Porn Site Gave Federal Agents Free Rein

Frosty Piss writes "The operators of a notorious porn site Free6.com granted federal agents administrative access to the site, giving investigators the ability to monitor traffic and public and private chats in an effort to identify users trading 'a significant amount of child pornography.' Though some bloggers have speculated about whether law enforcement officials have secretly been given administrative access to sites where users have been known to post child pornography (like 4chan), the Free6.com arrangement is apparently the first such compact to be disclosed by investigators."

Good excuse

[mangu]

giving investigators the ability to monitor traffic and public and private chats in an effort to identify users trading 'a significant amount of child pornography.'

-"I swear, chief, it's all part of an effort to catch a gang of child pornographers, that's why I've been browsing that site so much"

Re:Good excuse

[tacarat]

Oh good. I was worried those SEC guys lost their jobs. They just transferred.

I guess they wanted free porn.

[EvilBudMan]

It would be my guess that the men in blue like porn and want it for free.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[melikamp]

I think it's ridiculous that just possessing an image is illegal. Not only this law utterly fails to curb child abuse and child porn (sans fictional drawings!) production, but it also has the hilarious side effect of my tax money going to pay some dude for perusing 4chan. If you tell me you wouldn't want his job, you must be a girl or something.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[jgagnon]

The vast majority of crap on 4Chan is not worth looking at... whether you're a girl, a boy, or something else entirely.

Re:

[spun]

Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?

The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography. I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same. Hopefully we can agree that abusing children and forcing six year olds into sexual situations is bad, and reducing the occurrence of said abuse is good.

Also, I don't want to be paid to peruse 4chan.

Re:

[Crayon Kid]

I'd rather have pedophiles get their fix by watching child porn movies than by actually going out and doing something to a real child.

I think Japan has the right idea on this, with their simulated porn is ok [wikipedia.org] approach.

Re:

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I'd rather have pedophiles get their fix by watching child porn movies than by actually going out and doing something to a real child.

I'm sure the kids in the video might not give the slightest fuck what you think.

Re:

[StikyPad]

Meh.. would you turn down sex because you could go watch some porn? Or would you go out and rape someone if you couldn't look at porn? These are the connections you seem to be implying.

Firstly, porn doesn't assuage the desire for the real thing except in the very short term; but if anything, it intensifies that desire over the long term. This is why sex addicts, for example, aren't encouraged to watch more porn, but to eliminate it.

Secondly, any business grows with demand. While drug production is relat

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[clone52431]

No, they’re not. They’re just pixels. The real children who were filmed have already been hurt and you’re not fixing it. I’m sorry.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[characterZer0]

By paying for it, you are encouraging them to make more.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[CookieForYou]

Is there seriously any child porn "industry"?

I know it existed in the 1970s. You could buy it in the back room of bookstores in Manhattan, apparently.

But wasn't most child porn distributed via USENET? How does one go about paying for distributed copies of base7 encoded binary files? And if there was no money being exchanged, should it be legal?

Interesting questions without real answers...

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[clone52431]

False on multiple levels.

First of all, very little money actually changes hands anymore. Secondly, very few pedos do it for money (statistically speaking almost all abuse happens by relatives or family friends, i.e. crime of opportunity, not for profit). Thirdly, the ones who do try to make money tend to get caught. Fourthly, sharing their personal stuff at all is asking to get caught, so all the more reason they don’t want to sell it or give it away.

Source, assuming you can still access it (it was on wikileaks... good luck with that)... and probably also somewhat NSFW... http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks%20%22my%20life%20in%22 [google.com]

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[Cruciform]

When reporting pedophiles using a hosting service I worked for we had regular contact with the police and heard horror stories of converted farms and other properties turned into child porn factories.
At the time it was very hard for the police to get action taken against organizations in Eastern Europe and Russia, and it was a big deal when my friend got a call from Interpol to say that one of the tips was used to nail a large operation.
Granted, this was a decade ago, but there were people then who would pay to get their fix from a single source and I'm sure there are now. Just like any person who prefers a "private" torrent site to limit their IP exposure.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[clone52431]

wherever there is a demand for something a market is created and trade occurs. it is beyond obvious that the desire to see naked pictures of children leads to people who will exploit children

Yes, it does lead to them. Making them easier to find.

Meanwhile you aren’t wasting huge amounts of time, money, and manpower tracking down people who aren’t actually abusing kids... for the crime of possessing a bunch of files on their hard drive.

Re:

[clone52431]

really. naked pictures of children and the desire to see them creates the demand for the sexual abuse of children. this really is the truth

And eliminating the demand for pictures of naked children will magically make all the pedos stop sexually abusing children.

Nice fantasy world you have there. Simple reality, indeed...

Do you even realize that “basic economics” doesn’t work the way you think it does when the supply is basically infinite?

Re:

[circletimessquare]

getting rid of the pictures won't stop pedophilia, of course not. thank you for the red herring

but it will get rid of the demand for creating the pictures, which involves actual sexual abuse of children, sometimes by not even pedophiles, just people who want money

its like arguing with a creationist: you have a piece of ignorance stuck in your craw, and all of the plain evidence in the world to the contrary will not shake your faith

Re:

[clone52431]

getting rid of the pictures won't stop pedophilia, of course not. thank you for the red herring

That wasn’t what I said, moron. Learn to read. I said eliminating the demand for them.

its like arguing with a creationist: you have a piece of ignorance stuck in your craw, and all of the plain evidence in the world to the contrary will not shake your faith

Such as the actual citation I provided above which says you’re completely full of shit.

And with your reputation you don’t have much room for movement here anyway...

Re:

[HeckRuler]

So if they don't pay for it, it's ok?

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[rrohbeck]

So if they don't pay for it, it's ok?

We've all learned from the RIAA and MPAA that downloading destroys the industry, so downloading CP should be a good thing.

Re:

[Kjella]

We've all learned from the RIAA and MPAA that downloading destroys the industry, so downloading CP should be a good thing.

Not even on "America's dumbest criminals" would you find a child pornographer trying to enforce his copyright so you're beating down an open door. Besides if would-be customers downloaded instead that would have an effect, but "download just to download" makes as little sense as trying to bankrupt Microsoft by downloading Windows over and over again.

You are not dealing with a mass market product, for a small number of customers you can do stuff like individual encodes, throwing out customers who leak what t

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[DurendalMac]

Wrong. People swap kiddie porn all the time. There have been numerous busts of child abuse rings where people were swapping homemade kiddie porn.

A lot of people, pedo or otherwise, get off knowing that someone is watching them and getting off themselves. People make porn to be watched, and even if it's free, knowing that it's being watched can encourage them to make more. Is that true in every case? No, but why the hell else would someone distribute their homemade kiddie porn? And getting feedback from o

Re:

[clone52431]

People swap kiddie porn all the time. There have been numerous busts of child abuse rings where people were swapping homemade kiddie porn.

True, and the only way those rings get busted is by someone from the outside infiltrating, or by material from the inside getting out. Whether the simple possession is legal or otherwise, that wouldn’t change.

Producing it is always going to be illegal. Law enforcement pores over any new material in detail – just like they go over new Osama tapes... the internet was able to locate a Chinese woman based on nothing but a pair of spike-heeled shoes, so you can bet that law enforcement is paying pret

Re:

[melikamp]

Throw the people who make the porn by abusing children in the process to jail for abusing children, and leave everyone else alone. By throwing some childless wanker in jail, you save zero children and deter zero pedo-dads. By throwing a pedo-dad in jail, you save at least one child and deter other pedo-dads. If you really think that a psycho who has sex with his pre-pubescent child will be deterred by inability to share photos online, you should also be interested in a bridge I am selling. If you believe th

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[clone52431]

The reason that a rapist rapes women is to satisfy their desire for pornography? I think your logic is flawed.

Re:

[am 2k]

This comparison is completely meaningless. In Sweden, cheating one woman with another is considered rape, while in some muslim countries (and maybe others), having forced sex with your unwillingly married wife is perfectly fine (for everyone except the woman herself).

Snuff films are legal

[moosehooey]

There are plenty of videos of people getting killed, there's a series called "Faces of Death" I believe, that was sold commercially.

Re:

[blair1q]

Films of poeple dying in accidents aren't snuff films. Films with scripted killings are snuff films.

Re:

[blair1q]

No, it's only a snuff film if the death in it is the fault of the people making the movie and is the reason they had the camera rolling.

For instance, John Landis' film of Vic Morrow being decapitated by a helicopter is not a snuff film, even if it is evidence of somebody's negligence.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[hoggoth]

standard disclaimer, child porn is bad, etc etc

> I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same

Citation needed.

I find it hard to believe that throwing someone in jail and ruining their life for having a drawing of Bart Simpson having sex has any beneficial effect. (Here's my citation: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/bart-simpson-child-pornography-and-free-speech/ [nytimes.com] )

Re:

[MBGMorden]

I find it hard to believe that "illegal" copying of child pornography on the one side encourages production. We've been told for years that "Copy kills music", shouldnt it then also be that "Copy kills child pornography"?

My guess would be that "it depends". Purchasing these materials certainly would encourage further production and hence further harm to children. Non-commercial copying though, I'm really unsure on.

Conventional wisdom would seem that with an easier source to obtain such materials, some would have their need for them filled without needing to producing it themselves - hence possibly reducing it's level of production. On the other hand, an active trading scene may encourage some others to post for attention

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[shutdown -p now]

Purchasing these materials certainly would encourage further production and hence further harm to children.

I would like to point out, however, that we do not use this argument in all cases where it should apply equally. It is illegal to torture-kill someone, but it is perfectly legal to possess or commercially redistribute a recording of such a killing.

Heck, there are plenty sites on the web with various recordings of beheadings and other gruesome executions from Afghanistan, Chechnya etc, and some of those have ads on them, so they directly profit from the views - but I haven't heard about any proposals to ban that practice. I wonder if it's because no-one (?) faps to such videos? Or because no kids are involved?

Ironically, I think that a video in which a child is brutally murdered would, ironically, be quite legal to sell, so long as no nudity is involved.

Re:I guess they wanted free porn.

[TheFlamingoKing]

You're going to have to cite your "belief". Most studies I have seen have shown that an increase in pornography has resulted in a decrease in rape and child sexual assault.

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/#ixzz17eM23WmL [the-scientist.com]

Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet. The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. He showed that for the years from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increasingly became available, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level. Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last 2 decades, and in those countries that allowed for the possession of child pornography, child sex abuse has declined.

Re:

[geekoid]

The country that allow it are not the country the make it. So it's a poor conclusion regard CP.

CP isn't about consenting adults, it's about kidnapped children who are abused.

Re:

[bjourne]

This is almost correlationisnotcausation worthy. All kinds of violent crime in those countries also decreased during the periods mentioned. There was also a huge number of other societal changes that took place during that period. The studies show that increased availability of porn does not lead to more rapes. They do not show that increased availability of porn leads to fewer rapes.

Re:

[Eivind Eklund]

My Social Psychology textbook (David Myer's "Social Psychology") spends a chapter arguing that the evidence shows that pornography leads to more rape, with fairly credible citations, in particular natural experiments where introduction has rapidly led to increase in rape, and as far as I remember one example (Hawaii?) where it had been introduced, rape had increased, and then removed, and rape had decreased, and it had been re-introduced and rape had increased again.

I'll also say that american textbooks are

Re:

[Therilith]

Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?

(not the OP)
Absolutely.

The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography.

"I wouldn't normally rape that kid, but I would if I could legally upload it and get mad props from random people on the cp-ftw.com forums."
Now buying (or worse yet, commissioning) it is a whole other thing.

I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same.

You "believe that it has been shown"?
Do you have any actual statistics, or are you just making stuff up?

Snuff Films don't exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Snuff films don't exist. Yes, videos of people dying have been found/made - and collections of accidental death footage have been sold to the public, but nothing like the deliberate filming of a murder for sexual gratification. Videos with amazingly realistic special effects have been found (ask Charlie Sheen) but nothing like what is popularly defined as a "snuff" film has ever been found. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp [snopes.com]

Also "I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same." - citation needed. Don't get me wrong, I report all that shit to https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US [missingkids.com] when I see it, but what you suggest is, AFAIK, unproven - as well as the equivalent to arresting citizens for reading classified material on wikileaks.

Re:

[FatSean]

No cameras in the execution booth!

Re:

[Locke2005]

The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography.

Uh, no. Allowing the SALE of kitty porn does encourage the production of more. How does giving it away for free provide incentive to exploit more children? The way to remove the profit motive for the production of porn is to make it easily available everywhere for free. Prohibition only drives up profits for (unlawful) producers, just as it does for alcohol and drugs.

Re:

[clone52431]

Underground drugs and cigarette models: the first try/puff is always free

Underground business only thrives because the product is illegal and you can’t get it anywhere else. Aboveground business (cigarettes)... well, nobody is going to make child porn production legal, so they can’t go aboveground.

Re:

[DurendalMac]

Right, because legalizing the possession of kiddie porn and allow it to be sold isn't going to increase demand, encouraging people to make more kiddie porn because they have a better chance of making money on it.

I don't think you thought that one through.

Re:

[Locke2005]

How about: legalizing the production of porn wherein the actors only _look_ young, but are actually computer generated or of legal age, while still not making it legal to profit from selling kitty porn. Also, enjoin the government to simply refuse to enforce copyright on objectionable material. When the scumbags can only manage to sell one copy before it gets massively duplicated and given away for free, that pretty much removes the profit motive. I'm not saying that profit motivates all kitty porn producti

Re:

[melikamp]

Hahaha after reading replies I cannot believe I got modded up, there are so many things wrong with my post just above.

Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?

Absolutely. If we learned one thing from Hollywood, it's that kids who grow up watching shit like Lethal Weapon and Rambo do NOT tend to develop into crazy, suicidal, masochistic, ego-maniacal, trigger-happy killing machines. They just have fun watching the movies. I think that commercial distribution of snuff (and child porn, for that matter) should still be illegal, but that's an entirely

Re:

[geekoid]

Yes, it does help curb CP and CA. I'm not sure where you get your data from.

There are vast amount of studies showing how wrong you are. Please look it up.

Slashdotted

[GiveBenADollar]

Now we are slashdotting porn sites. I'm ok with paypal or amazon going down, but loss of porn on the internet could cause serious consequences. If the world goes to war over this, don't say I didn't warn you.

Re:

[hedwards]

Indeed, porn is the glue that holds the internet together.

Re:Slashdotted

[Calydor]

That's not glue.

'ow 'bout /.? ;)

[G3ckoG33k]

What do we, users, know?!

Given A55ange's background this is the place he might have visited.

I'm torn...

[erroneus]

On one hand, I like porn. On the other, I only like porn where the women are sexy... which means a woman should look like a woman, not a little girl. (I don't care about the guys, but I find the "Jurrasic cock" series to be inspirational... hey, I'm getting older too!) Anyway, I also happen to love children "in the good way" and don't like the thought of them being exploited. So on one hand, I want people exploiting children to get stopped. (punished is another thing... "helped" might be better) On the other hand, the means and method of doing what they do needs to be carefully administrated and managed. I also recognize that the ends do not always justify the means and that once they do it for one purpose, they will find it easier to do it again for another purpose.... and another and another... getting easier each time.

So... damn... I'm just torn.

Re:I'm torn...

[sakasune]

On one hand, I like porn. On the other

...well, the other hand is busy :P

Re:

[TheL0ser]

The way I choose to view it, so long as $porn_site decided to, of their own free will, say "Hey feds, have a look at these things and start busting the child porn pervs", that's fine. If the access was requested by the enforcers.... That, I see as going a lot closer to the slippery slope you mention.

Re:

[psithurism]

Why can't the Feds just cut out the middleman at free-porn.gov?

Torn? Grease that slope!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not.

The FBI overstepped.

When we start saying to ourselves, "Well it is to protect children, then it's OK." or "We're under attack and we need to prevent another 9/11" or "We need to take everyone's name down in order to stop this meth crisis!" or whatever, we start a slippery slope.

Think the "slippery slope" is an overused argument? Remember that when you are being felt up by a TSA guy because you were randomly selected for more screening - even though you did absolutely nothing to warrant such extra

Re:

[blair1q]

The FBI overstepped.

How?

If the FBI had set up the site as a sting operation, would that be overstepping? No.

If the FBI walked in on the server room, cuffed the sysadmin, and started installing logging software on the server, would that be overstepping? Yes, if they didn't have a warrant.

In this case, they asked for assistance, the operators decided they liked the idea, and the FBI and the operators joined forces in a sting operation.

There's nothing wrong with that at all. Except the part where the child pornographers thought

Re:

[blair1q]

People were conducting those "personal conversations" on a party line involving every employee of the server site.

If the owner of the server site was, as I suggested above, the FBI itself, acting under cover, how would that be any different?

It's not even illegal for them to lie to you and say "sure, you can put your kiddie porn here, we won't tell anyone". It would be entrapment if they said "find some kiddie porn and put it here or we'll put some in your folders and tell the cops it's yours."

It's also not

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[blair1q]

The feds having access to everybodies data means that everybody is guilty until proven innocent.

1. They don't have access to everybody's data. They have access to data posted by individuals on a third-party's server, granted by the owner of that server. They have access, in otherwords, to data freely handed to them.

2. They don't need a warrant to get your neighbors or employer to spy on you, they just need their cooperation. They need a warrant to search you or your home.

3. There is no pornographer-website privilege. Any protection your website promises you is something it takes upon itself.

4.

Re:

[Locke2005]

I don't believe a warrant is required. If the website puts a clause in the ToS prohibiting unlawful images, then they have the right to inform the Feds of posters who don't comply with the ToS. I agree, police shouldn't be given access to everything, only the data that some responsible party has good reason to believe is unlawful. And yes, I've never seen a site that doesn't have a disclaimer that says "Don't use this to do anything illegal, or there will be consequences."

By the way, the "wiretapping" law

4chan

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing 4chan with /b/ again. Please don't.

Re:

[Monkeedude1212]

Because /gif/ has never, and never will, post a single immoral or illegal animated gif, by anyones standards.

Re:

[OnePumpChump]

and it never gets posted in completely irrelevant subforums.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's a difference. The subsites dedicated to videogames, comics, board games, military, and whatnot are all generally "wholesome" sites. Some more then others, like the origami board. Some definitely less, like the all porny boards.

So is your opinion from actual experience, or are you being lead around by the nose by a talking head on TV?

Re:

[DurendalMac]

Every board on 4chan is /b/ with a different topic and possibly less horrifying imagery. There are still endless trolls and weirdos everywhere.

OT: what is this, troll day?

[martas]

First an AC rant, then freaking MichaelKristopeitNNN makes an appearance...

Sheesh. If you can't trust your porn site, ...

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

oh never mind.

Nothing to see here

[diskofish]

While Free6.com included a notice warning that the posting of “child pornography or other illegal material” would be reported to “local authorities,” Burdick had site administrators add a line noting that, “Free6.com may disclose these communications to the authorities at its discretion.”

Site says to stop posting inappropriate, illegal material. Site warns that it will report such content to authorities. Site acts on threat.

Re:

[geekoid]

saying and implying to will report illegal activity is different then letting authorities have unfetter access to everything.

Re:

[aztektum]

My question: Did they have access to people that were obviously peddling in illegal content or access to everyone?

Re:

[Qzukk]

Everyone, duh. They'll need the obscenity prosecutions to meet whatever quota they couldn't get out of the pedos.

Re:

[Renraku]

Alright, imagine this.

You walk into an adult store and a member of the FBI is there, who follows you around the store and records what you looked at, what you bought, what you said, etc. They're there to make sure you aren't buying any child pornography. Would this make you feel uncomfortable? It would make me feel uncomfortable, simply because they're recording and storing the data. When is it going to come up again? What if I apply to some type of sensitive position or run for government, only to hav

Re:

[diskofish]

Every time you visit a website, there is the potential to track what you looked at and how long you stayed there. From this data, all sorts of extrapolations can be made.

This is happening to all of us every day, it's just not as obviously creepy as a fed following you around in an adult bookstore.

So. They found a lot of evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

So. They found a lot of evidence. Did they actually solve any crimes? I'm being a bit facetious here.

Child porn is regarded as a crime. IMHO, it ought to be regarded as evidence. If it were legal to posess the evidence, as long as you reported it to law enforcement, then it seems like it would be easier to catch the people that actually shoot the vids/pictures.

As it stands, if I'm taping and happen to catch a shooting in progress, there can be all kinds of blood and gore and stuff; but I'm not guilty of anything simply by being in posession of the tape. Everybody knows that, and most will willingly shares the tape with enforcement so they can convict the bad guys.

OTOH, if I found a tape by the side of the road, stuck it in my VCR and it turned out to be kiddie porn I'd be immediately guilty of posessing kiddie porn. Knowing that, simply destroying it is a likely reaction. It could be that the tape is the only clue they have that would lead them to save the lives of the subjects involved; but because the EVIDENCE is illegal to posess, that won't happen.

Re:

[Locke2005]

If you find a bag of drugs on the side of the road and get stopped on your way to the police station to turn it in, you're also guilty of possession... illegal stuff is illegal. I agree that mere possession should not be illegal, only production and sales. However, the treatment of unlawful images should be and is treated just like the possession of any type of contraband.

Re:

[Jenming]

If there was an industry based upon killing people, video taping it and then selling those tapes do you think the tapes would be "evidence"?

A closer analogy would be you stumbling upon someone raping a child, if you took a picture of it and sent it to the police it would almost certainly be regarded as evidence.
If you filmed it, went home, drank a couple of beers and watched it then it would no longer be evidence and you would be committing a crime.

Re:

[clone52431]

So what, you’re just supposed to make sure the police know about the crime?

What if you filmed it and promptly sent it to the police, and then went home, drank a couple of beers and watched it? Would that be okay?

Re:

[Calydor]

So make a minimal amount 'legal' to hold and ONLY if you contact the police about it, not the other way around. Make it small enough to be a useless defense for the real perps, but large enough that the average guy who stumbled across it can safely contact the police.

Re:

[SleazyRidr]

You could find a way to word it. Someone could think of a legitimate way to end up with a truckload of the stuff. At some point you have to stop trying to legislate numbers and just let common sense take over.

Re:So. They found a lot of evidence.

[Locke2005]

Explain to me again how allowing people to download something for free creates a larger black market for the sale of it and encourages the production of more of it... the RIAA and MPAA have been making the exact opposite argument for years now. One of you must be wrong!

Re:

[Kjella]

Watching porn doesn't make me interested in making porn, but it does make me want some pussy. I'm pretty sure there's an analogy here, and it doesn't involve cars...

Hmm...

[Taibhsear]

This porn site seems rather... submissive.

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

This porn site seems rather... submissive.

Very good! Subtle, but good!

'a significant amount of child pornography.'

[a2wflc]

some people consider an ad for underwear 'a significant amount of child pornography' and our government is more than happy to use that term as an excuse anywhere they can to limit privacy. In this case it probably is accurate. But they also use it to shut down the Christmas Island data sanctuary, snoop on generic internet traffic, argue against apps like TrueCrypt, and on and on. So, I'm against using this argument unless they've done the police work to get a proper court order on a specific target.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Good idea.

[elucido]

This is much better than that idea where they'd send you a URL and have you click it and get raided.

Huh?

[Zedrick]

free6.com is/was a Swedish site, why would they give any federationalists from Mexico, USA, Argentina or some other foreign country anything at all? If they like to keep their site free of child porn, fine, that's a good thing. But isn't that something that should be done by a) their abuse administrator and/or b) the police in their own country?

Re:

[Lehk228]

if US users were posting and viewing child porn despite the effors of admins, i can see why they might want to have news of a big CP bust to chase away all the pervs, just like a shop keeper would want to have police drive by and arrest taggers.

4chan

[aBaldrich]

I'd be more worried if the feds hadn't access to 4chan.
I sicerely hope that all those "dump CP here" threads are started by the police, in order to find pedophiles.

Re:

[DurendalMac]

This. If the partyvan doesn't have a backdoor into 4chan then they aren't doing their jobs.

Re:

[0100010001010011]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re:

[blair1q]

Those who think they have any sort of righteous "liberty" when posting their information on someone else's server are out of their fucking minds.

Re:

[blair1q]

1. Was there such language in the agreement.

2. If nobody ever reads those things, that goes both ways, so enforcement is unlikely to be possible.

3. It's not legal to enter into a contract to commit illegal activity. So when he discovered you were putting illegal material on his server, he was released from any sense of contractual obligation, and put into a position of being obligated to report a crime.

4. How do you enter into a contract under a pseudonym giving a fake email address as your contact inf

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, actually. I've worked with them. In spite of the hatred spewed by the anarchists, the ones I've worked with were very professional, cared deeply about their country and the people they protect, and were honest with me. That being said, I ran everything through legal to make sure.

Re:

[hedwards]

It's not just anarchists. It's also those of us that respect and appreciate the constitution. The FBI hasn't exactly gotten that reputation without a lot of work. From the abuses by J. Edgar Hoover to the more recent abuses of the national security letters, the organization hardly has a clean record.

Re:

[zeroshade]

you're completely pathetic

cower some more

Dude. You need new lines. These are old already =P

Re:

[bky1701]

Well, you made me break down and go prove a point to a troll. Good job. I will be checking you for future trolling, though.

To add a worthwhile contribution to the discussion, then, I will say that this is not anything particularly shocking. The government has long pressured sites like this for information. There really isn't much difference between this system and what has been going on, except that it shows they don't feel they need to hide their spying anymore.

It is amazing what people will accept w

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

You are a sexual deviant.

Re:

[TrisexualPuppy]

Ernie [slashdot.org], is that you??