Anonymous take down child porn sites and leak user names

[Snufkin]

http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/ano...rn-sites-1260/

I don't really have much to say on the matter. I enjoy their antics and most of the time I agree with what they do. What concerns me is that they are doing more to combat child porn than the authorities are.

[BDF]

Intrigues me how there's no other group like them out there in competition.

And yea... good job. Very good job. If they're really good they should also post the addresses of those people. With that many names, some of them are bound to be within most people's reach.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Snufkin

What concerns me is that they are doing more to combat child porn than the authorities are.

I can't comment on the global situation, but I know in the UK they have carried out a number of large-scale operations against child pornography and sexual abuse in the last year and that there are numerous ongoing operations to try and bring down such groups. Actions like this do not help in the slightest and are frankly irresponsible - I do not condone what such people do in the slightest, but nor do I condone mob justice or vigilanteeism either. Both of those are likely to occur once this information gets into certain hands, and that will only distract the police more from doing their job. So much as I understand the motivation, I don't support this at all.

[Snufkin]

I agree to an extent. I remember more than one occasion where the UK officials have been involved in major discoveries like this. But the way I see it is that Anonymous have basically wandered in somewhere and exposed it, without much aid or hesitation. If they can do it, why can't those who are meant to be tracking these people down? I understand it's kind of foolish, and kind of similar to Sarah's Law in a way. I'd be happy to see them locked up without them being named.

[Cosmo]

"Irresponsible"

Please explain how this is 'irresponsible'? They just exposed hundreds of child pornographers and allowed justice to be served by publishing their information on the internet. They just did the police's job for them.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

"Irresponsible"

Please explain how this is 'irresponsible'? They just exposed hundreds of child pornographers and allowed justice to be served by publishing their information on the internet. They just did the police's job for them.

Because "justice being served" doesn't involve a mob breaking down doors and stringing people up, that's why. You also seem, with respect, to be alarmingly ignorant of what is actually required for the police to arrest someone and charge them with such offences - if it was simply a case of grabbing a list of names off the websites and away you go, don't you think they would have done that themselves by now? All the publication of this list will promote is the more gung-ho percentage of the population taking matters into their own hands, and that is nothing to do with justice. That is bloodlust. By all means pressurise server hosting companies as they are doing, because they are facilitating the whole sordid enterprise, but name-and-shame tactics will either result in people taking the law into their own hands or such people going underground, in either case making life immeasurably more difficult for the police and other agencies who are actually trying to do something about this.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Because "justice being served" doesn't involve a mob breaking down doors and stringing people up, that's why. You also seem, with respect, to be alarmingly ignorant of what is actually required for the police to arrest someone and charge them with such offences - if it was simply a case of grabbing a list of names off the websites and away you go, don't you think they would have done that themselves by now? All the publication of this list will promote is the more gung-ho percentage of the population taking matters into their own hands, and that is nothing to do with justice. That is bloodlust. By all means pressurise server hosting companies as they are doing, because they are facilitating the whole sordid enterprise, but name-and-shame tactics will either result in people taking the law into their own hands or such people going underground, in either case making life immeasurably more difficult for the police and other agencies who are actually trying to do something about this.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to take things into their own hands where the police fail to do their job, for whatever reasons.

If for example I'm being threatened by someone, report it, and the police fail to do anything about it, then I will do something about it. I won't wait for that person to come for me first.

That's just the way the logic pans out in my mind.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by BDF

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to take things into their own hands where the police fail to do their job, for whatever reasons.

Typically that would be that would have to do with the magistrate's lack of balls to sentence the pos for longer periods of time.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by -A-

Typically that would be that would have to do with the magistrate's lack of balls to sentence the pos for longer periods of time.

Yes... usually it is the system rather than the police themselves... in the UK anyway. It's up to the higher-ups to make the right decisions and frequently they don't.

[Xujhan]

To everyone advocating vigilante justice: remember, there's a good reason that our court system are as slow to act as they are. It doesn't take that much for someone's name to end up on the wrong list, or for a given piece of evidence to point to the wrong person. If the courts were as quick to judge as many civillians, it could easily be you or me that ends up convicted of trafficking child pornography. Keep that in mind.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

To everyone advocating vigilante justice: remember, there's a good reason that our court system are as slow to act as they are. It doesn't take that much for someone's name to end up on the wrong list, or for a given piece of evidence to point to the wrong person. If the courts were as quick to judge as many civillians, it could easily be you or me that ends up convicted of trafficking child pornography. Keep that in mind.

Around where I live, it's the Human Rights Act. It has some good sides, but also it gets in the way of a lot of things. It's just put together the wrong way, and defends criminals a lot more than it defends the average person... or at least criminals use it to their advantage a lot more.

I'm not talking about judges being quick in their decisions, I'm talking about the police getting on with their job, nothing more nothing less. But they can't, because of shit law being in place and frankly a lot of their attitudes also suck,... but I'm beginning to think that it's their morale dropping to the point where a lot of them don't care as much any more. They go for the easy option, because otherwise even if they do round up a bunch of 20 chavs who just assaulted someone, most of them will get away with ASBOs (anti social behaviour orders), some of them might get community service, and you'd be lucky to see even one of them locked up, and it'd probably be not for assault but possession of a knife. So it's easier for them to fine people £30 for going on the pavement with their bicycle. Just imagine a fight with 20 guys beating up one (happens around here fairly often). Even with cameras overlooking, it's difficult to determine who exactly chipped in and punched or kicked the victim. It's all a blur on camera, happening too fast, too many people.... so no one ends up being convicted of assault because of the "innocent until proven guilty" mindset, which I support, but I fail to see how the whole 20 of them wouldn't be guilty in a scenario like that.

The whole Human Rights Act is a grey area at the same time because people are complaining of there being too many cameras and shit like that. Frankly I have no problem with cameras, as long as they're not pointing through my window.

Then again I don't understand how what happened at the student protests can happen and police get away with it. Most of the time I'm confused by it all.

[Marguerite]

I think it's idiotic and it pisses me off that they continue to do this under the guise they are our unofficial protectors. Do people really think that the police don't have the power to do this, yet Anon does?

There is a reason these websites haven't been taken down already. I'm sure there were investigations under way, and so much more could have been done to help children exploited by pedophiles and child pornography by examining these websites. Instead of getting evidence to build up cases, examining the footage to try and find the children etc Anon has just blown it all to hell, which will only force these sickos to go elsewhere. As for their names being released, while I'm not weeping for those scum bags if they do ever go to trial the fact that there name was released will probably be used in their favor.

I just wonder how many children will continue be harmed because these guys want to play V. It makes me angry.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by BDF

Around where I live, it's the Human Rights Act. It has some good sides, but also it gets in the way of a lot of things. It's just put together the wrong way, and defends criminals a lot more than it defends the average person... or at least criminals use it to their advantage a lot more.

I'm not talking about judges being quick in their decisions, I'm talking about the police getting on with their job, nothing more nothing less. But they can't, because of shit law being in place and frankly a lot of their attitudes also suck,... but I'm beginning to think that it's their morale dropping to the point where a lot of them don't care as much any more. They go for the easy option, because otherwise even if they do round up a bunch of 20 chavs who just assaulted someone, most of them will get away with ASBOs (anti social behaviour orders), some of them might get community service, and you'd be lucky to see even one of them locked up, and it'd probably be not for assault but possession of a knife. So it's easier for them to fine people £30 for going on the pavement with their bicycle. Just imagine a fight with 20 guys beating up one (happens around here fairly often). Even with cameras overlooking, it's difficult to determine who exactly chipped in and punched or kicked the victim. It's all a blur on camera, happening too fast, too many people.... so no one ends up being convicted of assault because of the "innocent until proven guilty" mindset, which I support, but I fail to see how the whole 20 of them wouldn't be guilty in a scenario like that.

The whole Human Rights Act is a grey area at the same time because people are complaining of there being too many cameras and shit like that. Frankly I have no problem with cameras, as long as they're not pointing through my window.

Then again I don't understand how what happened at the student protests can happen and police get away with it. Most of the time I'm confused by it all.

It has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act - that is Daily Fail logic, frankly. Fletcher's post is absolutely correct; dollecting evidence which stands up to scrutiny and proves beyond all reasonable doubt (which is the standard that has to apply in the criminal courts for what I hope are obvious reasons) that the person in question is guilty of the offence charged of takes a considerable period of time - merely publishing a purported list of usernames and presumably IP addresses is not good enough. To get the kind of evidence collection required for the swiftness of justice you seek, you're talking about a police state. I'm sure I don't need to spell out the problems with that.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by dr2005

To get the kind of evidence collection required for the swiftness of justice you seek, you're talking about a police state. I'm sure I don't need to spell out the problems with that.

Haha, you got me on your side there on that one. But I do think something has to be done in the law area of all this, to make it easier to convict those people.

The evidence, them being on those sites and actively exchanging nude photos of kids, is good enough evidence to convict them in my opinion, yet why isn't it done? Perhaps police/detectives might want to probe deeper, and find out where the kids that are being abused are... but from where I'm sitting (and I might be a little ignorant in this respect, since I haven't worked in the police force) it shouldn't be something that takes 2...3 years to do, which is the impression I'm getting.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by BDF

The evidence, them being on those sites and actively exchanging nude photos of kids, is good enough evidence to convict them in my opinion, yet why isn't it done? Perhaps police/detectives might want to probe deeper, and find out where the kids that are being abused are... but from where I'm sitting (and I might be a little ignorant in this respect, since I haven't worked in the police force) it shouldn't be something that takes 2...3 years to do, which is the impression I'm getting.

The biggest problem, from my understanding of it, is that owing to the nature of how ISPs utilise IP addresses it's incredibly difficult to track someone's activity on the Internet sufficiently to establish a link to such sites or exchanges in a short space of time. The UK has a specific agency, GCHQ, which monitors all communications in the UK jurisdiction (this is public knowledge, by the way - it's been going for years) and while they are incredibly good at their job it still takes a lot of time to establish a consistent pattern. That is what is needed to justify requesting a warrant, for which they need to be able to show reasonable suspicion - the actual granting of a search warrant is usually quite straightforward, and once they have the computers it becomes very straightforward. It's establishing the initial link that's the problem, and combined with the fact that these people will be working bloody hard to cover their tracks you end up with the situation we have. The 2-3 years thing tends to be more unusual unless it's a very big ring, as was the case with one broken up earlier this year, but in most cases it can take months to get to that point. It certainly isn't for lack of trying, and unfortunately it's one of those things that the law can do very little to remedy short of forcing ISPs to fix IP addresses and pass on this information to the authorities. Given their reluctance to introduce opt-in pornography settings, it's debatable how likely that'll be. I do share your frustration on the subject, though.