Hacker News Reader

Comment by sho | Hacker News Reader

Well I don't salute him at all.

Think about what he's doing. He is examining computers for illegal information. An illegal series of bytes. This is utterly insane.

You can make up whatever justification you want, but to me the very existence, the very possibility of existence, of illegal information is absolutely, 180˚ opposed to everything I believe in. As far as I am concerned, people like ErrantX are actively working to undermine free society.

The fact that many of these illegal files are simply scans of magazines you could apparently buy, completely legally, over the counter, in the 1970s, just adds that last twist of "We have always been at war with Eurasia" doublethink frisson.

View on HN

To me that's like arguing it's crazy to pursue anyone committing violent crimes because they're "just moving atoms around."

That said, I think it's totally ridiculous they don't devote 100% of the crime fighting effort to eradicating producers, slamming down on abusing parents, etc. That they're wasting time on easy targets seems sick to me. The argument is that by killing the market, the producers won't abuse kids, but I ain't buying that because I bet a dollar to a nickel that there's always been a small section of society that has sexually abused kids for their own sick pleasure from it.

The notion that child abuse would end because there would be no market for commercial child abuse is a stupid idea.

It's also the kind of idea that so frequently bubbles up in law enforcement: the eradication of visible crimes is more important than the eradication of the unseen ones. It's also because the visible ones are so easier to catch and give so much more TV coverage.

Going after the producers/abusers is the goal. Going after users do next to nothing to protect exploited children.

I have seen a similar attitude when I followed the investigations after I had a laptop robbed here in Brazil. Police officials were much more worried about catching the guy with the gun than the guy who bought the computers to resell. If you take down the guy in the spike, the buyer can quickly recruit another. If you take down the buyer, the hub, the whole "market" collapses for a while and crime drops (or migrates to other activities).

An that brings me to another story: when bank cashiers here started to use ATM-like equipment in their desks and had no meaningful amount of money easily accessible, bank robberies dropped to next to nothing. Interestingly, shortly after that, kindnapping spiked.

The notion that child abuse would end because there would be no market for commercial child abuse is a stupid idea. [...] Going after the producers/abusers is the goal. Going after users do next to nothing to protect exploited children.

Agreed, but that's exactly what I just said, lol :)

I upvoted this because I didn't feel it was stupid (certainly not enough to hit 0 points). Condemning Gitmo is not endorsing terrorism.

Condemning the idea of "illegal information" is not endorsing child abuse. Child porn is usually a result of child abuse. Child porn may be a contributing factor in child abuse. That still does not equate child porn and child abuse.

I don't agree with sho, but I don't think is argument is stupid or invalid.

Photography is strange; it exists solely to please the eye. One can say that the act of looking at it, is similar to how one would USE other sorts of information, and although that's not quite right either it serves well-enough (in reality intentions matter when talking about this issue, otherwise the cops that verify someone has CP are criminals themselves.)

So, that said, it's not the HAVING the information that matters, it's the using of it. If I have your bank account information on my computer it's not illegal for me to have it (I think), but it would certainly give me jail time if I used it to take money out of your account.

Right. And your free society would actually celebrate people that produce and distribute things like child pornography, hell, you'd actually sell your own children into the business, right?

I'm sorry but anarchy and freedom from coercion such as taxes are good things that we'd be interested in talking about as hackers, but you're coming out in support of child porn to support your claim of freedom. There is no doublethink here, child porn is wrong, that is objective reality.

Wow, you really demolished that straw man you set up there. I'm not advocating child porn, nor anarchy, nor any other of your bizarre projections. Get a grip.

"child porn is wrong, that is objective reality."

Your proclamations of what is right or wrong have no place in "objective reality", my friend. Objective reality simply is.

"you're coming out in support of child porn to support your claim of freedom"

Well I didn't really mean to "come out in support of" it but why not, sure, for the sake of argument. And I presume you're "coming out" in favour of a world in which you can be thrown in jail at any time for the existence, on a computer under your control, of a copy of a photo you didn't take?

grin. sorry for sounding annoyed, that wasn't the idea (so much for being objective :)

Since you didn't mean to come out in support of child porn (which is what it sounded like you were doing, by proclaiming the government shouldn't be able to go after our bits) - I think it's been determined in this thread that having mistakenly had a copy of a photo on your computer doesn't make you a user, or prosecutable by law.

My point was that being associated with Child Pornography (user, distributor, creator) knowing that you're doing it willfully is wrong and should be prosecutable. Now I'm not sure whether we disagree.

I would like to say that I would encourage you to come and do my job before you try to make claims like these :)

> And I presume you're "coming out" in favour of a world in which you can be thrown in jail at any time for the existence, on a computer under your control, of a copy of a photo you didn't take?

This is precisely my job: to figure out if the suspect downloaded the image deliberately (which is a crime) or not (which isnt). As you might have gathered from my earlier figures 20% of the computers I look at are innocent (and I prove them to be)..... :)

Your "freedom" is for the computer users and doesnt consider anyone else.

For arguments sake, if sho had 10gb of <7yo children in sexual acts distributed amongst photos and videos on his computer, would he be guilty in your opinion? Sho - I would like to hear from you too.

Well yes I would report that as a positive: i.e. that I had found material. Depending on the grading of the images the CPS would then decide what to prosecute him with (i.e. all level 1's would probably get you a talking too and advice on places to get help if required, a decent number of level 5's would prompt prosecution).

I'd also look at how he organised them. For example if it was a few 100 MB's of borderline images (even if we know they are illegal) and they were spread randomly in his porn collection then I would possibly consider it a negative. If then I found google searches for "download lolita" etc. and evidence of hanging out on 12chan et al then I might revise that view.

Each case varies considerably :) as I am sure you can imagine.

Currently possession of the material in large quantities is a crime.

What legal reason could there be for holding that quantity on disk? (bearing in mind the checks and paperwork we have to go through to hold the material per the requirments of our contracts).

That amount of data (10GB is a lot) would prompt me to look very closely at the sources and other activity as it would suggest distribution too (indeed I would be surprised if there were no distribution at that scale).

1 image wont get you jail time. 100 would depend on the context & the grading. 1000+ is, I hope, fairly obvious :)

The only thing I was thinking was if I were going to do something clearly illegal, and had technical ability, surely I wouldn't store my stash in plain site. E.g. hack someones machine, store the data on their computer. How do you prove 'intent'?

I have known a few shady types throughout life, and none of them were stupid enough to store their stolen goods at their home, regardless of how poor their educational abilities :)

Ah yeh I see what you mean there.

Well everything leaves traces - you juust have ot hunt it out and figureout where they hide things ;)

That said your assuming technical ability: which these consumers dont really have. The mid level (i.e. community) distributors probably dont have it either. Top level distributors? Pfft try catching them :) barely happens.

At the end of the day it is all about the trail. You tie together their chat, web activity, downloads, and where images are stored. Factor in things like times (can be useful to confirm who used the PC) and extraneous usage (eg: download images, followed by checking email followed by more downloads is pretty incriminating :D).

You build up a picture of what happened and it quickly shows the intent.

If you get someone googling for normal porn and downloading a couple of borderline CP zips it is fairly obvious compared to somone searching limewire for "lolita" and setting 100 related torrents off to download :)

EDIT: example, that I am allowed to mention, try the case of a school computer teacher coming into class in the morning and setting Limewire off to download CP before teaching a class. He took steps to hide what he did (encrypted containers etc.) but in the end it was easy enough to prove via log files, thumbnails and internet usage etc. That is the most technical ability I have seen in a consumer.

Good to know you go to such lengths. From some of the posters here you would think it was as simple as looking at a website with CP gets you 10 years :)

Respect, and good hunting :)

Well, your question is ambiguous. Guilty according to what? According to the law, of course this hypothetical person would be guilty. Very guilty.

In terms of my own ideal moral boundaries? Well, it depends on the circumstances. I will refer to this hypothetical person as X.

1. If X made/caused to be made the images: Guilty beyond doubt. Lock X up and throw away the key. Sexual assault of a 7yo? Are you kidding? Absolutely wrong and absolutely should be removed from society before more harm is caused.

2. If X did not make the images but contributed to their creation via payment: Guilty. By payment, he has directly helped fund this and future crimes.

3. If X did not make the images but contributed to their creation by other means: Grey area. Could be considered part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. Would depend on the circumstances.

4. If X did not make the images and had no link to the person(s) who did: Not guilty, of course. There is no link between him and the crime. He merely has a visual record. Obviously a promising candidate for counselling, however. To be treated the same was as, say, someone found with 10GB of execution photos/videos.

I wonder what answer you were expecting? I am sorry but I just cannot accept that making a copy of a file can be considered a criminal offence or even wrong.

I consider anyone who rapes 7yo kids to be utterly reprehensible, by the way. That is fucking sick. Lock up anyone who does that, forever, and I will applaud you. But possessing an image of the crime in progress? That should not be a crime, that should never be a crime, that should not even be able to be a crime.

Interesting opinion. In regards to 4, I disagree, as I believe that possession promotes creation indirectly by creating demand & fueling an already unhealthy mind.

Well, your own unproven theories are no basis upon which to ruin other people's lives.

Your ideas, by the way, could equally well be applied - and are, by some fanatics - to violent video games, and yet I bet you oppose efforts to even curtail their availability, let alone imprison their fans.

I would really like to emphasise that I think that someone who's interested in collecting 10G of pictures of kids being raped is obviously pretty sick. If I found that someone I knew had such an interest, I'd probably never speak to them again. If I had kids, I'd keep them the hell away from such a pervert. But illegal? For having copied some files, but having had nothing to do with the crime involved in their original creation? Those pictures are depictions and records of a crime, but they do not embody it.

The whole concept is ludicrous and I can't believe I am so alone in pointing that out. If you have a picture of a murder, and I copy it, we haven't somehow created another murder out of the ether. If I possess a picture of someone doing illegal drugs, I don't magically become partially responsible for the drug use. I think a reasonable person would agree up to here with everything I said. So why does all rationality fly straight out the window when it comes to a crime that happens to involve a child? The arguments weren't valid before, but change the subject to an emotionally charged topic and suddenly they make perfect sense?

I just don't buy it. You can't cut and paste pictures of crime, and in doing so create more crime. You can't create more crime by viewing a recording of crime. I am utterly baffled why anyone would argue otherwise.

Your analogies don't work. With drugs, producing and using them are crimes. The intent and act of viewing Child Porn is the same - producing or using the produce is the crime.

If someone downloads Child Porn, or knowingly copies it from somewhere, this could be giving someone the idea that they better keep producing it.

I was going to write a long response to his obscure and reprehensible views. But this sums it up more eloquontley :) good show.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I am not arguing that "using" child porn is not a crime; it plainly is, in my country at least. I don't think it should be, though, as I have said. Its production should continue to be a very serious crime, for obvious reasons. For what it's worth, I see nothing immoral about drug production or use, and consider drug prohibition another pointless and destructive law.

As for your second point, yes, it might. Or it might not. Either way, speculation such as this does not belong in a legal setting. And if you take your thoughts to their logical generalised conclusion, watching anyone do anything bad at all makes you partially responsible. I don't agree with that, of course, and I doubt you do either.

Anyway, I've said all I'm going to say on this - I was just trying to make a point, I'll bow out before things turn any nastier.

I'm not talking about viewing illegal things as a crime, and I don't agree that my arguments logical conclusion is that watching anything wrong makes you responsible. I'm talking about production and use. Watching a video of taking drugs is not using drugs, it's therefore not a crime and won't encourage drug producers to produce more drugs. Watching a video of Child Porn is using the produce of an illegal activity, could very well encourage more production, and is therefore a crime.

ErrantX's job is to determine the intent of the viewer by seeing if they actively downloaded and used the produce of an illegal activity. If he does his job well, I see no problem with putting people in jail for this crime.

Dude, have you even had a cursory look at the research? I am betting you haven't. I am not basing my words on little data. There is ample evidence for my reply.

One study, from the first page of pubmed for CP: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307171?ordinalpos=15...

There are plenty more if you go looking. We know there is a link between viewing rates (obsession) and acting.

Dude, did you even look at that study you linked to? It is about adult pornography. If you seriously believe it, if you think that porn leads to rape, why aren't you arguing against banning all porn?

Look, I'm not an expert. I'm talking about this topic because I believe in certain general principles of freedom and legal process. I have no special interest in child porn beyond its prohibition's corrosive effects on what I consider to be important aspects of society. I haven't read any studies, nor plan to. I haven't read any studies about violent video games causing violence either, yet I reject any ban on them out of pure principle - same here.

Anyway, I think I'll bow out now before some misguided soul calls the cops on me, or worse. I was just trying to explain why I believe what I do, because you asked. Seems we have irreconcilable differences. C'est la vie.

Hmm. Perhaps I am tired! This is still evidence for the argument, and there is ample evidence to justify making it illegal in my opinion. E.g: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15974425?ordinalpos=1&...

I understand you are taking a philosophical stance on this. It's cool by me.

I disagree on your ban of violent video games though. Once we get the technology to design games with addictive, psychology-changing content, there is bound to be a game that actually causes real world violence.

When that day happens, I will support the ban, even if it's in a sub-section of the population.

FYI possesion of 10GB of actual execution porn would probably get you a significant jail sentence (I dont think it gets you on the sex offenders register though). Never come across a case though.

The end users though do contribute to creating the crime: they create a market and a community. For example an individual may have innappropriate thoughts related to abusing children and creating the imagery - by creating a community from which he/she can gain access to the material they could well be encouraged to put thoughts into action.

You cant pin any specific blame but removing them from society is always going to help :)

Plus of course you dont know what they may do in th future. Looking at images may develop into actual abuse. Leave that person free? Or put them in jail and attempt to rehabilitate? Not a choice IMO.

Whether the rehabilitiation process works is a seperate debate in my opinion (I would say it doesnt as it happens) but there isnt much I can do about that for now.

Execution porn? When did executions become porn? And if possession is illegal, better round up everyone at Youtube, because I know they've distributed videos of people getting killed.

Your argument that creating a community and market creates demand has some merit, but note that I specifically specified anonymous downloading with no ties to the "community" whatsoever. Would that render it OK, then? If not, why not? And why doesn't your argument apply to, say, news coverage of school shootings, which definitely creates a "market" for horrible crimes?

And your argument about individuals with "inappropriate thoughts" (how sad that we even have to type such a phrase) who "could well be encouraged to put thoughts into action" - perhaps, but our entire legal system is supposed to be based on things you have done, not things you may or may not do in the future.

You cant pin any specific blame but removing them from society is always going to help :)

Plus of course you dont know what they may do in th future. Looking at images may develop into actual abuse.

I cannot disagree strongly enough with the above. If you can't pin specific blame, what that means is that they haven't done anything. What they may do in the future is not something you can arrest them for today.

Using your logic, why don't we, say, go and arrest anyone who looks like they might be in a gang? Who knows what they might do in the future!

You disagree with that, right? So why does it suddenly become a valid argument with child porn? And "because I really, really hate them" is not a good enough reason.

It's a circular argument. We make having these files illegal, because they show someone might do something wrong. Oh wait, they have done something wrong, they have these illegal files! Do you see what's wrong with that?

Rehabilitation? For what? They haven't done anything! Look, if they rape a child, punish them! Throw the book at the bastards, lock them up for life! You have my complete support!

But locking people up for things they haven't done yet is wrong, wrong, wrong. That is not how our legal system works, no exceptions, not even if we really, really hate the accused. That's why, in case you didn't know, Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

You've taken off that blindfold, and in doing so, corrupted the system. That is what makes me angry enough to "come out in support of" something I personally find reprehensible. I don't love child porn, quite the opposite, but I do love the legal system, and this kind of thing is fucking it up.

Execution por: I mean snuff. I assumed that was what you referred to. I dont think images of simple executions would get you in trouble (tho 10G might).

> I specifically specified anonymous downloading with no ties to the "community"

Anon downloadings via P2P usually still seed the content for others. Via websites, well, it's hard to be anon and have access to the sites. You have to show a "face" on boards, IRC, usenet etc to be shown access.

And, anyway, you should take your own advice ;) and do the research. The majority of people do partake in the community.

Fair enough. Maybe I will do some reading. I've been thinking about collecting my thoughts into an essay anyway, might be able to express them better without enraging people.

Despite what it might sound like, I actually have no interest in child porn beyond its corrosive effects on society. I would mount a similarly impassioned defence of the legal rights of terrorism suspects or against drug prohibition. I do not particularly condone drug use or terrorism either. I just don't want populist fearmongering and government overreaction to tear even more of society's freedoms and legal foundations apart in pursuit of these phantoms.

I'll bow out now before I piss anyone off even more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com