacy, they can break yours, too. Seriously, be careful guys.

    The Wall Must Come Down (Score:3, Insightful)
    by ecampbel (ecampbel@!SPAM.mediaone.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:33PM EDT (#70)
    (User Info)
    I believe the is truly a bad thing. Assuming if someone searchs for "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", young-tits.jpg, .etc are necessarily looking for pedophilia is wrong and quite possibly illegal. If I saw my IP address on their Wall of Shame after searching for a innocuous term like the ones above clearly labeling me as someone who is looking for child pornography, I would sue you for defamation of character because you would have no proof that I actually desired child pornography, yet still went ahead and labeled my search as shameful and me a pedophile. Also, they really should not consider themselves holier then thou when they clearly advocate Internet users to break the law by distributing copyrighted music. Remember, outside of the Fair Use portion of our copyright law, an author of a copyrighted work has the sole desecration of how their work is distributed. They can't pick and choose the laws that you wish to uphold.
    My favorite palindrome: a man a plan a canal panama
    GeekPress comments (Score:2, Interesting)
    by geekpress (geekpress@ihatespam.geekpress.com) on Thursday May 04, @01:35PM EDT (#71)
    (User Info) http://www.geekpress.com
    My husband and I added this story to GeekPress at the same time. (His stayed up and mine got deleted since his write-up was more interesting.) Since he's busy doing an arthrogram, I'm posting his comments here.

    He said:

    This is an interesting way for the internet community to police itself with respect to behaviour that people find objectionable. As anonymous digital transactions become more commonplace, one's reputation may be one's most valuable asset, just as it is in the world of on-line auctions. Systems which tie one's actions back to one's online identity help maintain the strength of these sorts of reputation effects.

    And in a separate comment:

    As Tim May once pointed out, it's always easier to shed a bad online reputation than to build a good reputation. Someone with a bad rep can just change his or her online handle and start with a clean slate. This is one of the major weaknesses of using reputation effects to punish bad behaviour (as opposed to reward good behaviour.)

    -- Diana Hsieh
    GeekPress: Today's Tech News, Sifted and Summarized

    Re:GeekPress comments (Score:1)
    by Score Whore on Thursday May 04, @02:42PM EDT (#125)
    (User Info)
    It's also an interesting way for a known lawbreaker to bash people he doesn't like. Can you trust a person you know violates copyright law to not violate various defamation laws?
    Hunny pots (a la Winnie the Pooh) (Score:3, Interesting)
    by DeepDarkSky on Thursday May 04, @01:41PM EDT (#79)
    (User Info)
    I remember a slashdot article awhile back about creating honeypots for script kiddies to hack so that their methods can be learned and used in the future to bolster the security arsenal. I wonder how many site are on the web right now that does the exact same thing, but instead of for hacking or script kiddies, for everything else?

    I know there have been FBI sting operations for piracy and stuff like that, but being that the Internet is so uncontrollable, and we know the proliferation of illegal activities such as MP3 swapping, software piracy and porn is so rampant, I'd think that a large part of law enforcement's plans are to setup such honeypots to just keep track of demographic information on individuals who are prone to participate in certain kinds of illicit activities. I could imagine that the government could run some of the most successful porn sites, etc. to keep tabs on would be offenders.

    In fact, Napster can be one such honeypot, and by the look of the thing with Metallica, has been used as such to some degree.

    Isn't this something we need to be concerned with?

    can you imagine...a Beowulf Cluster of 31337 JonKatzes pouring hot grits down their pants and trolling for Natalie Portman?

    Re:Hunny pots (a la Winnie the Pooh) (Score:1)
    by Antaeus Feldspar on Friday May 05, @10:35AM EDT (#364)
    (User Info) http://members.tripod.com/~afeldspar/index.html
    I know there have been FBI sting operations for piracy and stuff like that, but being that the Internet is so uncontrollable, and we know the proliferation of illegal activities such as MP3 swapping, software piracy and porn is so rampant, I'd think that a large part of law enforcement's plans are to setup such honeypots to just keep track of demographic information on individuals who are prone to participate in certain kinds of illicit activities. I could imagine that the government could run some of the most successful porn sites, etc. to keep tabs on would be offenders.

    Unless I'm very much mistaken, that would be entrapment, which is a major no-no for law enforcement. The FBI and the police are supposed to investigate crimes so they can be prosecuted; they are not supposed to create crimes so that they'll have crimes to investigate. Even if they think it would give them a lead on who is 'prone' to these activities... it wouldn't do them much good, and it would do them a lot of harm.

    Suppose they put Guy X on their short list of Probable Pedophiles based on the fact that he once downloaded something titled "teen_sex.jpg" (and may I join others in saying that assuming such a title indicates illegal child pornography is utterly stupid; anyone actually competent enough to run such a sting operation would know that 'teen', 'young' and 'lolita' are used with as much precision and accuracy in advertising porn as 'virtual', 'object-oriented' and 'MIPS' are used in marketing computers.)

    Now suppose that they catch Guy X downloading child porn that actually exists, i.e., that they didn't invent solely for the purpose of trapping him. Any good defense lawyer would be able to get it surpressed if, for example, he had been previously arrested or convicted on child-porn charges, pointing out rightly that the question is whether he committed this crime. (If not for this, no crime would ever get solved; the police would just look up who was the ex-con with the most convictions for that crime, and pin it on them. If they happened to actually get the right suspect, it would be sheer coincidence.)

    So how does it look in a courtroom when they say, "You can be sure that he downloaded this bad stuff because he's done it before... Who did he download this bad stuff from before? Uh, well, it was us, actually..."


    ---

    "Miles, what are you going to do for an encore?" "I don't know, it depends on the straight lines. I can hardly wait to find out."
    Re:Hunny pots (a la Winnie the Pooh) (Score:2)
    by DeepDarkSky on Friday May 05, @01:17PM EDT (#376)
    (User Info)
    Thank you for pointing it out. It makes sense, of course, what you said. It is entrapment. But I guess what I was thinking (though I wasn't clear to myself on the thought of using the usage pattern as evidence) was that the government can use this as a kind of 'perimeter' alert?

    Meaning, if they start keeping track of patterns of a large number of users who visit their sites, they may be tipped off on specific persons' activities and investigate further. Of course, this is likely to be illegal as well, as it will violate some kind privacy law. They would need to show a reason to track the usage in the first place, rather than using the tracked usage pattern data as the reason to start investigating.

    So definitely, I agree that while the government could not create and opportunity and induce people to commit crimes, I think they may (though I don't necessarily say they should) use the honeypot tactic just to get some lists of people to watch, perhaps.

    can you imagine...a Beowulf Cluster of 31337 JonKatzes pouring hot grits down their pants and trolling for Natalie Portman?

    Re:Hunny pots (a la Winnie the Pooh) (Score:2)
    by anticypher (cypherpunks@anti.co.uk) on Friday May 05, @09:20PM EDT (#393)
    (User Info) http://127.210.19.3/index.html
    I run a number of honeypots spread around the internet, coupled with some additional active trackers to log probe activity. The goal is to identify script kiddies, and then use that information to block them from important sites. The honeypots are simple machines that look for any kind of network activity, and then signal that activity through a secondary channel. Active trackers in other locations then make a number of queries of the attacking machine, to figure out what it is running and possibly the identity of the luser. We also check with the NOC of the ISP, and they usually give us info on who was logged into that port at the time.

    The amount of information collected is surprisingly easy to manage, and quite often turns up the same small group of wannabe crackers. It doesn't take much to rattle an upstream provider and get their connection yanked. When we get scans from schools, the administrators are usually very happy to help nail the idiot. We fight over who gets to be "detective chief inspector Gerry Fitzgerald of Scotland Yard" (a UK joke) when calling American uni's. The internet polices itself.

    Many in the security world are building similar systems. Rumours have it the FBI's new cyber centre is building a large scale probe monitoring system. They have been quietly approaching a number of schools and large ISPs asking for names and addresses of certain users connected to cyber-crimes, exactly as we do. From my understanding of American law, this is perfectly legal for them to do during investigations, as long as they do not try to use this as evidence in a court case. They can collect any type of incriminating evidence and keep it forever, and will use it later to deny security clearances for stupid script kiddies who graduate and go looking for government jobs, or anonymously refer some to local authorities.

    Honeypots and baiting services like ZeroPaid will increase in number. I don't expect one of them to become the next amazon or ebay, but there is a market out there for identifying crackers/script kiddies/pr0n addicts/alcoholics/junkies to law enforcement, employers and insurance societies.

    the AC
    Your name on the Wall of Shame (Score:3, Informative)
    by hollebeek on Thursday May 04, @01:41PM EDT (#81)
    (User Info)
    Unless my analysis of the Gnutella protocol is incorrect, the IP numbers that is getting logged can be forged fairly easily. Innocent people could have their IP added to the Wall of Shame. Gnutella transfers happen via intermediate servers, so the Wall of Shame cannot just log the IP number of the host that connects to it. This is unfortunate since such IPs are much more difficult to forge. An attack would occur as follows: Imagine that someone wanted www.whitehouse.gov to show up on the Wall of Shame. They could just set up a rogue Gnutella server which would generate requests that it pretends to have recieved from a fictional Gnutella server on www.whitehouse.gov. The Gnutella server hosting the Wall of Shame has no way of telling the difference between real requests from www.whitehouse.gov and fictional requests generated by a rogue server. In fact, the Gnutella routing protocol guarantees that all responses will be routed back along the same path, allowing the rogue server to create a seamless illusion. Would someone with a more detailed knowledge of the Gnutella protocol or exactly what the Wall of Shame logs please confirm or deny this?
    Re:Your name on the Wall of Shame (Score:1)
    by athmanb (ANTIathmanbSPAM@mail.com) on Thursday May 04, @05:27PM EDT (#208)
    (User Info)
    This isn't true.
    Searches don't carry their originating IP in it, only search replies do.
    Also the Zeropaid list was compiled from download requests, and not from searches.
    "Distribution" of Gnutella (Score:1)
    by lythander on Thursday May 04, @01:46PM EDT (#87)
    (User Info)
    Can some gnutella servers act as simple relays to other servers (a la freenet)? When I look at that IP, do I know that that IP is really where my file is going?
    Do something useful. Go read a book.
    Stupid idea, lame implementation. (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Thursday May 04, @01:52PM EDT (#92)
    (User Info) http://monnet.to

    The idea is stupid: there are plenty of legitimate reasons to want to look at suspicious looking files. If I found *real* pedophilia, I would probably report it to the police. But you would have to know what it is before doing this: hence you'd have to download it. Then just plain curiosity. With all that fuss about pedophilia on the internet, I'd be interested to actually find some to begin with, as opposed to just believing the media gossip on it. So merely downloading what looks like pedophilia does'nt mean that one is a pedophile.

    Then the implementation sucks BIG TIME. Come on, youngass.jpg? Is a 21 yo ass OLD? I don't think so! It does'nt have anything to do with pedophilia. What about teenxxx.jpg? Last time I checked 18yo were both teens AND adults. Hardly qualifies for pedophilia! And then, there's plenty of teensomething.com sites out there that just carry playboy style pr0n.

    So it's lame. The guy is just looking for attention. He got it!


    Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

    Re:Stupid idea, lame implementation. (Score:2, Informative)
    by MasterAlex (masteralex@arnet.de) on Thursday May 04, @03:48PM EDT (#168)
    (User Info)
    The idea is stupid: there are plenty of legitimate reasons to want to look at suspicious looking files. If I found *real* pedophilia, I would probably report it to the police. But you would have to know what it is before doing this: hence you'd have to download it.
    Although this is totaly true, I won't suggest doing this to you, at least not here in Germany: We had people wo downloaded this stuff and brought it to the police, and then _their_ houses were searched, etc... because downloading pedophilia is illegal, regardless of what you're doing with it. Of course, that's stupid, but that's how it is here.
    Re:Stupid idea, lame implementation. (Score:2)
    by Hard_Code on Thursday May 04, @04:40PM EDT (#191)
    (User Info)
    There are plenty of LEGITIMATE uses for a distributed file sharing architecture like Gnutella. Right now critics have zeroed in on porn and copyright infringement. If this site scares off lusers who would otherwise post or download pron and/or other illegal materials, great. If you have a legitimate reason to look at youngass.jpg, then surely you don't care if you are singled out and perhaps emailed by the server admin asking why you are requesting that file. On the other hand, if you are some lameass that wants to flood the network with porn files (or some other illegitimate material) or requests then you SHOULD be scared off. Go away. We don't want you ruining the quality of the network and giving it a bad name and attracting criticism. If you want porn that damn bad subscribe to the f*cking Playboy channel or to some porn site...it's not that difficult.

    Jazilla - Pure Java Browser
    Re:Stupid idea, lame implementation. (Score:1)
    by ~MegamanX~ (_metroid_(a)yaho.addletter('o').com) on Thursday May 04, @10:55PM EDT (#285)
    (User Info)
    If you have a legitimate reason to look at youngass.jpg, then surely you don't care if you are singled out and perhaps emailed by the server admin asking why you are requesting that file.

    Come on... this is suuuch a false statement.

    I am NOT a racist, but i WOULD care if someone wrote on a big wall that i was one... come on...

    Even if you and your wife/children/parents know that you aren't a pedophile, would you like it if someone "proved" it and people started acting funny around you, talked in your back, etc??? Even if there is only a tiny possiblilty that people around you hear about it? No, you wouldn't like it. Even if you know that probably nobody you know will trace you, there is a doubt.

    Face it.

    phobos% cat .sig
    cat: .sig: No such file or directory
    Re:Stupid idea, lame implementation. (Score:2)
    by Hard_Code on Friday May 05, @08:58AM EDT (#355)
    (User Info)
    You blew my statement out of proportion. I didn't say the admin or anybody else would attempt to "prove" that you were a pedophile or smear your name. I was just saying, that IF you actually had a completely legitimate reason for attempting to retrieve some file from some server, then I don't see what harm there is in the server admin knowing that. However, most of the people attempting to retrieve files like this will be lamers tricked into it, and should deserve to be embarrassed for not having a legitimate reason. I'm completely comfortable with that if it scares idiots off the network. Since you would have a legitimate reason you shouldn't be scared off.

    Jazilla - Pure Java Browser
    Great Idea; Brilliant Implementation (Score:1)
    by crypto_creek on Saturday May 06, @02:10PM EDT (#400)
    (User Info)
    We need more sites like this to make it dangerous for perverts to use the Net. I'm tired of a permissive society that thinks it is all right as long as they don't know about it. The Master at Saybrook College, Yale University, was dismissed, tried and convicted of downloading child porn last year. He's files were discovered by accident when he used his computer at in his office to down load the stuff. They are going through reversal of tenure proceedings right now to eliminate his last claim to Yale University. He will never teach in a university again. And good for Yale to be vigilant in eliminating this trash. The senior vice president of the largest Teachers Union in California was also convicted of child porn charges. In other words, it is clear that pedofiles gravitate to educational institutions and there must be extra caution in examining the backgrounds of all people in the educational business for such tendencies. The guy that traced the IPs back to edus ought to notify the educational sites that they have people there accessing child porn!
    Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. Ludwig Wittgenstein
    Aww poo! (Score:2)
    by MrP- (defsoft[NO@SPAM]gis.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:54PM EDT (#94)
    (User Info) http://elitemrp.net/be/
    I checked out the site, looked at the wall from the other day..... My IP address is on it! heh stupid dynamic IPs, they gave me a dirty IP.... ive never even used Gnutella

    #----------------------------
    $mrp=~s/mrp/elite god/g;
    #----------------------------
    Surrrrrrreee............. (Score:1)
    by Super_Frosty (slashdot@^H^H^Hblah^teambakken.com) on Thursday May 04, @05:23PM EDT (#206)
    (User Info) http://63.225.139.3
    ..... we believe you.
    No comment at this time
    Re:Aww poo! (Score:2)
    by SoftwareJanitor (SoftwareJanitor@yahoo.com) on Thursday May 04, @11:50PM EDT (#296)
    (User Info)
    It isn't that small of a chance if he uses a dialup or dhcp cablemodem/dsl connection and he is on a large provider. If you get a different IP every time you connect, and a few other users on your ISP are pr0n surfers, chances are sooner or later you will have the same IP they have had in the past as you will both rotate through the IP pool.


    Y2k (Score:2)
    by howardjp on Thursday May 04, @02:04PM EDT (#97)
    (User Info) http://www.james-howard.com
    Did Anyone else notice the Y2K bug at the top of their webpage? :)
    Freenet-ish caching in Gnut (Score:3, Informative)
    by eval on Thursday May 04, @02:04PM EDT (#99)
    (User Info) http://www.pobox.com/~rjones
    I sent this message to cleaner@zeropaid.com:

    -------------------------------------------------
    This message is informational, not a flame:

    I recently added Freenet-style automatic caching to gnut, one of the
    gnutella clients. The way the caching algorithm works is that as well
    as functioning as a normal gnutella node, gnut also watches the
    query_response stream as it routes it to other clients. Every once in
    a while, it chooses a random file offered for download in response to
    someone else's search request, and downloads it into a local cache,
    making it available to gnutellanet from a new location.

    The idea is to propagate popular files to make it easier to find them
    and to spread out bandwidth usage between servers. Popular files
    would, presumedly, be requested more often and thefore occur in query
    responses more often as well.

    Since the system chooses random responses, it's quite possible that
    some queries will occur from the cleaner without the user actually
    requesting the file. In testing, my caching gnut client seems to
    download random porn about 5% of the time.

    I'm not saying that the cleaner is a bad idea, but I wanted you to be
    aware that this new feature might lead you to put someone's IP address
    up for the world to see even though they haven't tried to download
    files from you. Since this feature is fairly new, it's unlikely to
    have occurred yet, but if caching becomes widespread, it's likely that
    you'll see download requests that have no real user behind them.

    One way to prevent misinterpreting a download request is to keep a
    list of GUIDs of searches that you've responded to, and use that list
    to corroborate download requests. If a client downloads a file
    without having searched for it, it's likely to be due to caching.

    Just so you're aware,
    Ray Jones
    -------------------------------------------------

    BTW, Gnut is available here:
    http://www.umr.edu/~jjp

    Re:Freenet-ish caching in Gnut (Score:1)
    by crypto_creek on Saturday May 06, @02:29PM EDT (#401)
    (User Info)
    I'm a little puzzled here. Why is you program downloading child porn 5% of the time? Especially if the person didn't request it. This is a pretty high number. One out of every 20 downloads. Are you designing your program to search for "random porn" or are you saying that one out of every 20 persons is asking for child porn, or that one out of every 20 web files to download is child porn? Sounds like your program has a "perversion" and should be removed.
    Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. Ludwig Wittgenstein
    Re:Freenet-ish caching in Gnut (Score:1)
    by eval on Monday May 08, @05:04PM EDT (#405)
    (User Info) http://www.pobox.com/~rjones
    I didn't say that it downloaded "child porn", I said "random porn". It's never downloaded child porn that I've seen, but I don't watch it much, nor do I log what it downloads.

    Interestingly, the past few days that I've checked the contents of my cache, it's been less pornful than before. Perhaps fewer people are searching for porn, or more people are searching for music.
    What's so great about Gnutella? (Score:1)
    by joeytsai (joeytsai@email.com) on Thursday May 04, @02:22PM EDT (#112)
    (User Info)
    This is like, the 8th article mentioning Gnutella specifically since March.

    Can anyone please tell me what's so great about this program? From what I understand it's a just another Napster client, and one who's source isn't very open... So what's the big deal?
    Re:What's so great about Gnutella? (Score:1)
    by vaportrail on Thursday May 04, @03:50PM EDT (#171)
    (User Info)
    The big deal is that there's no centralized server. If Napster was to be "shut down", all they would have to do is pull the plug on the servers, and Napster's gone. For Gnutella, there's literally no plug to pull. There's no-one specific to point the finger at but the people who wrote the software.
    Re:What's so great about Gnutella? (Score:1)
    by AndyL (Andrew_Lundell[at]Student.Uml.edu) on Thursday May 04, @04:31PM EDT (#189)
    (User Info)
    How does it do this? How does it know which people have clients and which don't?

    NetPD? (Score:1)
    by RudeSka (rudeska54@yahoo.com) on Thursday May 04, @02:38PM EDT (#121)
    (User Info) http://mj12.nerdfarm.org
    Hey, why didn't they use NetPD to get those sicko kiddie pr0n viewers' names, adresses, and phone numbers? That would be great. I would love to call those guys. h0h0h0h0
    Civil Disobedience (Score:1)
    by Nickbot on Thursday May 04, @02:52PM EDT (#134)
    (User Info)
    Of course I'm sure the intreped coders that are writing the various gnutella clients will figure out a way to subvert this. Personally I think it's high time they came up with a way of either gaurding or confusing IP addys, in the name of anonymity.. Perhaps the option to make your machine a proxy, thereby muddling any attempt at tracking IPs?

    This bit is interesting:
    > Me and my roommate (the co-founder of Zeropaid.com) have agreed the attention the Wall of Shame has brought is for the cause," he said.

    My roommate? Can you say "little kiddy that wanted to see his name in a wired article?"

    In the mean time I think the way to go is civil disobedience. Everyone that runs a guntella client, search for kiddie-porn non-stop! Make their information worthless. I'm going to start just as soon as I get home.

    I am Spartacus! No, I am Spartacus!


    Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
    Re:Civil Disobedience (Score:1)
    by Oarboat_7 on Thursday May 04, @10:58PM EDT (#287)
    (User Info)
    My roommate? Can you say "little kiddy that wanted to see his name in a wired article?"

    Just for the record, today one of CommanderTaco's articles includes the following: ''Update: 05/04 03:12 by CT: My Roommate Kurt "The Pope" DeMaagd has written a better...''

    Gonna remind CT that he's a little kiddy??

    This is the greatest thing ever (Score:1)
    by figa on Thursday May 04, @03:01PM EDT (#143)
    (User Info)
    I just set up port forwarding on my boss' Linux box while he was at lunch. Now I can dl using his IP, while he's sitting at his desk. Once his name is on the Wall of Shame, he can kiss his career goodbye, not to mention his wife and kids.

    Someone should set up a communist Wall of Shame with Mao jpgs so I can make sure he never gets a security clearance again.

    I'm not fan of pedophiles but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
    by |DaBuzz| (send-me-your-spam@spam.a.lama.ding.dong.com) on Thursday May 04, @03:25PM EDT (#161)
    (User Info) http://www.pdabuzz.com/
    I have to ask where does it stop? What is next, someone goes into a adult book store and snaps pictures of you buying "teen ass" magazine and runs it in a local newspaper ad? What if this person offers you the magazine himself then snaps the pic and labels you a pedophile even though "teen ass" is perfectly legal to buy and possess if you are an adult?

    My point is, yes pedophiles are the scum of the earth and yes using technology as a vehicle of the exploitation of children is a horrendous crime, but what makes this person the ultimate authority on who is branded with the scarlet letter and who is not?

    What if the tables were turned and someone from fbi.gov got a file listing of the supposed child porn this person is offering, what will they say when they are raided for intent to distribute?

    People STILL do time for trying to pass oregano off as pot, and bank robbers STILL do time when they use their finger in their pocket to imitate a gun, why shouldn't these people do time for trying to pass off "gotcha" images as child porn?

    Let the cops setup the sting operations and let the criminals go through the justice system and THEN label them pedophiles. All this is is a misguided attempt at vigilantism without cause.
    Sorry, but.... (Score:1)
    by djrogers on Thursday May 04, @10:05PM EDT (#276)
    (User Info)
    People do NOT go to jail for trying to pass oregano off as pot, at least not in the US of A. The penal codes specifically define a crime as one where an actual illegal act took place. Even cops busting pedos have to use _real_ child porn to do it (usually pics of victims used with the family's permission, the FBI has a file of them, and it's a pain in the @$$ to get them). If a cop tries to sell baby powder as coke, he can't bust the buyer...
    "Wall of Shame" seems to be down (Score:1)
    by sehlat on Thursday May 04, @03:40PM EDT (#166)
    (User Info)
    Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link, and got "You do not have permission, etc." Did these jerks take it down *BEFORE* somebody sued them down to their belly-button lint for entrapment and invasion of privacy?
    Who would have thought... (Score:1)
    by jcr on Thursday May 04, @03:50PM EDT (#169)
    (User Info)
    ..that Gnutella would need anonymizers?

    -jcr
    Contradiction? (Score:1)
    by kernel_sanders on Thursday May 04, @03:51PM EDT (#172)
    (User Info)
    Lets take two quotes here :

    'Download one of Zeropaid.com's temptingly named images, and the site logs your time of download, IP address and domain name - and then posts them on a Web site for all to see.'

    Also :

    'once these networks break up, there is virtually no way for law enforcement to trace the activity.'

    Is it me or do those two quotes seem to contradict each other?
    Sheesh, people (Score:2, Insightful)
    by Stickerboy on Thursday May 04, @04:11PM EDT (#183)
    (User Info)
    ...this has GOT to be the funniest thing I've seen this week...and this is finals week, so I've seen some pretty damn funny stuff.

    Okay, raise your hands if you download kiddie pr0n. Now, keep them raised if you're outraged about this "violation of privacy on the net". Okay, now everybody who has no clue what the concept of personal responsibility, please keep'em raised. Thought so.

    The Most Clueless Award of the Year goes to the poster who wrote, "...this is so lame! What if I were doing a search on such an innocuous term such as 'young-titties' or 'teen-sex'..." I dare you to find seven people on a libel jury who wouldn't label that as intent... Folks, there is no viable reason at all to be downloading files named "underage-titties.jpg" and "15yrold-lesbos.jpg". Merely downloading and possessing these files are a crime. If you want to be a tattletale and tell a sysop or the authorities about a kiddie pr0n server, notify them of your suspicions, and let them get the proof. And bulk downloading of pr0n won't hold up in court either. What they'll point out is that you took inadequate precautions to avoid getting illegal goods, anyways. If I were at an airport, and didn't have time to look through all six black similar-looking cases, so I decided to take them all and return those that weren't mine later when I had the time, I would still be liable.

    You know, if you want to do something, at least have the balls to stand up for what you're doing. Doing something and being so ashamed of it that you try to hide it from everybody else is lame. Either stop doing it, or stop being such a loser about it.

    Well, that's my two rants for today.

    telnet://bbs.ufies.org
    Trade Wars Lives

    Shut up fascist. (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Nicolas MONNET (nico@nospam.monnet.to) on Thursday May 04, @08:25PM EDT (#262)
    (User Info) http://monnet.to
    First, your pseudo legal arguments suck. Then, if you had taken a look at the pages this article refers to, you would have seen that more than half of the reported entries had VERY UNSPECIFIC filenames (youngass, schoolgirl, hotteen, etc ...) that could perfectly well apply to even non pornographic pictures. Hell, you can find pictures of a 2 yo baby's ass in any image bank. And you see those pics in plenty of commercials. This is really such a nonsense. That kind of vigilantism will have ZERO positive impact, and has only drawbacks.

    Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?

    Shut up permissive liberal. (Score:1)
    by crypto_creek on Saturday May 06, @02:40PM EDT (#402)
    (User Info)
    Hey, I can be crude too. You make me sick Nicolas. PosterBoy, I support your position. I have no tolerance for perversion. None.
    Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. Ludwig Wittgenstein
    Re:Sheesh, people (Score:1)
    by Mike Connell (mac@flat222.org) on Friday May 05, @02:37AM EDT (#312)
    (User Info) http://flat222.org/mac
    The Most Clueless Award of the Year goes to the poster who wrote, "...this is so lame! What if I were doing a search on such an innocuous term such as 'young-titties' or 'teen-sex'..." I dare you to find seven people on a libel jury who wouldn't label that as intent... Folks, there is no viable reason at all to be downloading files named "underage-titties.jpg" and "15yrold-lesbos.jpg".



    Get a grip!

    teensex.jpg: Do you know what most teenage boys think is the greatest thing in the world? TEENAGE GIRLS! Is that wrong? It's no more wrong than the fact that these boys are often having sex with (shock!) underage girls - their girlfriends!

    Searching for 15yrold-lesbos.jpg? What if you were a 15 year old lesbian? Is that even slightly wrong?


    best wishes,
    Mike.

    Why stop at IP addresses... (Score:1, Offtopic)
    by Pinball Wizard (josheverist@yahoo.com) on Thursday May 04, @04:20PM EDT (#185)
    (User Info)
    ...there is a nifty little Perl script called ip2host.

    Here is the link:
    http://home.xnet.com/~efflandt/ip2host.h tml

    And here is the script itself:

    #!/usr/local/bin/perl # # ip2h.pl - 19/Aug/1995 # # by David Efflandt # # Inputs IP addresses from keyboard and outputs to screen. # Loops for multiple entries. # print "\nEnter the 4 numbers separated by periods (no spaces).\n"; print "Press [enter] key without a number to exit.\n\n"; print "Enter IP address: "; $ip = ; chop($ip); while ($ip) { @numbers = split(/\./, $ip); $ip_number = pack("C4", @numbers); ($name) = (gethostbyaddr($ip_number, 2))[0]; if ($name) { print "The host is: $name"; } else { print "This IP has no name"; } print "\n\nEnter IP address: "; $ip = ; chop($ip); }

    I'd be pretty pissed too if someone used my software for this type of thing(or worse) Doesn't the GPL state you have to use software for legal purposes?

    hypocrat, noun; A person representing an authoritative entity, such as a corporation, that behaves in a manner contrary to its stated policies.

    hehe - I'm going to do the same (Score:4, Funny)
    by Frac on Thursday May 04, @05:00PM EDT (#197)
    (User Info)
    I'm going to post a bunch of mp3 files with song names of Britney Spears, Boyz2Men, BackStreetBoys, and all that, and post a Hall of Lame of those people that actually thought those songs were good! muahahah

    Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
    http://www.pdafn.com/register .sh
    Poll (Score:1)
    by mverrilli on Thursday May 04, @05:26PM EDT (#207)
    (User Info)
    There's a poll on the main page:

    "Should the Wall of Shame Stay or Go?"


    Do we really want internet vigilantes? (Score:1)
    by dontknowman on Thursday May 04, @06:46PM EDT (#225)
    (User Info)
    This is how it all starts. First you go after people for supposedly doing
    something that most people would find abhorrent. It's alright if we misidentify
    a few people, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. The good out
    weighs the bad. As shown time and time again in history it will only get worst.
    Cyber neighbor monitoring cyber neighbor. Today you may be afraid to log in to
    Napster because you might be misidentified as pirate or into Gnutella because
    that picture of your 19 year old girlfriend might mistakenly get you labeled a
    pedophile. What will it be tomorrow? How long will it be before you are afraid
    to login on the net? I don't think it's a discusion of "that will never happen"
    but a question "how soon"?
    Kind of Like "Real World" Observation? (Score:1)
    by EXTomar on Thursday May 04, @06:55PM EDT (#232)
    (User Info) http://www.electrontrap.org/
    How is doing this different than someone making observations and critizing their actions?

    Lets try this analogy: Person A is sitting in a coffee shop mind their own buisness. Another person, Person B, walks up to the Person A and asks "Can you show me child porn?" mistaking them for someone who can sell child pornos to them. Person A, having nothing to do with child pornography and is deeply and morally offended by the very thought of it, tells Person B to "go away" and then stands up in the coffee shop and says "Person B just asked me for child pornography!" Now everyone in the coffee shop knows what Person B was up too.

    I am unclear how anything illegal has been done to Person B in this hypothetical example or in ZeroPaid's actions. Is there something in documentation that says "all querries are private and protected?" Gnutella had nothing to do with it...they were asking ZeroPaid for the stuff. I don't see anything particularly wrong with voicing your outrage like this and I think this is what the ZeroPaid's guys are trying to accomplish. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean "anonymity". Also, you don't need to see "schoolgirlxxx.jpg" to accomplish acedemic research on any subject releated to child pornography (like the pyschological damages) so I'm unclear how someone could be mistakeningly identified.

    ps: I'm personally disgusted with any moral and ethical abuses like this and even more disturbed by the invoking of moral and ethical arguments in its defense! I can't imagine how anyone could believe child pornography is anything close to a "Freedom of Speech" issue. The people who produce and consume this aweful stuff are enjoying the "freedoms" at the expense of some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Bleck. >-(
    Who do they think they're catching? (Score:1)
    by fishexe on Thursday May 04, @07:07PM EDT (#238)
    (User Info)
    When they tell you on the web page that it's fake kiddie porn, the addresses they grab aren't going to be the I.P.'s of any pedophiles, obviously. So what the hell are they trying to prove?

    Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
    Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
    Who says these files are pornographic in nature? (Score:2, Insightful)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:44PM EDT (#251)

    Think about it. Some of these filenames indicate that they're about pornography only to a dirty-minded observer. What if I was a graphic designer looking for an image of a few young boys playing out in the back yard, to illustrate my article about the benefits of large back yards? I might download young-boys.jpg, thinking that it was just an image of a couple of (dressed) young boys!

    Unlikely you say? Maybe, but almost all of the so-called 'child pornographers' on the wall of shame might claim to be that graphic designer, and sue these guys for slandering. It's lawsuit paradise!

    Also, now that Zeropaid.com has made public their activities, won't there be people who'll try to download these files just for the hell of it? Or maybe they just want to see their names up on the wall, so they can sue Zeropaid.com and get thousands of dollars!


    A possible fix for this.... (Score:1)
    by benjohn~1.sys on Thursday May 04, @07:47PM EDT (#253)
    (User Info)
    <possible="clueless statement">

    Maby Gnutella clients should act as proxies for other Gnutella clients - requests from your Gnutella client for files and file-transfers should be routed through a randomly choseen Gnutella client.After several possible hops - tracing the originating Gnutella client would be quite difficult. Offensive requests and downloads could tarnish the reputation of the IP# of the proxy Gnutella client, but the catch phrase of "my Gnutella client was just acting as a proxy - honest" would take care of that. Bandwidth would suffer - but the real freedom of Gnutella is the transfer of idea-rich textfiles not huge bootleged MP3's and warz.

    </possible>

    I'm sorry, I don't trust you that much (Score:5, Insightful)
    by xiphmont on Thursday May 04, @07:50PM EDT (#256)
    (User Info) http://www.xiph.org/
    >It's been said many times by others: if you have
    >done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid
    >of.

    If you believe that for a second, I have a bridge to sell you. America is currently whipped up into such a 'protect our children' frenzy that it's practically a fetish; one of the few that regularly disturbs me.

    I'll state the following for the record: I'm not a pedophile, consumer of kiddie porn, or any number of related horrible things. I don't want to see exploitation or torture of children any more than any sane adult would. I'm planning on having my own kids in the not too distant future (although perhaps slightly more distant than my wife ;-) and I want them to grow up happy, healthy and secure.

    I am a consumer of net Porn. Not a particualrly rabid consumer, but a reasonably regular one. I see nothing shameful about pornography in general, and I don't care if *you* do. Over the past ten years or so (yes, porn predates the web), I've even had paying memberships at a few of my favorite sites.

    Perhaps I'm sharing too much, but I happen to go for the really 'soft' stuff; hardcore action is just... kinda strange... Closeups of genitals and any number of other things that the mainstream porn industry thinks is oh-so-hot is a major turnoff. I like neutral, not particularly sexual poses of healthy, happy women. Pretty, happy women are a turn on... as they should be for practically any healthy het male! For this reason, I also like nudist photos (and generally am a believer in nudism myself). So far, I don't think anyone is particularly surprised or shocked. Feynman himself had more interesting tastes ;-)

    For some reason though, alot of naturist and nudist sites also advertise themselves (often hidden in meta tags) as 'kiddie' 'illegal underage' or 'lolita' porn. Why? Heck if I know.
    I think the whole net-porn industry needs a major dose of truth in advertising, but whatever. So it's the case that naturist sites often run hand in hand with fake (or real) kiddie sites. You can't tell until you visit.

    Is someone logging the sites I go to? Am I gonna get a knock on my door at 7am because some asshole Yahoo who thought he was doing us all a major service saw I went to a site with 'kiddie porn' in a META tag and handed it to my local Police department? You might even find a pic or two in my Netscape cache from a site where I only hit the front page, (or more likely a banner ad). It almost makes me want to pull this stunt as a hoax ('turn in' a co-conspirator) in order to discredit the whole idea before it gets started.

    When Megan's Law first started being enforced here in CA, several men were *PLACED ON THE SEX OFFENDER LIST ERRONEOUSLY*. One poor guy's neighbors noticed before he did, tried to burn down his house and in general sent alot of nasty death threats. Of course no one believed him when he claimed to be innocent! Who would trust someone on a Police list as a pedophile?

    I don't know what it is about groups of people and mob mentality. Admit it: all we're looking for here, rather than a legitimate way of protecting children, is a new excuse for a witch hunt. Don't you just *love* that rush of righteous indignation? That justified feeling of hate for another human? That burning desire to wipe out the evil and ask questions later? The number of times folks in this comment lists have referred to the third-person, evil 'them' is disturbing.

    If *I* got on a list by accident, could I trust all of you to stop and think for a second before tearing me to shreds?

    I think I could not.

    Monty
    http://www.xiph.org/


    A better technique to find offenders... (Score:1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @09:23PM EDT (#266)
    Why didn't ZeroPaid.com actually go out searching for child porn and post IPs from the users from whom they downloaded recognizable child porn? (I assume they can identify nude 7 year olds.)

    I've only used Gnutella a handful of times and don't remember if the serving IP could be identified, but wouldn't this be "much more legitimate" than their current method?
    Privacy on the internet? Yeah right. (Score:1)
    by terrisus (terrisus@aol.com) on Thursday May 04, @09:48PM EDT (#270)
    (User Info)
    Sure, they're posting the IP addresses and all, which is aparently getting everyone all riled up, but if people think that information isn't easy to get, they're mistaken. Seriously, websites like hitbox (and others) provide even just your casual, not knowing much, webmaster to monitor IP addresses (and other stuff) of anyone to visit a given page. Any common person could make a blank website, submit it to all search engines with keywords involving a ton of sexual words, and then monitor and do whatever with the IP addresses of people who visit.
    not a consequence of a distributed system (Score:2)
    by jetson123 (br_9801 at hotmail dot com) on Thursday May 04, @10:09PM EDT (#278)
    (User Info)
    This is not at all a consequence of building a Gnutella-like system, it's a consequence of the somewhat naive design of Gnutella.

    The ATT Crowds system shows how to build these kinds of distributed systems without traceability.

    Of course, ZeroPaid's approach is also socially questionable and rather naive from a social point of view. The assumption that most people who download their files are "guilty" is a bad one. Many of them may be other people on the same mission as they are. Others may be automated programs or just promiscuous downloaders. Concretely, wouldn't you assume that the FBI is searching for and downloading just those files?

    Entrapment (Score:2)
    by SoftwareJanitor (SoftwareJanitor@yahoo.com) on Thursday May 04, @11:34PM EDT (#292)
    (User Info)
    I realize that these guys aren't exactly under the same rules as the government would be, but what they are doing smells a little too much like entrapment for me to be entirely comfortable with it.

    It is too easy for people who aren't really pedophiles, but are just drawn into downloading these files just out of curiosity to get smeared and labeled by things like this.

    My question is this: Is this medium really experiencing problems with people using it for transferring kiddie porn? If so, why aren't they targeting the people who upload it? Those are the people who are really the source of the problem.

    While I don't have a problem busting people who really intentionally do something wrong, I think it is important to make sure we are getting the right people, not people who just get sucked into things due to stupidity or curiosity.


    Torches and Big Sticks (Score:2, Insightful)
    by fermion on Thursday May 04, @11:46PM EDT (#295)
    (User Info)
    It is totally unacceptable to post a picture labeled 'hot teen.jpg' and report all persons that downloads it as a pedophile. Admittedly, the pedophile that does download it is hoping that it is a naked boy, but not every download represents such a person. Ignoring the ambiguity of the title, one can ask if there is anything wrong with a 16 year old boy coveting a 16 year old girl in a bikini?

    Zeropaid.com’s behavior is extremely dishonorable. The fact that they are apparently making such accusations behind peoples back makes their actions increasingly disgraceful. There is no excuse to harass innocent individuals in the hope of catching a few criminals. I will, admit, however, that they would have every right to kick such persons off their service, if such a policy were evenly enforced.

    The fact is that in the U.S.A. a person has the right to look at people of the opposite sex without being called straight; listen to Rush L. without being called a conservative; go into a Baptist church without being called a Christian; and, yes, even look at an ad of a scantily clad little boy resting on his fathers chest outside in a hammock (potentially scanned in as cute little boy and his hot dad in bed), without being called a pedophile.

    Pedophilia is a crime that does untold amounts of damage. However, I think most people have enough trouble just trying to pay bills and getting their kids home safely. We don’t need vigilantes making our lives even more difficult.

    Lowpass.net to Napster: DIE! (Score:1)
    by Gray on Thursday May 04, @11:59PM EDT (#297)
    (User Info)
    We placed fake mp3s on a few napsters. We used track names by big popular artists, but with song names that didn't exist.

    The plan was really just to do it so we could say we did it. The response was insane. We got dozens of hateful emails from all kinds of exciting d00dz..

    I have to admit, zeropaid is even more clever, but nothing tops our automatic napster legal threat generator. THREATSTER!

    Re:similar experience (Score:1)
    by Gray on Saturday May 06, @04:43AM EDT (#399)
    (User Info)
    Not us. We put in very nicly produced "The song you have attempted to steal is unavailable.." messages.

    GNUtella bites the dust (Score:1)
    by Randseed on Friday May 05, @02:17AM EDT (#311)
    (User Info)
    Well, the lamers have stormed the gates of GNUtella. Seeing "PANDA BEAR PORN $39.95" and similar things is cute for about the first five seconds. Then the DoS attacks involving those kinds of idiotic and repeated search patterns just get annoying.
    Gnutella doesn't work like that... (Score:1)
    by Baggio (RBeesley@ANTISPAM.computer.org) on Friday May 05, @03:22AM EDT (#319)
    (User Info)
    As I understand it, Gnutella only asks the hosts your connected to, but they don't know the orgin of who asked. If they don't have the file, they query the hosts they are connected to and so on.

    I'll attempt to describe this visually..

    (Host A)
      | | |
      | | \ /(Host M)
      | \ (Host D)-(Host L)
      \ \ \(Host K)
        \ \ /(Host J)
          \ (Host C)-(Host I)
            \ \(Host H)
              \ /(Host G)
              (Host B)-(Host F)
                              \(Host E)

    Now lets pretend that Host G had one of the files I'm looking for and Host J was doing this listing crap. From the protocol, Host G knows that Host B had asked about a file, and tells Host B that either I or another server that I'm connected to has the file or knows where to get it. Host B then tells Host A the same either, I or another server that I'm connected to has the file or knows where to get it.

    Host J tells Host C the same. So far, the only thing Host J knows is that Host C, or a client connected to Host C, received a request for this file. Host J does not know how many connections away the requesting client is.

    When you start to download something, maybe this model breaks down then. I don't know if the packets are then sent back over that chain again, or if they are sent directly. As I understand it, Gnutella is designed to protect the identity of both the client and server, so I don't immagine that the IP is anything but the host immediately connected and inquiering. In the case of the above example, Host C. Both the requesting client Host A, and the other server that had the real data, Host G are protected.
    Time flies like an arrow;
    Fruit flies like a bananna
    Re:Gnutella doesn't work like that... (Score:1)
    by Baggio (RBeesley@ANTISPAM.computer.org) on Friday May 05, @03:42AM EDT (#322)
    (User Info)
    To comment on this, please go to this thread where the diagram hasn't been fsck'd by /.'s parser.

    Time flies like an arrow;
    Fruit flies like a bananna
    Gnutella doesn't work like that... (diagram fixed) (Score:1)
    by Baggio (RBeesley@ANTISPAM.computer.org) on Friday May 05, @03:38AM EDT (#321)
    (User Info)
    As I understand it, Gnutella only asks the hosts your connected to, but they don't know the orgin of who asked. If they don't have the file, they query the hosts they are connected to and so on.

    I'll attempt to describe this visually..

    (Host A)
      | | |
      | | \       /(Host M)
      | \ (Host D)-(Host L)
      \ \         \(Host K)
       \ \        /(Host J)
        \ (Host C)-(Host I)
         \        \(Host H)
          \       /(Host G)
          (Host B)-(Host F)
                  \(Host E)

    Now lets pretend that Host G had one of the files I'm looking for and Host J was doing this listing crap. From the protocol, Host G knows that Host B had asked about a file, and tells Host B that either I or another server that I'm connected to has the file or knows where to get it. Host B then tells Host A the same either, I or another server that I'm connected to has the file or knows where to get it.

    Host J tells Host C the same. So far, the only thing Host J knows is that Host C, or a client connected to Host C, received a request for this file. Host J does not know how many connections away the requesting client is.

    When you start to download something, maybe this model breaks down then. I don't know if the packets are then sent back over that chain again, or if they are sent directly. As I understand it, Gnutella is designed to protect the identity of both the client and server, so I don't immagine that the IP is anything but the host immediately connected and inquiering. In the case of the above example, Host C. Both the requesting client Host A, and the other server that had the real data, Host G are protected.


    Time flies like an arrow;
    Fruit flies like a bananna
    New Evidence! (Score:1)
    by cgadd on Friday May 05, @03:46AM EDT (#324)
    (User Info)
    Check this link!
    http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/the_cleaner.gif

    Based on the IP addresses, it appears that users from:
    www.zeropaid.com
    www.microsoft.com
    www.whitehouse.gov

    have accessed and downloaded "fake" kiddie pron!

    Yes, it's BS. But no more so than the ones that the "wall of shame" posted. It's all unprovable claims.
    Re:New Evidence! (Score:1)
    by lizardbrain on Friday May 05, @07:34PM EDT (#389)
    (User Info)
    ha! that's great.
    It just goes to show that any picture on zeropaid could be faked, another log thrown in the legal fire that must eventually consume the immoral Wall of Shame
    Annoyed by people condemning "perverts" (Score:1)
    by Steeltoe (stopSTEELTOEthe@fuckingMAILspam.now!COM) on Friday May 05, @04:46AM EDT (#329)
    (User Info)
    Exposing supposed child-molestors by showing their IP is totally misguided on three or more accounts: The filenames has nothing to do with the actual content, the IP could point to someone "innocent" and phedophily is an emotional/phsycological damage or disease. Condemning people because they do what they do without understanding why they do it is a display of ignorance and unjust intolerance 100% of the time. Pervertion is not something people *choose*, and what is, is also very subjective. Of course we shouldn't tolerate act of cruelty against children, but you can't kill off phedophily by stamping on it. You can't control what other people think and feel, not even by going out on a witch-hunt.

    - Steeltoe
    So who are these people? (Score:1)
    by Kjella on Friday May 05, @05:55AM EDT (#336)
    (User Info)
    People downloading a bunch of jpgs?
    People looking for teens (16+ is legal here)?
    Law enforcment agencies with too much spare time on their hands?
    Anti-pedos surfing for such sites to report them and shut them down?

    And if it was real pedos.. do you really think an attempt to download files with a possibly illegal content would come anywhere close to probable cause? Not here anyway, above is several good reasons why others would download them. How many links or banners for adult sites have you seen with "lolita" "underage" "illegal" etc etc, while they only lead to sites carrying normal legal porn? Would that be illegal too? If so, I could probably sue as many companies as Metallica want to sue Napster users.

    Kjell Rune
    Shocking. (Score:2)
    by Yaruar on Friday May 05, @06:41AM EDT (#340)
    (User Info) http://www.yaruar.dircon.co.uk
    I'm disgusted at this big brother tactic destroying my online privacy and my freedom of expression.

    Obviously downloading this is a crime, but surely the bigger crime is people using covert means to find out that I am doing it. I can't believe these people invading my god given right to be above the law at all times......

    Irony or allegory, make your minds up.....

    Re:Shocking. (Score:1)
    by lizardbrain on Friday May 05, @07:31PM EDT (#388)
    (User Info)
    >Obviously downloading this is a crime Actually, its not a crime at all. The names of many of these 'trap' files are legally ambiguous, such as 'schoolgirl'. This does not denote child porno in anyway, as it could be a picture of a fully clothed schoolgirl in class, or a naked college girl. What the wall of shame is doing is obviously wrong, and it should be stopped!
    Freenet (Score:2)
    by Sanity (I.Clarke@dynamicblue.com) on Friday May 05, @07:50AM EDT (#349)
    (User Info) http://www.sanity.uklinux.net/
    Of course, it goes without saying that since Freenet protects the anonymity of those reading information, this type of thing would be impossible.

    I don't, however, think that what these guys are doing is wrong - but anyone who gets caught-out by it only has themselves to blame.

    --
    A subversive is anyone who can out-argue their government.

    Next thing you know... (Score:1)
    by dedicke (dedicke@dontspamyahoo.com) on Friday May 05, @10:43AM EDT (#366)
    (User Info) http://www.whystudy.com
    Next thing you know they will be taking pictures of my license plate when I'm waiting outside the local junior high. this is getting crazy? now do i have to look over my shoulder and worry about getting arrested just because i am hanging out besides the dressing rooms at the kids gap for 4-5 hours a day? i mean seriously guys...this just doesn't make sense. If someone comes up to me in the arcade at the mall after schools get out and tell me to put my pants back on, then i am just going to kill myself. someone has to put a stop to this.
    "I think I just went in my pants..."
    Why the fuss? (Score:1)
    by Borogove (slashdot@wingnut.demon.co.uk) on Friday May 05, @11:59AM EDT (#373)
    (User Info)
    Anyone who uses Gnutella and thinks that it's a _private_ distributed network is seriously mistaken. Just as we don't want the Powers That Be to interfere with our attempts to descramble DVDs and record MP3s, we shouldn't get fussed about other people grabbing IP addresses over what is essentially a broadcast medium.

    There are two alternatives, for people who are concerned about privacy: don't use Gnutella for your Pr0n downloads, or invent an encrypted version of the Gnutella protocol.
    -- Andrem
    'Not in my back yard, utensils, go back to China'
    Doh!!! Re:Some of the DNS names (Score:3, Interesting)
    by georgeha on Thursday May 04, @12:49PM EDT (#20)
    (User Info) http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/george2.htm
    I looked up some of the DNS names, I wasn't sure what I would find, but it looks like lots of dial ups and DHCP addresses.

      Host Name: <lsanca1-ar8-048-168.dsl.gtei.net> IP Address: <4.35.48.168>
      Host Name: <ci697303-a.lusvil1.ky.home.com> IP Address: <24.2.227.10>
      Host Name: <PPPa86-ResalePhoenix6-2R7219.saturn.bbn.com> IP Address: <4.54.182.211>
      Host Name: <cachef1-v105.kolumbus.fi> IP Address: <193.229.159.211>
      Host Name: <tayhou-229-217.ev1.net> IP Address: <207.218.229.217>
      Host Name: <du13055.blo.ptd.net> IP Address: <204.186.13.55>
      Host Name: <CHCGB511-10.splitrock.net> IP Address: <209.254.67.10>
      Host Name: <annex32.su.ic.ac.uk> IP Address: <155.198.152.42>
      Host Name: <proxy2-external.snvl1.sfba.home.com> IP Address: <24.4.254.99>
      Host Name: <w098.z208177014.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net> IP Address: <208.177.14.98>
      Host Name: <host001083.arnet.com.ar> IP Address: <200.43.1.83>
      Host Name: <dhcp93101233.columbus.rr.com> IP Address: <24.93.101.233>
      Host Name: <c05-148.012.popsite.net> IP Address: <64.24.48.148>
      Host Name: <52.atlanta-48-49rs.ga.dial-access.att.net> IP Address: <12.77.19.52>
      Host Name: <5-168.casl.du.edu> IP Address: <130.253.5.168>
      Host Name: <a24b31n93client144.hawaii.rr.com> IP Address: <24.31.93.144>
      Host Name: <b12.med.pcpros.net> IP Address: <208.198.6.12>
      Host Name: <p3E9B96E2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> IP Address: <62.155.150.226>
      Host Name: <slkc6400gw1poolC60.slkc.uswest.net> IP Address: <63.226.102.60>
      Host Name: <adsl-77-226-243.atl.bellsouth.net> IP Address: <216.77.226.243>
      Host Name: <ip229.dayton11.oh.pub-ip.psi.net> IP Address: <38.31.203.229>
      Host Name: <dhcp-letts-158-219.american.edu> IP Address: <147.9.158.219>

    George
    Re:Doh!!! Re:Some of the DNS names (Score:2, Funny)
    by Some Strange Guy on Thursday May 04, @06:14PM EDT (#216)
    (User Info)
    A little further down the list!

    Host Name: <hemos.slashdot.org> IP Address: <192.168.1.53>
    Host Name: <cmdrtaco.slashdot.org> IP Address: <192.168.1.83>
    Host Name: <cowboyneal.slashdot.org> IP Address: <192.168.1.82>
    Host Name: <emmet.slashdot.org> IP Address: <192.168.1.24>
    Host Name: <xyzzy.slashdot.org> IP Address: <192.168.1.153>
    Host Name: <plugh.slashdot.org> IP Address: <192.168.1.29>

    (before anyone goes ballistic, it's a joke. Really! Look it up!)

    Re:Child Pr0n is g00d (Score:1)
    by JWRose on Thursday May 04, @01:40PM EDT (#77)
    (User Info)
    The simple answer lies in the idea of Supply and Demand. Even though, you are just merely looking at a picture of the child porn, it wouldn't have been supplied had there been no demand for it. That is why, IMHO, viewing child pornography is wrong!!!!

    Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
    -Democritus of Abdera

    Re:Child Pr0n is g00d (Score:2)
    by legoboy (j-browne@usa.net) on Thursday May 04, @01:50PM EDT (#90)
    (User Info)

    We as a free people should have the right to view pipctures of young girls in the nude, if this makes me horny then why should you care? What you do in the bedroom is nobody elses busiess right? And if my computer is in my bedroom and I don't have any little girls in there either am I doing anything wrong? If what I like is illegal to do, should I be prevented from thinking about it too?

    Troll? He's obviously taken the unpopular side of the debate. I'm not a fan of child porn, but I agree with the AC. Don't forget that American laws don't apply to the rest of the world, either. Is the FBI going to go after the people with European IP addresses? If so, I don't imagine they'll be too successful.

    For kicks, I'll mention that under Canadian law, possession of child porn is legal. There was a big uproar when the courts decided this, but the law hasn't been changed. (For reference, both distributing and producing it is still considered illegal here. Downloading it would be legal... The person hosting it for download is liable.)

    ------
    If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?

    Re:Child Pr0n is g00d (Score:5, Informative)
    by alkali (ab294@detroit.freenet.org) on Thursday May 04, @01:51PM EDT (#91)
    (User Info)
    The case which explains why it's not just illegal to make child porn is New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). The majority opinion in that case reads, in pertinent part:

    The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children in at least two ways. First, the materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be effectively controlled. Indeed, there is no serious contention that the legislature was unjustified in believing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to halt the exploitation of children by pursuing only those who produce the photographs and movies. While the production of pornographic materials is a low-profile, clandestine industry, the need to market the resulting products requires a visible apparatus of distribution. The most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product. Thirty-five States and Congress have concluded that restraints on the distribution of pornographic materials are required in order to effectively combat the problem, and there is a body of literature and testimony to support these legislative conclusions.

    [ . . . ]

    Third. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation. "It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute." We note that were the statutes outlawing the employment of children in these films and photographs fully effective, and the constitutionality of these laws has not been questioned, the First Amendment implications would be no greater than that presented by laws against distribution: enforceable production laws would leave no child pornography to be marketed.

    Fourth. The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis. We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work. As a state judge in this case observed, if it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative. Nor is there any question here of censoring a particular literary theme or portrayal of sexual activity. The First Amendment interest is limited to that of rendering the portrayal somewhat more "realistic" by utilizing or photographing children.

    Id. at 759-64 (footnotes and citations omitted).

    Re:Child Pr0n is g00d (Score:2)
    by Greg W. (wooledge@kellnet.com) on Thursday May 04, @05:20PM EDT (#205)
    (User Info) http://www.kellnet.com/wooledge/

    An A.C. wrote:

    And if my computer is in my bedroom and I don't have any little girls in there either am I doing anything wrong?

    To which the law's response (as quoted herein) is:

    First, the materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. [...]

    In other words, the whole reason possession of child pornography is illegal, is because a child had to be harmed to create it.

    But what if child pornography is created without children? Or indeed, without any human beings at all? Would computer-generated child pornography -- artificial children rendered entirely by CPU farms, with no human actors at all, or with only adult actors -- be illegal?

    If so, why?


    Re:Child Pr0n is g00d (Score:1)
    by GregWebb (ssu97gw@reading.ac.uk) on Monday May 15, @07:51AM EDT (#406)
    (User Info) http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~ssu97gw/index.html
    I know this is late and so the chances of anyone seeing it are minimal, but I only just found the comment via M2.

    Anwyay. The law in the UK is that it doesn't matter whether it _is_ illegal, it's whether it _appears_ illegal. In other words, you can legally publish the material as long as the participants are of legal age - though you may be required to prove it - but modifying the results so they appear to be of illegal age isn't permitted. Otherwise you have a huge hole through which every defence would instantly dive.

    My personal view? I'd have to agree with the courts. If you take free speech as an absolute right which goes above all else, it creates problems. Which is greater, the right of the adult to such speech or the right of the child to life without such abuse? I'd have to say the child wins, every time.

    Greg

    Everyone needs a hobby. World domination is as good as any other.

    Re:Shame on you (Score:1)
    by Rico_Suave on Thursday May 04, @02:45PM EDT (#127)
    (User Info)
    Bah. We should bring back public stonings.

    --
    C'mon..... Score: -5, Troll!!!!

    Re:Shame on you (Score:1)
    by degroof on Thursday May 04, @04:21PM EDT (#186)
    (User Info) http://degroof.home.mindspring.com
    Rico_Suave sez: "Bah. We should bring back public stonings."

    What, like Woodstock? 7:^)
    Re:Shame on you (Score:1)
    by Rico_Suave on Saturday May 06, @11:49PM EDT (#404)
    (User Info)
    What a moron...

    --
    C'mon..... Score: -5, Troll!!!!

    Re:But what if I'm twelve? (Score:1)
    by Rico_Suave on Thursday May 04, @02:48PM EDT (#130)
    (User Info)
    Since it's illegal for a minor to purchase or posess pr0n, it's still illegal either way you slice it.

    --
    C'mon..... Score: -5, Troll!!!!

    Re:But what if I'm twelve? (Score:1)
    by Maxintern9 (butt@stinky.net) on Thursday May 04, @03:13PM EDT (#156)
    (User Info) http://www.toshistation.com/funk/Dm.htm
    What if I'm twelve years old and I want to download pictures of girls my age?

    It's illegal for the server to hold them. It's illegal for you to download them or possess them (though since you would be 12 you would not be called a 'pedophile' or punished in any serious way). It is NEVER legal for sexually explicit photos of underage children to be possessed or transferred.

    Public shaming (Score:1)
    by mindstrm (moctodemohtamrtsdnim) on Thursday May 04, @05:52PM EDT (#213)
    (User Info)
    Public shaming is GREAT! It's about a community. It's about poeple.

    I am an advocate of privacy! I'm an advocate that the government does not have the right to strip me of that privacy.

    And I also know that when I make a tcp connection to a server, that server KNOWS my IP address, and the time the connection was up for, and what was transferred over it, and I have no legal contract with that server stating what can and can't be done with that information. In other words, I have *NO* expectation of privacy.

    Just like cellular phones. You have NO expectation of privacy on an analog cellular phone... oh.. unless you live in the US, where cellular scanners are illegal.

    Up here, in Canada, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when using the public airwaves. Period.

    Re:But what if I'm twelve? (Score:1)
    by RudeSka (rudeska54@yahoo.com) on Thursday May 04, @06:10PM EDT (#215)
    (User Info) http://mj12.nerdfarm.org
    this is not a troll. Okay? You may think it is a stupid question but it is not a troll. "Please note that I in no way support child porn. I am just bringing up an interesting question." I thought that was interesting as well btw but keep this in mind: Even though those under 18 can legally have sex they cannot view porn legally. I am not sure about the *creation* of porn though.
    Re:But what if I'm twelve? (Score:1)
    by ODiV ((my nick)@subdimension.com) on Thursday May 04, @06:39PM EDT (#220)
    (User Info) http://www.crosswinds.net/~odiv
    As others have mentionned, yes it is illegal and no you're not a pedophile.

    An interesting twist on all of this, is that it's illegal for you to possess pictures of yourself naked if you're underage. You can't stand in the mirror and photograph yourself naked if you're under 18. Well... I suppose you could, but you'd be a criminal.

    hm... I just thought of something. What if you photograph a mirror image of a naked underage person. Is it still child porn technically? Yeah... ok. Now that I've written it out, it sounds stupid, but technically it's not really a pornographic picture of an underage person.

    - I am ODiV, hear me type
    Try the amazing new game Nuke-A-Ped! (Score:2)
    by flyneye on Thursday May 04, @08:28PM EDT (#263)
    (User Info) http://www.subgenius.com
    Try the amazing new game Nuke-A-Ped!
                                                                          go to http://www.zeropaid.com/busted/ where
                                                                          zeropaid
                                                                          will post the "Pedophile of the moment"i.p. address.If we can get
    them to.
                                                                          Then using your favorite nuke,blast away!
                                                                          Sure,it may be illegal but whats the ped gonna do?
                                                                          call the cops?
                                                                          A modified version of this game may be played via
                                                                          IRC on efnet #gnutella (or a room you make) make up
                                                                          some bullshit "pedo-files"with all
                                                                          the obvious names e.g. teen-orgy.mpg
                                                                          13yr_blows_donkey.jpg

                                                                          When unsuspecting ped does his download
                                                                          just post his i.p. to the channel and everyone
                                                                          ping his ass real hard.WHOOOPEEEEEEE!!!!

    Granted,this is a fine way for a Libertarian and
    Subgenius to be talking but I'm also a megalomaniac in my spare time and I believe kids
    have a hard enough time in the world without
    these abherations to be allowed to breathe or take
    up valuable space.
             
             
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!(The Subgenius Foundation,Worlds Only Open Source Religion.)PRAISE BOB!*
    Re:Child Pr0n is g00d (Score:1)
    by Punto (punto@geocities.com) on Friday May 05, @01:35AM EDT (#307)
    (User Info)
    We as a free people should have the right to view pipctures of young girls in the nude

    The problem is the people that take the pictures, wich I think is a different issue.. I think it's not a thing of "Supply and Demand"; a lot of the people that takes the pictures are just sick and want to have sex with 12 y. o. kids.

    I wonder what would happend if the images were not of real people, like porn anime, or maybe a really good painting, or a 3d image, so good that you could not tell the differece.. That would not harm any minor, and people would download it. Would it be OK to watch that and masturbate?

    I'm sure a lot of the people that post "ah, that makes me sick" actually mean "ah, that makes me horny" (or at least curious). It's like robbing a bakn. Everybody wants to rob a banks and get away with it.. (of course, not everybody wants to rape a teenager)

    --
    this is the last post of the milenium. buy now

     
     
      What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq | rss ]