Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Germany Searches Credit Cards For Child Porn Payments

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jan 09, 2007 02:45 PM
from the variable-pricing-coming-soon dept.
narramissic writes "According to an ITworld article, police in the German state of Sachsen-Anhalt have teamed with credit card companies to sift through the transactions of over 22 million customers looking for those who may have purchased child pornography online. To date they have identified 322 suspects." From the article: "German data privacy laws allow police to ask financial institutions to provide data about individuals but only if the investigators meet certain conditions, including a concrete suspicion of illegal behavior and narrowly defined search criteria, according to Johann Bizer, deputy director of the Independent Center for Privacy Protection... In the case under investigation, police were aware of a child pornography Web site outside of Germany that was attracting users inside the country. And they asked the credit-card companies to conduct a database search narrowed to three criteria: a specific amount of money, a specific time period and a specific receiver account."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @02:48PM (#17526866) Homepage
    Do they mean "grep"?
  • WHY?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Virak (897071) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @02:49PM (#17526902) Homepage
    Why the hell do people pay for *any* porn, and especially why would you pay for porn that's *already illegal*?!

    People make my head hurt.
    • I have paid for porn (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:11PM (#17527352)
      I cant comment on why people pay for child porn as that is not my cup of tea but as for paying for porn in general, I have done so.

      Why, well first is convenience. I am busy and would rather be able to go to one website, enter in my search (usually redhead, teen and anal) and get the movies they have right there without having to sift through the results to see what is good. I feel my time is worth more then the money it costs to pay for the porn.

      The second is guaranteed quality. I never wonder if I am getting garbage resolution, a misnamed video, or some other piece of crap. That is why I pay, the company takes care of all that.

      The final reason is guaranteed download speed. I want my porn fast, regardless of how many other people are willing to share it.

      Also it is not illegal, I am supporting the "artists" by paying for it, and lets face it, these people are getting fucked all the time (pun intended).

      So there you do, those are the reason I have paid for porn.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Y'know, there are already free (as in free beer) pr0n search engines [askjolene.com].
      • by NF6X (725054) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @04:52PM (#17529836) Homepage

        Why, well first is convenience. I am busy and would rather be able to go to one website, enter in my search (usually redhead, teen and anal) and get the movies they have right there without having to sift through the results to see what is good.

        I really wish there was a "-1 Too Informative" mod. :-)

      • As a fellow redhead/teen/anal enthusiast, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for subsidizing the redhead/teen/anal porn market with your hard-earned money, so cheap bastards like me can continue to choose our time over our money, and download it for free.
    • Why the hell do people pay for *any* porn, and especially why would you pay for porn that's *already illegal*?!

      The same reason people pay for anything: perceived value of having it. Free porn is getting tougher to find on the net. I have no idea how difficult it is to find kiddie porn, nor do I want to know, cause that's just nasty. But, if you're looking for it, you're probably willing to pay for it.

      And, I'm sure most of the places selling such things promise discrete billing, much like *any* adult the

      • You're assuming they're using their own credit cards... remember, we're talking about people who are already commiting a crime to begin with. How'd you like to have your credit card # harvested and then find out about it by having the Gestapo kick in your door? Yikes.

  • Darwin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NineNine (235196) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @02:51PM (#17526940) Homepage
    Well, I gotta say that somebody using a credit card to buy kiddie porn is a fine example of natural selection. Honestly, I had no idea that there were people that stupid out there. I mean really, if you're going to do something that is universally both illegal and reviled, why in the hell would you use a credit card?!?! Hell, I don't even use a credit card to buy incense at my local head shop!
    • Re:Darwin (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Hrodvitnir (101283) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:11PM (#17527336)
      Who says they use their own credit card?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Child porn sites are typically hidden from the general public, so you need to be a little more experienced with the net to find them. So the people who do find them are smart enough to use stolen ccs to pay for it, I'd bet 90% of the time.
    • I mean really, if you're going to do something that is universally both illegal and reviled, why in the hell would you use a credit card?!?!

      An even better question is why if you were someone offerring something illegal and reviled would you accept payment from something as traceable as a credit card transaction?

      The conspiracy theorist in me suspects all may not be as it seems here, but the realist in me understands that both buyers and sellers are mercifully stupid.

        • It will only prove that they paid this company something.

          No, it proves that someone paid this company something using a credit card with the suspect's name on it. Could be a stolen credit card, or possibly just a stolen number. Could even be a stolen identity used to obtain a credit card.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            No, it proves that someone paid this company something using a credit card with the suspect's name on it. Could be a stolen credit card, or possibly just a stolen number. Could even be a stolen identity used to obtain a credit card.

            Indeed. About two years ago, I had two transactions on my credit card which I could not identify, and called VISA to find out what they were about. They told me that one was to a company somewhere in Europe named littlegirls.com or something similar, and the other for the regis

      • Re:Darwin (Score:5, Informative)

        by arevos (659374) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:20PM (#17527578) Homepage

        You clearly have no idea what "natural selection" means.

        No, I think the OP is broadly correct in his use of the term. Being jailed and presumably being put on some German equivalent of the sex offenders list does not improve one's reproductive chances.

  • Done correctly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:02PM (#17527168) Homepage
    I bet this is big news to Americans: a government that can responsibly deter crime without infringing on the rights of the citizens. How did those darn Germans do it? Some sort of miraculous new technology? Maybe they've invented a porno-detector? Let's take a look!

    only if the investigators meet certain conditions, including a concrete suspicion of illegal behavior and narrowly defined search criteria
    Sounds like a warrant.

    The database search was conducted by the credit-card companies, not the German police, which have no direct access to the financial records of people registered in Germany...They must have a concrete suspicion and provide very exact and limited search criteria.
    Sounds like responsible conduct.

    Bizer warned that credit-card data monitoring could lead to mistrust, especially if customers aren't properly informed.
    Sounds like an understanding of government, law, and proper oversight.

    Amazing!

    • Re:Done correctly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:26PM (#17527698) Journal
      How did those darn Germans do it?

      Hmm... The population of Germany is roughly 82 million, and they are going to "sift through the transactions of over 22 million customers". It seems to me that those darn Germans are going to do it by considering half the adult population as suspects.
      • Re:Done correctly (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @05:28PM (#17530608) Homepage
        Oh, for the love of...., would you get off it. They're searching for a specific amount, to a specific account in a specific time.

        SELECT * FROM transactions WHERE account_to = '4234534543254' AND amount = '19.95$' AND transaction_date BETWEEN '2005-12-31' AND '2006-06-31'

        It's not slam-dunk evidence, because they might have operated legal sites which also got paid to the same account, cards get stolen and so on. But if your card has been paying the same fee to the same account as a kiddie porn site during the same time, that's plenty grounds for reasonable suspicion. This isn't a fishing expedition any more than if they asked the DMV who owns a blue Audi A4 1995-model, and they ran the query against the whole DB. If they don't hit, they get squat. Sometimes the anti-law enforcement brigade on slashdot really get their panties in a bunch over nothing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Given the behavoir and expansion of the government since FDR's "New Deal" (some would say the civil war) and the War on Drugs, this is hardly an attitude uique to the current Administration.

        Our elected officials in all three of the branches of the government have been disregarding the original intent and meaning of the constitution for decades.

        Congress abuses the "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" parts of the constitution such that nothing is outside their power.

        The executive does whatever the hel
  • Scheisse! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:04PM (#17527214)
    POLIZE) Sir, ve haff found zis gepayment vot is obviously for die kidipornen. Ve vill haff to ask you to commen mit us to die polizestation.

    MANN) Nein, nein, das ist nicht ein kidipornen! Dis ist die regular wholesome scheisse videos mit conzenting aldulten gefichen mit die turdenpoopen.

    POLIZE) Ach! Ve are mischtaken. Zo zorry for gewasten du timen, proud zitizen. Gutenhaben, unt enjoy die turdenpoopen!
  • Fine by me. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NNKK (218503) <nknight@runawaynet.com> on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:05PM (#17527248) Homepage
    If the site were in-country with in-country bank accounts, the authorities would just search those records directly. This gets them the exact same information. No more, no less. The parameters are narrowly-defined, reasonable, and the activity in question clearly illegal. The risk to innocents is at least as low as going at it from the other direction (looking at the records on the receiving end).
  • by flaming error (1041742) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:12PM (#17527360) Journal
    Let's do it again. Now please grep for donations to the ACLU...
  • My card was stolen (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder how many cards will now be reported stolen
  • Define "Broad" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 15Bit (940730) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:12PM (#17527384)
    The article clearly states that "The police are not allowed to ask credit-card companies or banks to run a very broad database search". However, the search criteria "a specific amount of money, a specific time period and a specific receiver account" reads to me as "we know the subscription fee, bank account number and the date the website went up. Could you tell us about all the germans who paid that subscription amount to that bank account please". That sounds like a pretty broad search criteria to me.

    A specific search would be "We have sound suspicions that a bloke called Wolfgang has been accessing this list of kiddie porn websites. Could you provide us with a list of transactions Wolfgang has made to them please."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      A specific search would be "We have sound suspicions that a bloke called Wolfgang has been accessing this list of kiddie porn websites. Could you provide us with a list of transactions Wolfgang has made to them please."

      That's not a search at all though. That is just asking for Wolfgang's credit card statement, which could presumably just be done with a regular warrant given the sound suspicions. I don't understand how searching for records of people paying the subscription amount to a known kiddie porn purveyor during the time he was known to be in business could be construed as overly broad.

  • So, to date, they have 322 suspects out of 22 million scans...that's a hit rate of .00146 percent. That's a lot of people who had their personal data plowed through for a nearly zero yield.
    • by geoffspear (692508) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:27PM (#17527704) Homepage
      Right, those non-suspects records were "ploughed through" in the same sense that if the police requested one record with a specific transaction ID from the creit card company's database, all of the records were "ploughed through" when the query to retrieve that record was run. You're either a troll, have no idea how a database works, or don't know how to read.
      • by jizziknight (976750) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:40PM (#17528036)
        Agreed. Now, If they were manually sorting through the records rather than running a db query, that'd be a different story. The fact of the matter is they're getting only what they searched for and nothing else. The only people having their records "ploughed through" are those who are suspects. So assuming no false positives (which shouldn't happen with a well written query), and no records are missed (which also shouldn't happen with a well written query), they're getting a 100% success rate. The hit rate of .00146% as put forth by the GP would only be correct assuming all 22 million of those people were guilty and they were only finding .00146%. Or at least that's the way I see it.
  • by Kaz Kylheku (1484) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:18PM (#17527518)
    One reason might be that it's stolen?

    Someone steals your number, buys kiddie porn, and now you're the suspect.
    • by Incadenza (560402) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:54PM (#17528442)
      Someone steals your number, buys kiddie porn, and now you're the suspect.
      A friend of mine had his computer confiscated for three months because somebody tried to sign up to a Yahoo! mailing list (where kiddie porn had been discussed) using his stolen or guessed or just randomly typed e-mail address. They are not the brightest of the block, these German cybercrimefighters.
  • the ones with any sense will be using stolen identities... so how would you explain things if your credit card number comes up in this search then???
  • To the contrary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) * on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:55PM (#17528474)
    I have problems with this. I'll give the German police some slack and assume they are reasonable enough to only look for people who purchased materials that any reasonable person would look at and say "That's obviously vile child abuse." We cannot, however, trust the police everywhere to be as reasonable.

    In the U.S., people are being prosecuted right now for making and selling child porn even though the prosecution agrees that no nudity or sexual activity is depicted. In the U.S., at least one 16 year old girl has been charged with child abuse and child porn production for taking a cell phone picture of herself nude and sending it to a boyfriend. (Yes, the child she was charged with abusing was herself. Think on that a while, but don't blame me if your head explodes.) In the U.S., we have people sitting in jail convicted of possessing child porn for, among other things, having cartoons of young-looking characters having sex. (I'm at work, so filtering prevents me from searching for links; you can google them as easily as I can, though. For the first case, look for "Pierson" who's being prosecuted in Alabama.)

    Yes, everyone is probably right that in the instant case this is a reasonable way to proceed. But I'm still not comfortable with it. I don't trust LEOs to not be idiots, to not be grinding political axes. Dangerous stuff, this. If it's backed up with searches that find people in possession, great. But be warned - due to identity theft or whatever reason, there will be some false positives. The people who are the victims of those false positives are just a short distance away from having their lives utterly ruined without adequate justification.

    There must be better ways of investigating this sort of thing.

  • by B5_geek (638928) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @06:00PM (#17531156)
    So that would mean that the investigation has a success rate of 0.001463636%

    Disclaimer: IMO anybody who hurts a child should be exterminated.

    What % of children die from disease or other 'preventable' causes in Germany?
    Would efforts be better spent helping them?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I have to agree with your sentiment... to a point. The government IMO has no business telling anyone what to think or fantasize about. On the other hand, it is likely that children are being exploited in one way or another. The existence of the childporn website, and the fact that German citizens are paying for this only helps promote its existence.

      I also feel that spending the money working with the appropriate foreign government to arrest the purveyors of the child porn for sale is the better course of ac
      • by flaming error (1041742) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @03:27PM (#17527730) Journal
        > it is likely that children are being exploited in one way or another
        Really? You mean kids don't like being kidnapped, enslaved, and raped?

        Get a clue, dude. Child Pornography is the most vile and evil industry hell has concocted. Maybe there's a cure for pedophiles; if so, please cure them. But until then, the children's needs trump the pedophiles', and most certainly trump their exploiters. Those who'd rape a child for profit deserve the most severe justice.

        Every civil society feels this very strongly, and rightly so. Unfortunately, that's why societies tolerate their government eroding civil rights - in the name of fighting child porn.
        • But you're just guessing as to what the contents of the site(s) in question were - all you know is that some LEA said it was illegal. The actual content may have been much tamer than you're thinking (or even completely fictional) - we'll never know. And (regardless of the country in which you live, apparently) it's against the law for you or I even to look and find out if we agree that it is illegal (or should be). I beleive I read somewhere that Canada even made it against the law to find out how to fin

      • I exploit my knowledge and skill every day. If you have anything, so do you. People exploit the natural resources around them - cut trees for firewood, fish in their ponds, etc. It seems you've been confused by the mass delusion spread by the politically correct.

        We live in a world now where parents have scant real freedom to raise their kids as they deem fit. How I raise my kids - how I let them dress, what beliefs I teach them, how they are educated - is not your business, not george bush's business, and n
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        S&W already invented a cure for p[a]edophilia
    • by Josef Meixner (1020161) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @04:15PM (#17528928) Homepage
      The children are likely not German, so they're not protecting the german children. The servers are not in Germany, so they are not policing they're own internet. They are telling people what they cannot do.

      German law on child pornography is universial, as long as a German is involved, it is the business of the attorney. So a German tourist fucking a little girl somewhere on holiday can be prosecuted in Germany. The law was changed like this after it showed that especially Thailand would not do anything to protect its own children. So the law was changed to be able to do something about it here (yes, I am German).

      Therefore it is completely irrelevant, if the child was German or if the server was located in Germany. All what is relevant was that Germans were buying child porn, something which is very clearly forbidden here. Also what the headline doesn't tell, there are 20 teachers under the suspects and quite a lot of repeat offenders.

      I am not happy about this either, as my credit cards were probably among those that were checked. But it really seems as if everything was done to the letter of the law. The law enforcment officers never saw the CC records, the CC companies were doing the searches for an exact sum, to a fishy Phillipene billing company in a two month time frame. Sadly the trail stopps at the billing company for now, because much better than going after the buyers would have been to get the sellers.

      But to repeat, according to German law it is completely irrelevant where the child was, where the pictures were made and where the servers are located. And I think it was a good idea to change the law like this, because honestly I don't see why child porn from a German child should be prosecuted differently.

    • Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ozan (176854) on Tuesday January 09 2007, @05:38PM (#17530768) Homepage
      We're in a sad state of affairs. Germany here is no longer protecting its own citizens, it's preventing it's citizens from viewing things online elsewhere. Who are they protecting?

      They are protecting the basic principle of Article 1 of the German constitution AKA Basic Law AKA Grundgesetz.

      The children are likely not German, so they're not protecting the german children.

      What is your point? That foreign children are less to be protected from abuse? The first sentence of Article 1 of the Grundgesetz reads "Human dignity shall be inviolable.", not "German dignity shall be inviolable."

      The servers are not in Germany, so they are not policing they're own internet.

      Again, what is your point? That Germans shall be able to behave in illegal activities as long as these are taking place on foreign servers?

      They are telling people what they cannot do.

      Which is basicly encouraging child abuse by exerting demand for child pornography.

      What is the reason for banning viewing these things? The usual reason is protecting children from being exploited, but one, these are not German children, and two, there is no proof they were even exploited.

      Regarding the children not being German read what I wrote above. Regarding point two: It is common sense that children can not give informed consent to pornography, so child pornography is in its nature exploiting children, wether they are being forced or by other pressure.

      They are literally telling people what they cannot do in their own homes even when it doesn't hurt anyone.

      If you think that children are not hurt by degrading appearances of themselves in pictures or films, or even worse, by being photographed or filmed while being subjected to degrading or painful or injuring acts by others you seriously need to take a reality check.

      I know, i know, thinkofthechildren.

      Yeah, little people with extra need of protection. Think about it.

      It's only a matter of time before children are carted away and a young age to be protected from the evils of the world.

      There is no need to that. Instead, there are laws and law enforcement doing that job.

      And crap like this is getting modded "interesting", now even the mods are trolling.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's not about the rights of the pedophiles, it's about the rights of normal people to not have the police scrutinize their personal financial records simply because some pedophile uses the same credit card company. The police knew that a few people had used credit cards to buy the porn, so they examined the records of all 22 million people.