Massive child porn site is hiding in plain sight

https://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/1782-massive-child-porn-site-is-hiding-in-plain-sight-and-the-owners-behind-it

by yread • 9 years ago

34 16 9 years ago

sijmen.ruwhof.net

QAPereo• 9 years ago

Hopefully the FBI already has their hooks in this, and uses it to work up the chain. Along with incredibly graphic violence, this has been the darkest part of the internet since day 1.

nkkollaw• 9 years ago

I don't see anything weird when I search for those keywords (from Poland, in English).

xiao-wei• 9 years ago

Same here (searching with /ncr): https://i.imgur.com/V0E3uGx.jpg

Maybe Google already deindexed the site? Or maybe OP's results are based on his search history?

mschuster915• 9 years ago

For me, with personalized account, and query "img src" against Google DE: top3 for the TLD after html.com and selfhtml, and top8 for a t.co link to the site which I did not dare click.

For what its worth, I have never tried to interact with CP in any way, or have heard of this site before today, so I'd assume Google has no reason to up-rank this site for me based on browser history.

svmaris• 9 years ago

Setting the image type to "photo" will bring up the images the article is talking about. So does searching for "imgsrc" (without spaces) and "img src" (with quotes), even without the type filter.

sillysaurus32• 9 years ago

So, in an effort to talk about controversial subjects in a substantive way, this seems like a pretty good litmus test to figure out whether I fit in here. I've been deciding whether to stay or leave. Here's a topic.

There are a few subreddits on /r/all which you can't help but notice are filled with partly, shall we say, not strictly legal porn. And I didn't go out of my way to find these. Reddit lobbed them at me because that's what /r/all does, and if I want to see /r/all (and not /r/popular, which filters out various subreddits that happen not to fit their "popularity" criteria) then that's what I get.

I really don't want to provide links for obvious reasons. I thought about it. But that seems stretching this. Suffice to say, there exists some integer N where N is less than 18, despite claims to the contrary.

What should be done, if anything? These are consensual pictures, posted by young adults who understand the implications of what they're doing. They do not need protection.

The other way to look at it is that they're kids who really don't know what they're getting themselves into.

I don't know how to feel. So, there you go.

mschuster915• 9 years ago

The other way to look at it is that they're kids who really don't know what they're getting themselves into.

Yep, most don't until some random schoolmate finds their boobs on r/all and spreads it over the whole school. Kids have committed suicide after such events.

The problem could easily be avoided by actually training young people to be IT literate. Every politician and their dog tries to put in "IT" classes which are either ultra-basic programming in Java (or ultra-simple "languages" such as Robot Karol) and try to sell it as "we train our kids for the digital society" (LOL WTF), how to use Word, Excel and Powerpoint (which actually has relevance in the future career of the kids, but locks them into the MS ecosystem!) or a combination of the two... and that's it. Lots of schools also don't have anything, due to a lack of funds for Internet, wifi/BYOD infrastructure, devices and teachers. Not to mention what to do with poor kids which have only a $50 worn-down third-hand smartphone.

Stuff like "how do I navigate the Internet without exposing me to risk" is something I have yet to see - and it's extremely hard to do, because of the constant evolution. For example, I am 26, work in marketing (as a dev/sysop though) and have no idea how Snapchat works and why the young kids like it so much. Many in my social circle don't, either. So, how should teachers be prepared to teach their students on Snapchat and the involved risks (e.g. that the pic of their wiener/boob they're about to send to their partner might be screenshotted!) when they don't know the service either - and it keeps on evolving and evolving?

Should we as a society rely on teachers having to learn new stuff in their free time, without compensation or proper training? And what do we do with home-schooled kids? They're the worst-off because there is no training for the parents required.

evincarofautumn• 9 years ago

It’s…a hard problem. I think it’s normal and natural for young people to explore their bodies & sexuality and share that experience with each other. It’s fraught on all sides with problems, though—when it gets shared with the world, either by choice or by betrayal; when the people involved are very young or even prepubescent; when adults use their power and maturity to exploit them; and so on.

I started having sex when I was 14, after waiting for a long time with the same partner, and I feel like I personally was mature enough to handle it responsibly. That doesn’t mean all 14-year-olds should be doing that. And the concept of consent here, doing normal activities like having sex and sharing images of yourself, is murky—I did things that were illegal, but (I feel) neither wrong nor harmful.

Maybe the law just needs to be more adaptable somehow. But I feel like there’s always going to be tension between expressing yourself and being protected from exploitation.

sillysaurus32• 9 years ago

Apparently in Germany the age of consent is 14, and if someone over 21 interacts with someone near 14, a hearing can be convened to determine whether this was justified.

I heard this secondhand on Reddit, so I have no idea whether it's true, effective, or what the implications would be. But it seemed like a sensible and tidy system, if one existed. (EDIT: indeed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germ...)

I was similarly active at around 14, and it didn't really affect me much. But on the other hand, that's only a few years after it's even possible, so it's hard to grok the gravity of it. Especially at that age.

You're right – it's simply hard to figure out how much protection, and where, should be applied.

mschuster915• 9 years ago

Maybe the law just needs to be more adaptable somehow.

It is, in theory, with judges. However mandatory minimum sentences or sex-offender entries have a massive negative effect here.

mschuster915• 9 years ago

Interesting how common the pattern of "reusing identities" pops up in investigations... this was the same stuff that e.g. broke the opsec of Silk Road.

Re-using email addresses for a domain with ... beyond questionable material and for e.g. a real-name Facebook account just stinks of incompetence.

jamestimmins• 9 years ago

Is it naive to be somewhat uncomfortable with the doxxing of the sites owners?

It certainly appears that they are aware of/complicit with what is going on, but there's also a possibility that some of those folks aren't actually involved, and that someone else attached their emails in an attempt to damage their reputation. That second option is admittedly unlikely, but law enforcement agencies have the resources and access to determine who really is involved and to what extent, and to prosecute accordingly. The court of public opinion is rarely this nuanced.

Otherwise this looks like solid research. I'm surprised that it didn't appear that the author had reached out to Google to have the site de-indexed.

gravypod• 9 years ago

Fantastic write up. If the author is here, how did you keep track of this sort of graph-based information while working on this? Did you just keep a notepad?

Despite this write up being extremely depressing I had a laugh at the following line from the article:

Interpol didn’t want to comment on the site and Europol says they don’t work with the Russians.

Aaah politics.

ogdoad• 9 years ago

That this thread was flagged demonstrates our knee-jerk bias on such subjects.

newscracker• 9 years ago

It's uncomfortable to see such posts, wonder if they belong here and should be discussed. My knee jerk reaction on seeing the headline was that this didn't belong here. After skimming the article and getting a sense of the significant effort put in by the author, I've changed my mind. The people who're already into such things most likely have the inclination, time and knowledge to get what they're looking for — with or without this article. Of course, there may be cases where such a post may kindle someone to get into such things, but the benefits of making this information available widely, IMO, far outweigh such risks.

I usually keep telling people not to share photos online, and especially not of their (or others') kids. Most people don't know or understand who can see what they're sharing and how things could possibly leak out. This investigative article is a tool for me to reinforce this message in my circles. For that, I thank the author.