My Life in Child Porn

http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/My_life_in_child_porn

by marvin • 17 years ago

76 120 17 years ago

vaksel• 17 years ago

the technology part is pretty interesting, the business model too.

Which brings me to a question...if you are that tech savvy to do all the stuff they talk about under technology...why risk all that for the peanuts they talk about in the business model?

ErrantX19• 17 years ago

As the writer of the letter states the majority of this is conducted by the russion organised gangs. Usually as one part of their larger cyber-crime operations.

That entire "industry" is a multi-million dollar one.

chris117• 17 years ago

I'm assuming that the parts can be used for many different things.

The botnet can be rented out. And it can be used used to distribute ads. There was recently an article on HN about a guy who got arrested for putting spam on a botnet.

And I'm sure having access to private servers can be monetized in other areas too. At the very least you could use it to sell pirated material.

And of course the money laundering method they're using can probably be used in other areas too.

ErrantX19• 17 years ago

As someone who works weekly on such cases I would like to point out that the technical content of this article is largely correct, however the sections about the origins of the abuse and the accused is incorrect.

marvin• 17 years ago

Could you elaborate? I found those sections to be the most interesting.

ErrantX19• 17 years ago

// Disclaimer: I work in investigating these crimes \\

His assertsion about the number of wrongly convicted people are very wrong.I would say that around 80% are "users" whereas the rest have usually stumbled across it (this is very obviosu btw: there is not often a fine line). A lot of the defence is "it was a virus" so it is one of the first checks and has been the case in only one example as I recall.

We deal with all sorts of computers weekly & I have never identified CP on any of the machines that cross my desk (bar the odd image or 2 come across whilst browsing legitimate pron sites)

In terms of the origins: a lot of the mild abuse is "homebrew" with a small proportion of the worst images being homemade. The majority of extreme images are, from their context, commercially produced.

I cant say much about the children being forced or not (or comment on the argument of whether they are innocent or not) because I am biased due to my job and because it is wholly subjective (actually I deliberately emotionally detach from such thoughts to allow me to do my job fairly). And finally because I am involved purely in the technical side and have not met any abused persons :)

I am a bit worried to say any more: it really is grazing close to a line here (silly laws ;)). Im well on the right side of said line (i'll add) but....

EDIT: edited slightly after chatting to a colleague :)

chris117• 17 years ago

So it's accurate to say the distributors are almost impossible to find?

What do you spend more resources on? Going after customers, distributors, or creators?

ErrantX19• 17 years ago

Customer: but only because they are the easiest to track (and we get most of the cases from a 3rd party).

Distributors fall into "community" who download and share as much as they can for free and commercial. The former are often caught, the latter next to none are tracked - most are in Russia. Thel atter are usually also creators - the commeercial creators are cuaght once in a blue moon.

I do do private work (for ourselves) to track these networks but it is incredibly difficult.

herewego• 17 years ago

This is seriously creepy.

cpr• 17 years ago

Ugh, if you ever wanted proof that Evil lurks in the heart of man...

unalone9• 17 years ago

I'm not comfortable using the word Evil big-E. This is human existence, good and bad. This guy obviously thinks there's a reason behind child porn. He made one or two points that sounded like they'd be worthy of debate at the very least, rather than instant dismissal. And the people participating did so for reasons. It isn't all abuse, from what he's saying here.

Calling things Evil is a convenient way of dismissing them. It means you can put it aside and roundly condemn it and feel better for having done so. The truth is more complicated: nothing is roundly good or roundly evil, which is exactly why it's so difficult at times.

chris117• 17 years ago

While I agree that child abuse laws could use some change, mainly with how it deals with sex between people where the age difference is very small. For example, I'm not comfortable with an 18 year-old being viewed as a predator for having consensual sex with a 17 year-old.

But other than the fringe cases, I really don't see how it ever can be healthy for a child to be involved with an adult, or even be in a situation where they can give consent.

There is too great a power difference. Somebody mentioned earlier that some parents were basically forced to get their kids involved with porn so they could eat. What is the child going to do in that situation, say no? Basically, in that situation, if the child has a choice it's between eating and doing porn.

Also, minors today are taught that it is the acceptable thing to defer to adults. So children already have a lot of pressure to defer to adults instead of enforcing their personal boundaries.

And I can't imagine a child being seriously attracted to an adult. They are both in different stages in life. After I started college, I really viewed high school students differently. They are just in a different place in life. I have different goals, responsibilities, and plans then I did in high school. I really doubt I would have enough in common to be attracted to a high school student, let alone be able to make a healthy relationship work.

noonespecial• 17 years ago

I also find that if you use your big E for something merely repulsive and ugly, what do you use when you get to Darfur?

viggity• 17 years ago

Oh No! God forbid we call something for what it is.

"Evil (n) - that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune"

It isn't all abuse? Oh, well, fine, I'm so glad that is cleared up because some sick fuck says that "its not all abuse". I can't wait for my kids to hear "Not all methamphetamine will cause you harm" from a speed freak. That logic makes infinite sense.

Whether you like it or not, Evil most certainly exists in this world, regardless of whether or not there is a reason that it came in to existence.

So, there you go, even though you don't feel comfortable labeling something for what it clearly is, feel free to label this post with a down vote.

chris117• 17 years ago

I found it seriously disturbing that there were some parents who actually thought it was ok to involve their kids in child porn.

myth_drannon• 17 years ago

I think the question that these parents asked themselves was do we let our (other) kids starve to death, let them live on the street and sniff glue , or etc... or get money from something that is "controlled" by them. With the collapse of Eastern bloc it was dark times for many..... and certain forces used the situation for personal gain. And it is not different from parents in Arab country or India selling their 9 years old daughter for arranged marriage.

jonas_b• 17 years ago

I'm afraid that you're correct, but I think there is also a "darker" side to it. As the OP mentions, parents involving their kids in CP crosses class barriers and happens in both poor and rich families.

A few weeks ago, I took a primal therapy course, aimed at improving participants self-awareness and quality of life by letting them express pain experienced during childhood trauma. Anyway, the reason I am bringing this up is that some people in this course had childhood stories of abuse that would make anyone puke. And these were all high-income people with good jobs.

I believe all parents try their best, nobody wants to be a bad person. But if your perception of good parenting includes fucking your kids, that can make you do horrible things.

dawson2• 17 years ago

I hope I'm not the only person who after reading this immediately deleted their browsing history; the thought of the title of this article appearing in my browser/address bar history in front of certain/most people, is cringe worthy.

EDIT: To the people down voting me, all I meant was I'm often showing stuff on my laptop to different people and I would be afraid of their assumption if I typed the letter "m" into my address bar and "My Life in Child Porn" popped-up because they might come to the wrong conclusions that's all. Whether their assumption is right or wrong, is irrelevant, I was just saying; it's something I'm aware of and wouldn't want to happen!

unalone9• 17 years ago

So you read somebody's writings about child porn. Does that make you a bad person? Is mentioning the phrase child porn a crime? Is reading the words of a child pornographer wrong?

There's nothing wrong in reading an article. Anybody that thinks so is either deluding himself or is twisted in a really awful way.

EDIT: Okay, that makes sense. Sorry if it sounds like I was being scoldy.

jrockway2• 17 years ago

Is mentioning the phrase child porn a crime?

Well, yeah. Porn is bad, and kids need protecting. Put porn and kids in the same sentence and you have 100% concentrated evil. It is like a mini-9/11, every time you say the words. Do you hate America? I think you should be executed just for thinking about thinking about children.

Oh sorry, I was just pretending to be an elected official.

dawson2• 17 years ago

No it doesn't make you a bad person, no mentioning the phrase isn't a crime and no reading the words of a child pornographer isn't wrong--in my opinion. However, not everyone shares my opinion and I can't take the attitude that my boss, client or whoever sees it pop-up in my address bar history is deluded or twisted, just because they don't share the same opinion as me.

jrockway2• 17 years ago

I would be afraid of their assumption if I typed the letter "m" into my address bar and "My Life in Child Porn" popped-up

Why do you value the thoughts of people like this? Someone that is going to dislike you for something in your browser history doesn't sound very thoughtful.

unalone9• 17 years ago

A lot of people care more about what people think about them than about what they actually are.

(Not saying this about Dawson, but about the sorts of bosses and clients who would be offended by an accidental happening like that.)

chris117• 17 years ago

No matter what your opinion on porn is, it's obvious that it is viewed as a moral controversy. If it's child porn, it's virtually guaranteed to be viewed as immoral.

And people treat others differently if they are viewed as immoral. I know I'd treat someone differently if I thought they were involved with child porn.

kaens• 17 years ago

He doesn't need to value their thoughts, he just needs to be potentially affected (financially or otherwise) by their perception of him, which could be heavily influenced by seeing the title My Life in Child Porn

omouse• 17 years ago

Use Tor to anonymize, and if you're really worried, download Freenet and get someone to post a mirror of the article and read it there.

alecco2• 17 years ago

Oh, no. Many of us read Navokov's Lolita! (or watched the movie.) We should go to jail.

Don't fall into hysteria. And try to avoid stupid people who are well into it. Same with terror and drugs. Meanwhile bankers walk away with gigantic bonuses, right below your noses.

Also there are tough economic blocks to Cuba and Iran while the US-friendly governments of places like Thailand don't get any trouble at all. I haven't been there but the tales of relatives and what I read are revolting. That's not taking some pictures, that's wholesale slavery, rape, prostitution, and even murder. Why doesn't US media make a reality show on busting US-ians going there for sex vacations?

[Disclaimer: I actually got bored with the pseudo-romance drama of Lolita and dropped it after not that many pages. Overrated as hell. But now I know that.]

fake13• 17 years ago

Sigh: "seriously creepy", "Evil lurks in the heart of man", "deleting browser history".

These are typical responses, which lack any perspective on life and culture. At face value, child pornography is not necessarily bad, child pornography is not necessarily damaging and child sex does not need to be a bad thing.

Damage comes from rape, violence and emotional abuse (which is the worst because it lasts).

But these things are not inherent to child pornography and very common outside child pornography. The argument is child pornography leads to damaging events. But it certainly isn't the source. People who do such things are usually emotionally disturbed themselves. And making child porn illegal is not going to change that (almost hard to believe it wasn't illegal not so long ago).

You might even have the same "make it illegal, it will become worse" effect as there is with drugs.

So, I guess there is no point to this post, but I do think it's wise to keep perspective on subjects. Even though everyone is inclined to err on the safe side, continuously making the safe side more extreme.

Darc• 17 years ago

As usual, there is a continuum there. While some young teenage girls (and all boys ;) might be interested in sex, at how young do we put the limit? 13, like in Spain? 12? 11? When does it becomes really uncomfortable to talk about their "sexual drives"?

When it comes to teenage sex becoming criminalized, though, the author is right on the money: this is just crazy. When I was a teenager I knew some girls my age who were having sex with young men in their 20s. None of us thought this was creepy. They were boyfriend/girlfriend, and that was it. But it was in France in the 80s, and I'm not sure people would be so understanding today.

Ultimately, this should be a case of "has there been violence or coercion?", and "how did the minor perceive the experience?". Anti-rape laws should suffice for this, with the youth of the victim as an aggravating factor. As to when to decide that the child was unable to give consent, that, ultimately, should be in the hands of the judge, as advised by a psychologist. Not a perfect system, but far more humane than automatically putting a 18-years old behind bars for boinking his 17-years old girlfriend.

cousin_it• 17 years ago

Agree with last paragraph. I had my first sex at 17 with a 15 yo girl who then became my girlfriend for seven years. Guess America would gladly brand me a pedophile.

I'm not sure people would be so understanding today

The focused brainwashing by the media that led to this recent change in people's opinions should really be the focus of discussion here.

radu_floricica2• 17 years ago

It's useful because we have a common-sense post to upvote. Common sense is much underrated.

garply• 17 years ago

I found the bit about the US prison population growth rate interesting. The author points to a Reuters article that pegs prison population growth rate at about 4% (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN07275062200710...), and, according to Google, the US population growth rate is 0.883%. I wonder why the former is so much higher than the latter, and how those numbers compare to historical trends.

arockwell• 17 years ago

Most of the growth is thanks to our drug policy.

briansmith• 17 years ago

Let me try to keep this "Hacker News":

It seems that the only way to even put a dent into child pornography is to basically outlaw any kind of network privacy hardware and software. As long as you have privacy you will have this kind of thing. If somebody starts a popular service with (close to) 100% anonymity and 100% data privacy (e.g. server provider doesn't hold encryption keys), they are virtually guaranteed that it will be used for this kind of content. In other words, any truly private service is almost certainly an unwilling accessory to this kind of abuse. Further, users of such services are going to be stigmatized for sharing a service with kiddie porn consumers/producers. That is very unfortunate.

Also, since apparently this kind of content is easily available, we are all one click away from becoming criminals. Imagine somebody posted a link to some kiddie porn on news.yc with a title like "Apple Announces iPhone 4G" on some non-alarming domain. Anybody that clicks the link to get their daily Apple rumor will instantly become a criminal.

Eventually, nearly all of us will probably have some kind of incident like this. And, as companies and governments start recording and analyzing everything we do online, this means that we will all eventually get caught. At any time, any of us could be instantly arrested and (nearly) instantly convicted. This is just like how cops claim that if they follow somebody long enough, eventually they will break a traffic law because it is nearly impossible to follow the laws.

Somebody that can solve these problems would be doing society a lot of good. I wonder if they could make any money in the process.

mixmax2• 17 years ago

I think the law states that you have to have stuff downloaded to your own computer for it to be incriminating evidence. So if you happen across some child pornography site and click away without downloading anything you haven't committed a crime.

Not sure, I just seem to remember reading it somewhere.

lethain• 17 years ago

Although that sounds correct, I suspect it's difficult to argue the distinction between an image download and an image cached by the browser to people who are extremely untechnical.

gnaritas2• 17 years ago

Makes no sense, you download every web page and every resource it links to (images, css, javascript) every single time you clink any link. All those files are saved on your hard drive, it's been downloaded automatically for you. If you don't download it, the browser can't display it.

cdr7• 17 years ago

I recall a story about a case where a US government agency put a video file up on a server, linked to it in CP forum(s), and then traced the IPs of and got warrants for whomever downloaded the file.

The catch? The file was nothing but static. Their argument was anyone downloading the file was obviously thinking they were downloading CP, so the actual content of the file was irrelevant.

Can you imagine getting linked to that file, without context/with false context?

3pt14159• 17 years ago

To start: This whole topic really irks me.

To your comment: Wouldn't entrapment laws cover this?

I would have no problem with a site (run by the police) offers recycled CP/allows others to upload (ala youtube) then tracks really active users (say, 10+ hard core downloads or 1 verifiable homemade upload) for a long time while rounding up the ones that are abusing their own children.

In court the police would have to prove motive, etc.. But a good event log table should do the trick.

If I happen to get emailed CP spam, that is one thing, but when you can prove that a person clicked on button A then button B then button C and searched for "...", that is pretty good evidence in my eyes.

Egh. I really wish there was an easy way to shut this shit down without massive internet privacy invasion.

calambrac2• 17 years ago

I think this is the perfect example of a comment that needs a citation to be taken at all seriously. I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying it's a pretty sensational and inflaming anecdote, and it would be nice if you could offer some proof.

ErrantX19• 17 years ago

> Anybody that clicks the link to get their daily Apple rumor will instantly become a criminal.

No this is not the case at all. It is my job to seperate out things like that - and show use. So a few images in your browser cache would be flagged as a negative. Or perhaps a (non apparent) zip file that was dl'd then deleted a few minutes later (with the images). Traces are left of the PC but you wqouldnt get in any trouble for isolated incidents like that.

On the other hand if the zip got downloaded and unzipped to "mucky pics/blah blah" and then there was evidence of it being viewed.. well....

Intent is the important thing

ajb• 17 years ago

Two things worry me about the whole 'data as evidence' thing. The first is, the easiest way for a criminal to distance themself it must surely be to snoop some collegues password and log in on their computer after hours.

Secondly, in the old days, the KGB was the master of the 'honey trap': get some clerical worker in a compromising position and then blackmail them into spying. Given that there are many more ordinary people than pedophiles, I would have thought that installing illegal data by virus and then blackmailing would be a lucrative sideline for these Russian 'businessmen' who originate it. I'm a little surprised that you don't get many such viruses. The question is, have they not thought of it yet, does it not work for some reason, or are the viruses too clever at concealing themselves?

DanielBMarkham• 17 years ago

I couldn't finish this article. Not because it was written by a sick person -- it was -- but because it didn't seem to have a lot of interesting things to say.

As a libertarian I'm all for wide-ranging freedoms, but I'm also a parent and not a complete moron. I retain the right to have moral opinions even if I think it is wrong to impose them on others. As a parent, I can see that kids don't have the cognitive abilities to make decisions until later in life. I don't want my 9-year-old joining the army. I also don't want my nephew with Down's Syndrome to be sold life insurance, or my senile grandmother in a nursing home to open a credit card account. We limit freedoms based on cognitive ability -- that's just common sense. We should not provide the tools for kids to do things they will regret the rest of their life. CP, from our experience in many past cases, is something that leaves lasting scars.

I was especially amused at his fierce stance against fundamentalist Christians, those bastards. Seems like he is convinced they are the only ones keeping law-abiding perverts from their child porn.

If that's the case, you can count me in as a fundamentalist Christian.

With the technical angle, I'm sure its HN, but I'll let somebody else dig out the good pieces. I feel like I have to go wash after reading the small part that I did.

cdr7• 17 years ago

Your being a parent gives you no special insights. It gives you anecdotes, nothing more.

randallsquared3• 17 years ago

I don't know about DanielBMarkham in particular, but usually, being a parent (especially a mother, but fathers, too, to a lesser extent) does change how you think about things, purely from a hormonal, biological standpoint. In many cases, it can change your whole value system. Whether you view this as insight or the loss of insight is another matter, of course.

aswanson4• 17 years ago

Everything you experience in life is an anecdote. What does give you special insight? Something you have not experienced, but read about?

Andys• 17 years ago

The most useful thing I got from the article was that the web is not really used much for commercial trade of child porn. The traders have gone on to much more sophisticated methods such as renting out encrypted remote access to virtual machines full of material.

This is important to remember next time a politician tries to tell you why there should be a secret list of banned websites, something we're grappling with in Australia at the moment.

thwarted• 17 years ago

We limit freedoms based on cognitive ability -- that's just common sense.

This sounds like a slippery slope. I'm all for helping to protect innocent people who are incapable of defending or protecting themselves, but there's a reason why, in the US, you're considered an "adult" at certain ages, rather than based on the results of some test that determines your cognitive abilities.

radu_floricica2• 17 years ago

So basically you say that you didn't read the article, don't have any privileged information, but because of your beliefs you strongly disagree with it? And of course, you're not biased because you're a libertarian.

As far as little arguments you provided, the article's author would probably agree with you. Nine is too young an age to make career or sexual decision (he mentioned post-puberty at least 3 or 4 times), as for people with Down Syndrome or senility...

The thing we really should have an open debate about (not on HN, though) is how much of a scar CP leaves on the children. There is a lot of "common knowledge" floating around and way to little fact.

Also, some of the technical part was really cool. At one point he mentioned how zombie computers can be turned into something like Freenet, offering distributed storage and hosting. I always thought this could be one possible future for the Internet (a real "cloud"). It's somewhat a shame the first people doing it are outside the law. (Not that i dispute that they should be - most of them do stuff much more obviously harmful then porn).