back to article Anonymous vows to wipe web clean of child abuse scum

Sections of Anonymous have once again turned their ire towards online sites frequented by child abusers. OpPedoChat follows earlier campaigns by sections of the hacktivist groups that subjected websites linked to the distribution of paedophile material with denial of service attacks and membership exposure. For example, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    lynching via internet?

    As apparently laudable as this aim is, I hope to heaven they name the right people!

    1. James Micallef Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: lynching via internet?

      While I am sympathetic to the underlying principle, vigilante justice is not a good idea.

      Say a data dump from Anonymous that supposedly shows a list of people swapping paedo photos is made public (or even passed on to the plod), who's to say whether the list is authentic, untampered, and correctly identifies the people on it. John Smith from California is a bit vague and I doubt these people will have Social Security numbers or dates of birth published on the sites. And Anonymous themselves would be the first to oppose the principle that an IP address can be used to positively identify an individual.

      There's a reason courts insist on the integrity of a chain of evidence.

    2. rh587 Silver badge

      Re: lynching via internet?

      And indeed keep at sufficiently arms length that they don't compromise evidence that could be used in criminal prosecutions and render it inadmissible in court because the machines have been poked at by a 3rd party.

      1. EvilGav 1
        FAIL

        Re: lynching via internet?

        Given that Operation Ore managed to convict a number of people wrongly with apparently strong evidence, i'm pretty sure this endeavor is about to ruin a number of lives.

        Also, we are told variously that the pedo rings exist and continue based on anonymity and obfuscation, something that rings all too true about Anonymous themselves.

        The aim may be laudable, but it has a high chance of actually doing more damage than good - if the sites are known, hand them to the FBI and let them run as another honey-pot operation (again), with confirmed chains of evidence.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: lynching via internet?

      If Pedo neighbour hacks your WiFi, you'd better leave the country.

      I remember the BNP list when it came out. The neighbours in the flat opposite were named. However, it was a black family, so I'm guessing it was either a mistake or out of date information.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well my first thought is good luck to them, but I also hope they get it right and don't out innocent people as paedophiles, that would be a massive injustice too.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I suspect Anonymous will simply provide another example of why mob justice is a bad idea.

      Lets just hope they know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Lets just hope they know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician..."

        -Considering that they mistook a rural village in Japan with the headquarters of the Japanese government during their latest shenanigans, I don't have high hopes for them. (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/29/anonymous-hackers-mistake-kasumigaura-kasumigaseki.html)

        Perhaps they'd tweet "We made a mistake. We're sorry. Greek suffixes are difficult" when the mistake is pointed out afterwards.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Perhaps they'd tweet "We made a mistake. We're sorry. Greek suffixes are difficult" when the mistake is pointed out afterwards."

          That's too optimistic in my book. It's so much easier to find someone else to blame for their mistake(s). Everyone knows its all the FBI's fault in the first place.

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Curious to know how they will target such sites whilst staying at sufficient arms length from them to avoid being accused themselves.

      I expect it will become a common defence in court that they weren't *using* the site, they were working as part of the Anonymous collective in order to bring it down. Honest, m'lud.

      1. Aaron Em

        Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

        Said he was downloading kiddie porn because he was writing a book about it, and apparently the judge bought that -- Townshend, that was the name, Pete Townshend. Something of a precedent there, I suppose, though I do wonder whether it works as well for Guy Fawkes fondlers as it did for a famous guy.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

          Was trawling Deja News once, back when it was called that. Came across some newsgroup or other that was discussing pictures that had been extracted from behind a paywall. I clicked the links, stupidly enough.

          Promptly printed some out in full colour, walked to the nearest cop shop and handed them in, as well as prints to the original dejanews pages complete with USENET post headers. I wasn't arrested, but I did get a firm instruction to never go on that site again just in case I did get dragged into Operation Ore. I'd never seen a copper's face turn white before that day.

          Your mileage may vary. Knowing what I do now, I'd definitely not recommend the same course of action to anybody.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Meh

            Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

            You are -one- -crazy- -sob-. Wow. Technically you could have gone down for at least a few years, since you broke the letter of the law six ways from Sunday.

            That's one of the problem with 'possession' laws, actually. How is it that some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save' really makes the difference between someone being a criminal and not being a criminal? "Well, sure, it would have been an immoral blight on humanity and an offense against all that is good and proper - but I had the cache going to a RAM drive, so really it ain't no thang."

            1. Aaron Em

              "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

              No, that actually does make sense -- clicking 'save', i.e. taking deliberate action to keep a copy of what you're looking at, versus your browser automatically caching it like it does every page you visit, serves as evidence of mens rea, i.e., the intent to do the thing that was done. In either case, there's a copy of the illegal image on your hard disk, but in only one case did you do anything to make that happen, and that's what makes the difference. Of course, there's still the question of whether you intended to see what you saw and took action to bring that about, but that's a different question. (And if we're talking about cases where cached images were described as having been deliberately downloaded, then someone along the chain of evidence is either incompetent or lying, and should be dealt with on that basis.)

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

                "in only one case did you do anything to make that happen"

                Technically untrue - you installed a web browser, which essentially by definition stores (temporarily) most things that arrive. You also went to the web site itself, without which the image obviously couldn't have been saved - so visiting the site was as obvious as clicking save.

                Furthermore, suppose the image was saved via a script that right-click-and-downloaded, say, everything on the page. That would be quite bizarre, but certainly possible. Is writing a script that right-click-and-saves for you, and then leaving it running, tantamount to right-click-and-saving on your own? What if you downloaded the script and don't know precisely how it works? What if you *think* it's going to a RAM cache but it's not?

                What if you have your cache dump into a different folder, on purpose?

                What if you accessed the files in your cache from elsewhere 5000 times, or what if you accidentally saved but never accessed the file?

                The whole thing is a cascade of absurdity. The upshot is that the criminal act isn't "possession"; the "possession" crime is a very crude proxy for "got turned on by" - which is why any attempt to twist the term around in a way that makes sense vs. a 'common sense' idea of what the real crime is, is an exercise in frustration.

                Possession laws in general strike me as a nasty thing; they're essentially criminalizing something you haven't done yet, but which you might do because you now have the ability to. In some cases one can see compelling logic; possessing 10,000 tons of TNT and fifty main battle tanks is cause for concern given the immediate and direct threat to other individuals posed by said ordnance.

                But someone who possesses images, or drugs, or pirated movies, doesn't pose a threat. They may have violated the law when they acquired the items, but *having* them isn't itself a harm (possessing stolen goods, by the way, might qualify as ongoing harm to the victim of the theft - it'd be interesting to consider).

                If you do a mental experiment and replace 'child pornography' with 'some type of pornography which Australian politicians don't like but a lot of other people do' the thing starts to look really absurd.

                Hell, if you take the copyright lobby's stance at face value, then the argument that purchasing kiddie porn encourages further abuse is turned on its head. Purchasing movies from MGM encourages MGM to make more movies, no? Well, the accepted argument is that infringing by copying a movie is the same as a lost sale, which DISCOURAGES MGM from making more movies.

                In fact, the more people pirate MGM's movies, the more likely it is to go out of business, right?

                So, by that logic, all you have to do to defeat child pornography is to *pirate as much of it as possible*. Quick - everyone start torrenting copies of kiddie porn that the producers charge a lot of money for, and they'll be out of business lickety split!

                Wait, it doesn't work that way? But... but...

                1. Aaron Em

                  Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

                  Mens rea is not a complicated test. It asks only: Do your actions show that you meant to do the thing that was done?

                  This tosses out your entire first paragraph -- unless the prosecution can show you installed that web browser and went to that website with the intent of finding kiddie porn there. (If someone posts a link that you have no way of knowing is kiddie porn, and you click it and see something you didn't want to, it'd take a pretty dishonest prosecutor to call that a crime. I won't say it never happens, but I will say it shouldn't.)

                  It also tosses out your entire second, third, and fourth paragraphs, because in all of those you did something that demonstrated your intent to be in possession of kiddie porn. Or do you mean a jury to believe that you went and found DownThemAll or some equivalent, then went and found a site hosting kiddie porn, and then used the script to download the porn -- all by accident? Oh, honey, I really hope you don't actually look at any of that stuff, or you are going to make some lucky DA's career some day.

                  That which can be proved is the province of the law. That's why the crime is possession, and not "got turned on by"; possession can be proved one way or another, while "got turned on by" can't even be measured. (Yes, I've heard of plethysmography, but psychiatrists have enough professional opportunity to indulge their sexual fantasies, I think, without being permitted to bring them into the courtroom.)

                  The rest of your argument, if I might call it that for kindness' sake, doesn't seem to make much sense, which I think is basically down to the fact that, inasmuch as you know about them, which you mostly seem not to, you just don't have a lot of use for laws. That's fine as far as it goes -- on one side there's you and a bunch of hairy-assed Reds, and on the other side there's the balance of human history, but if that seems to you like an advantageous position to take then I won't tell you not to; what I will say, though, is that you'd be well-advised to take care what you let yourself be found in possession of, lest you find yourself expounding your antinomianism before a jury.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Meh

                    Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

                    "That's fine as far as it goes -- on one side there's you and a bunch of hairy-assed Reds..."

                    I was willing to give your argument an extended reply until I hit that, at which point your own credibility vanished. (It had remained, by the way, after 'Oh, honey', but only on the generous presumption that you are either a waitress in a truck-stop diner, or a gay man who works in a bridal salon.) On the one side there's you and a bunch of smooth-assed Fascists... is that right? I'm not sure.

                    I'm also rather fond of the veiled implication that because I have a distaste for some aspect of a law about some thing, I must therefore support some thing. Surely as a supporter of law you would oppose such rhetorical shenanigans, no matter how obscured?

                    At any rate, my argument was not, 'the law isn't this', but, 'from a moral perspective the law isn't doing its job by being this'. You seem to have missed that, and thus dismissed the entire chain thereafter, rather like a C compiler spotting a misplaced { and violently rejecting the rest of the code as being entirely faulty.

                    The irony is that you mistook my lament - that of the law not actually punishing the evil, but, as you yourself right, a proxy of the evil. In fact, your statement is rather disturbing in itself - "That which can be proved is the province of the law... that's why the crime is possession." Not because it ought to be a crime specifically, or captures all of those who actually commit the moral transgression, but just because it happens to be provable. We can't prove that you robbed a bank, but we *can* prove that you have a bunch of money in your house in a bag marked $$$, so hell, that's good enough for us!

                    As The Economist wrote, "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."

                    Disagreement with the way law is implemented, or disagreement with the nature of a law, is not the same thing as a broad-based rejection of the idea of law itself. Surely this should be obvious (particularly to someone capable of writing something like, "expounding your antinomianism", which, while devoid of substance, is at least linguistically impressive).

                    Oh, fiddlesticks, I've done and written a lengthy rebuttal in spite of myself. I really must consult my psychiatrist about this compulsion.

                    1. Aaron Em

                      Good God

                      It is an awful compulsion, isn't it? -- taking any of this at all seriously, I mean.

                      Law and morality are absolutely orthogonal to one another; in a properly functioning society, it is not the business of the law to force people to be good, but only to ensure that they behave in a sufficiently civilized fashion toward one another so as not to fuck things up for everyone. Any other way lies madness.

                      Before you argue otherwise, remember you know a word for a system of jurisprudence in which morality is circumscribed by law -- say, that of Iran, to pick a handy example. That word is theocracy, and you certainly recognize it as such in the form of a council of mullahs, whose morality has nothing in common with your own. When the morality in question is your own, though, to call its implementation "theocracy" isn't even insulting, it's just completely insane, because of course anyone with any sense knows the side you're on is the side of the angels. (Every side claims to be the side of the angels.)

                      The problem with what, when a Republican Congress does it, is called "legislating morality", is not anything to do with this set of moral precepts, or that one; the problem is rather with the task itself, which is entirely impossible. Our fantasists can dream up such a thing as telepathy, but our species does not produce the capability; this being true, no one can simply peer into a man's head and read off a list of his sins. Thus the statement of mine which so disturbed you that you felt moved to quote it. (By the way of which, when the sentences you quote are immediately adjacent to one another in your source, there is no need to separate them with an ellipsis, which is used to mark an elision.)

                      If someone says he didn't intend to do evil, i.e., he didn't mean to do what he did, how do you know whether he's lying or not? -- whether honest, or dishonest, he would say exactly the same. Since, as we've established, you cannot know his mind, and since you can't take him at his word for it, all you can do is look at what he's done. If he's behaved in accordance with the way he says he has, then he's telling the truth. Otherwise, he's lying. For simple possession of child pornography and many other crimes, that question determines whether or not a particular case is a crime.

                      The concept I've just described is mens rea, and with that we return to the original bullshit flamebait nonsense of cache vs. "Save As". I won't belabor that again here; if you haven't gotten the sense of it by now, I can't do anything more for you except to point out that what I'm describing is exactly the "moral perspective" you're concerned about, implemented in a way that's consistent with only convicting people for things they've actually, provably done.

                      (PS: "Expounding your antinomianism" is reasonably rich in meaning, as phrases go. May I suggest Merriam-Webster's? Of course, their definition for 'antinomianism' is trustworthy only in its description of the roots, which add up to "opposed to law", but for the other two they're spot-on.)

                      (PPS: You're right that a fascist is the mirror image of a communist -- actually, they're more like Siamese twins -- but it's just so cute you think that's all there is. Me, I say be damned to the both of you and let's have some sane government about the place again, that is, the professional kind. Sounds bizarre? Every sysadmin who's ever worked for a living knows what I'm talking about. Consider: We'd have no purpose without users, but can a council of users manage a datacenter? Compared to a datacenter, is a country less complicated, or more complicated? Royalism.)

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Good God

                        Again, you misinterpret me. I agree entirely with your view of law and morality - and their differing roles. I used 'morality' in my argument not because I think that's a good rationale, but because it's the rationale that's *currently used*. My point is that the law as it stands is insufficient to meet its own goals; I wasn't passing judgment on whether those goals are reasonable in the first place.

                        Legislating morality is, indeed, a lousy idea. But my point regarding these laws not effectively punishing morality are equally appropriate to your view of the law (ideally) as preventing the fucking-up of society. Laws which cast a broad (and in this case, inaccurate) net, fail by definition to stop those who would fuck up society, since they fail to catch a good chunk of the guilty and catch instead a good chunk of the innocent.

                        My argument that someone sitting around writing slashfic isn't 'doing anything wrong' also applies to whether they're fucking up society. In either case they're not, and in either case laws attempting to prevent it are both wrong from a policy standpoint and wrong from a basic human rights standpoint.

                2. PatientOne

                  Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

                  @David W.

                  Love the post.

                  In respect to possession of stolen goods: Ongoing harm is occurring as you are continuing to deny the true owner of said goods use of said goods. Please note that, once insurance has been paid, the insurance company can claim it now owns the stolen goods and you are now costing them money as they cannot sell said goods to recoup their costs...

                  On the other hand, Piracy proves there is a demand, but you are discouraging supply. After all, why make movies if you are making a loss? No more movies = no more piracy. Instead, take away the demand and the industry collapses. Stop watching MGM movies, don't buy them and certainly don't pirate them. Then MGM will go out of business. Same for kiddy porn: Take away the demand and the industry collapses.

                  To take away the demand, you need to tackle the cause. The problem is that there are quite a few causes, and tackling them all will be a nightmare. There is an alternative, but that involves changing what people see as 'sexy'. Promoting a fuller female figure or an older male figure: Not asexual images or the terror of the size 0 model.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

                    "On the other hand, Piracy proves there is a demand..."

                    Assuming the producers are aware of it, perhaps - though getting into a business because of rampant piracy would seem to be ill-advised.

                    But, if you take that to be true, by extension any piracy which is invisible to the producer then has no effect, and shouldn't be considered criminal. If I leech a copy of 'Transformers: Even More Explosions From Michael Bay' and nobody knows about it, it certainly can't increase *or* decrease demand (it seems self-evident that if I pirate it, I'm not willing to pay to buy it, though this point seems to be lost on quite a few people).

                    As far as tackling the cause goes, IIRC Australia's government, in their wisdom, attempted to do just such a thing, in this case by banning (or suggesting the ban of?) pornography involving women whose breasts failed to meet a minimum size requirement. Presumably, viewing porn involving women with a-cups turns men into slavering child molesters - if not, why the law? - which makes one wonder why it isn't a crime to have sex with women who have small breasts. Perhaps the Aussies haven't gotten around to it yet.

                    It seems to me that the purpose of law is to protect people from actual harm. Are you paying someone to molest a child? Then you've committed a crime whether you have an image or not, whether you like it or not. If we go down the road of saying that things that might inspire things that inspire things that induce people to do things that hurt other people, then the follow-on effects - after you establish precedent by attacking a problem so revolting that nobody can oppose any effort to stop it no matter how ill-advised - could be utterly catastrophic for freedom of thought and expression.

                    The gamut in the UK has already spread beyond child pornography to 'extreme' pornography - whose boundaries are tantalizingly blurry - to, apparently, words on a page. There's no reason to think it won't continue, and as much as I hate to say it, the end harm to society will be far, far greater than that of the crime that these laws were initially intended to prevent.

          2. heyrick Silver badge

            @ AC with the printer...

            That's the problem with the current legislation - you can't report something you stumble upon verbally as, well, guilty for being there. And you can't print it out as, well, possession. Therefore, the best course of action is to pretend nothing happened, you saw nothing, kiddie porn doesn't exist, etc.

            Frankly, neither extreme is helpful. We need some common ground where stuff stumbled upon by chance (and yes, it does happen) can be reported without incrimination or finger-pointing.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

          "Said he was downloading kiddie porn because he was writing a book about it, and apparently the judge bought that..."

          Well no, not really, because he didn't download any images; he merely accessed the site.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

            Here, you can read about some very serious problems with the investigation in which Townshend was caught, including large numbers of people falsely accused and later cleared:

            "In the two years it took the police to determine that thousands had been falsely accused, over one hundred children had been removed from their homes and denied any unsupervised time with their fathers.[15] The arrests also led to an estimated 33 suicides by 2007."

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore#Controversies

    3. Crisp

      Re: Outing Innocent People

      Lets hope they don't compromise an existing investigation. Or worse, lets hope this action by anonymous doesn't tip off the big league criminals into covering up their activities further.

      1. EvilGav 1

        Re: Outing Innocent People

        CEOP themselves have actually admitted that there are no "big league criminals" involved in the kiddie fiddling game, in fact when pressed they even went so far as to admit that there is very little "new" kiddie porn appearing on a regular basis - it's apparently mostly rehashed again and again.

        The why would seem to be obvious - it is an extremely emotive subject matter, almost universally condemned and there are much easier illegal activities that pay more (drugs would seem to be the obvious one).

        As with everthing, follow the money - no-one gets involved without knowing how they are going to make it and how they can convert it into a legitimate source.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, let me get this right

    If I were to sign up to such a site using the details of someone that I have a grudge against...

    1. Aaron Em

      ...you'd deserve to be publicly beaten to death, yep.

  4. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Report the sites and get them shut down through legitimate authorities, but these sort of anonymous activities could find someone innocent in the slammer as if their IP gets recorded by the authorities for visiting said kiddy porn forums in a DDOS attack how do the police now the difference between someone taking part in a DDOS and a pedo visiting the site to download pictures?

    It could also work against genuine police surveillance of these forums if loads of extra IPs suddenly start to DDOS the forum then real pedos could use that there PC must have been compromised by hackers and used in a DDOS attack and thats why their IP was recorded on the forums logs as visiting the site.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @mark12

      I have met a few people that are forensic experts that deal with sort of thing, both testing for prosecutors and defendants. From talking with them, they are very good at understanding the difference between use and scapegoat.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      >Report the sites and get them shut down through legitimate authorities

      It's a site apparently hosted on a Russian server, whois lists a Liberian company with no details and it's connected by Tor - which legitimate authorites were you planning on calling?

      1. Aaron Em

        For that matter, how exactly does Anonymous plan to shut them down? Is Tor fast enough now to support DDoS traffic?

  5. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

    Because the problem is that MPs and tabloids don't really care about paedos?

    1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

      Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

      They really don't, the whole paedo thing is just an excuse to law down another fistful of overly broad laws that can be used to lock people up for being the wrong sort of people. the wrong sort of people being anyone they want, after a while...

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

        Yes, so raising the profile does what exactly?

        If the "authorities" weren't so backward and incompetent you would almost suspect that they were behind anonymous. Except that they would outsource it to Crapita and leave the details on a bus.

        1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

          "Yes, so raising the profile does what exactly?"

          Raises their own profile. They get talked about, get noticed, get more "responsibility", get re-elected, get a better salary, get more prestige. Get to do it all over again with a new topic.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Because truth be told...

      ....more than one or two of them in there have a bit of a soft spot for a cute young girl themselves. No way. Y'think? Surely not ;)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Because truth be told...

        "....more than one or two of them in there have a bit of a soft spot for a cute young girl themselves. No way. Y'think? Surely not ;)"

        Well, given that they're consistently accused of being 13-year-old boys, one could perhaps forgive them for an attraction to 12-year-old girls. I suppose within the strict meaning of the word they're still pedophiles, though... hmm...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "I suppose within the strict meaning of the word they're still pedophiles, though... hmm..."

          Nope, the word you're looking for is hebephiles.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Joke

            Re: "I suppose within the strict meaning of the word they're still pedophiles, though... hmm..."

            "Nope, the word you're looking for is hebephiles."

            Look, there's no reason to drag religion into this.

            (It's OK; I can say that - I'm Jewish.)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

      They don't care about stuff being done. They care about stuff being *seen* to be done.

      Also, what if you download something dodgy by accident? A member of my family attempted to pirate the 2005 film "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" on one of the older file-sharing networks, and the amount of incorrectly-named anal/big black cock porn was staggering.

  6. Aaron Em

    When you only look good compared to pedophiles...

    ...perhaps the pedophiles are not the only problem.

  7. M Gale

    OpPedoChat

    Perhaps there's a few Anons concerned that their image of pedobears, cake and CP is being taken too seriously?

    "We're trolling you, you fuckwits. Need some proof?"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OpPedoChat

      Indeed. Anonymous have always been ambivalent in their attitudes towards pedosexuality. Outing any form of lulzworthy behaviour has always been one of their favourite pastimes, such as the "brb church" episode, but on the other hand, who originated the acronym "DFC" in the first place?

      1. Aaron Em

        Re: OpPedoChat

        "Pedosexuality?"

        Good, now I know what they'll call it when I'm old and it's made legal.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    A: Glossy magazines promoting photos of the youngest possible models: Many and mainstream

    B: Motivational poster parody images referencing 'jailbait': Funny ha ha! So true! 'Cos everybody wants some jailbait!

    C: Filthy pedophiles who are nothing like people who like the above at all whatsoever no no no: BURN IN HELL SCUMBAGS WE'LL RIP YOUR NUTS OFF FNARGGHLLL

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Mmm...

      People are dishonest, fickle, deceitful, are prone to stupidity and have many hidden facets to their personality? No way man, no way. KILL THE PEDOS !!! 2 MONTHS OR 14 YEARS, IT'S ALL THE SAME TO US! Pitchforks at the ready!

      Funny it's always the same. When it's a story about a 14 year old boy being involved with his 25/30 yr old teacher it's mostly comments like `lucky fucker` but when it's the other way around it's `peel his skin and burn him alive` ... People are so funny about this matter.

      1. Steven Roper

        Re: Mmm...

        "When it's a story about a 14 year old boy being involved with his 25/30 yr old teacher it's mostly comments like `lucky fucker` but when it's the other way around it's `peel his skin and burn him alive`"

        That's because of 30+ years of toxic insititutionalised feminism brainwashing the public to believe that all men are filthy paedophile rapists and all women are innocent little victims who can do no wrong. I might point out in passing that many of the most bigoted feminists have themselves been men (usually with an agenda), while some of the most staunch opposition to feminism and misandry has come from women.

        1. Oolons
          Facepalm

          Re: Mmm...

          Toxic institutionalised feminism... You do know what feminism means? A movement whose aims are equal rights for women, so how can that be toxic? Institutionalised?... It absolutely should be - all organisations whether private or public should make removing prejudice against women a core part of their business.

          I'm not sure you really thought this through either - "brainwashing the public to believe that all men are filthy paedophile rapists". This attitude, if it exists, is not a widely held belief - surely you see that? If I do see it being pushed then more often than not its the Daily Fail saying that there are pedos everywhere and I doubt many feminists of any type would associate themselves with that lot.

          So thanks for the well thought out comment on modern feminism, you appear to be a complete idiot :-)

          1. Aaron Em

            "all organisations whether private or public should make removing prejudice against women..."

            If I wanted a career in social justice, I'd have had one. I know you're out there trying to save the world, but some of us have to make a living.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mmm...

          "That's because of 30+ years of toxic insititutionalised feminism..."

          Blaming something with its origins in (possibly hard-wired) male (is there another kind?) machismo on feminism even trumps the comment I saw on a CNN article about the Bolivian president calling for death to the Yankees (presumably he meant US citizens, not members of the baseball team): He took it as evidence of Barack Obama's campaign to saturate the country with illegal (Bolivian?) immigrants, and his desire to make crack cocaine legal - or perhaps compulsory, who knows.

          So, let me guess - Barack Obama has a hand in -this-, too. He must. Being a - what's it called? Libtard? Or Dumbocrap? Something like that.

          Seriously - the CNN forums and the 1950s miss you. Please go back.

          1. Steven Roper
            FAIL

            Oolons and David W.

            Thank you for demonstrating my point about men being the most bigoted feminists. How quick you both were to spring to the defence of a noxious movement whose incessant attacks on men have caused the male suicide rate to rise to more than FOUR TIMES that of women. But I guess that's less competition for you two, right?

            1. Oolons
              Coat

              Re: Oolons and David W.

              Hehe White Knighting eh? Methinks someone has rotted their brains reading too many MRA websites. Probably not worth explaining to you but the example of how boys are meant to all want to get it on with older women and all girls are helpless victims is exactly a symptom of the society feminists want to get rid of. It hurts both men and women for us to be pigeon-holed into specific roles, something you seem to think has been accomplished by 30 years of fighting against it!

              Male suicide is not sue to feminism - ffs only a total nut-job would make that association.

              'Bigoted feminist', nice oxymoron, I'm prejudiced because I'm against prejudice! BTW I doubt I'm a very good feminist myself, I'm against all types of prejudice based on gender, race or whatever as it makes no sense. But I do retain the right to be prejudiced against paranoid morons such as yourself :-)

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Oolons and David W.

              "How quick you both were to spring to the defence of a noxious movement whose incessant attacks on men have caused the male suicide rate to rise to more than FOUR TIMES that of women."

              OK, I'm sorry, but you've just crossed the border into paranoid insanity. Show me some peer-reviewed studies that show that the male suicide rate has quadrupled (assuming the two were similar in, say, 1950) *in particular due to feminism*. I quadruple dog dare you. Peer reviewed, mind you. That means by, like, scientists at universities, and stuff.

              I eagerly await it.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Very Laudable Anonymous

    But when are you going to get back on track and stick it to the media cartels that are sticking it to us ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Very Laudable Anonymous

      Right, of course. Paedophiles do not need convincing that they are evil. Anonymous should have put the "for our own enjoyment" first, then stopped. After all, the Internet is all about selling entertainment, and can not promise social good with anything resembling intellectual honesty.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who would use their real name?

    Seems like a lot less trouble to just DoS them to hell, and change their targets as the cockroaches move from site to site. While I love the idea of outing the scum, I'd love it less if the guy who stole my credit card online last year had used it to sign up for this and I got my name incorrectly plastered across the Internet as being the lowest life form on the planet.

    For bonus points, hack into the sites and replace everything with pictures of the I can haz Cheezburger kittens.

  11. Don Jefe

    Peado?

    Why all the concern? Surely you have nothing to hide. Most of the posts I've seen on this thread justify everything... Privacy vs kiddy-filly. I

    sn't it worth it? Think of the children!

  12. Callam McMillan
    FAIL

    What a great way to let Paedophiles off the hook

    Didn't we see this before? Anonymous take unilateral action which then goes an pisses all over ongoing legal investigations? Yes, they may be able to "out" some people that can then escape legal action that the majority of people really want to see!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What a great way to let Paedophiles off the hook

      I'd agree - I think Anonymous are going to provide the perfect excuse for defence lawyers to argue that any evidence gained as a result of Anonymous' involvement is inherently unsafe and cannot be relied upon in a Court of Law. Besides the stink of a blatant witch-hunt on the part of Anonymous (always going for the lowest hanging fruit), it's a funny old world that see this 'group' despised as 'hackers' one moment before being lauded as online heroes the next simply because they switched targets...

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    Again?

    Last time (link to El Reg post) they made such claims all they basically did was DoS and extracting some SQL data through injections which they /believed/ to be related to the kiddie pr0n website.

    The pr0n material itself was left alone (which I still consider a /major/ failure; get those bastards where it really hurts!) and by releasing personal information they could very well have jeopardized official investigations. Put differently: possibly ruined any chance to get those sick abusers take (legal) responsibility for their actions.

    This is no different IMO. I fear for all talk, hardly any result and the results they do get are controversial at best. DoS'ing isn't the same as taking down a website IMO.

    I'd be much more impressed if they'd manage to /destroy/ those filthy - sickening - collections of kiddie pr0n. How hard can it be if they're really as good as they always claim? There is no risk for errors (you see the crap you're targeting after all), you hit them where it /really/ hurts and best of all; you also automatically get your hands on some undeniable solid evidence.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: Again?

      "...filthy - sickening - collections of kiddie pr0n."

      Of course, everyone always *assumes* it's filthy and sickening, but naturally nobody has ever seen it. For all we know, it could be quite tasteful. I mean, who actually provided the initial information? Presumably it's either the police or a 'user'; in either case they have a vested interest in presenting a biased review.

      Is this like a Pauly Shore movie, where nobody's ever seen one but it's easy to take it on faith that it's utterly disgusting?

      And even if so, what justifies the multitude of extremely specific claims of various types of terribleness? After all, there's presumably a difference between something that's 'sick', something that's 'disgusting', and something that's 'revolting' or 'stomach-turning'. I've been disgusted by things which, frankly, failed to turn my stomach, and for another example, I'm well aware that the Syrian people are 'revolting', but I certainly don't find them to be -disgusting-. Suppose it were found to be completely normal for men to rather like 17.999 year old girls as well as 18.000 year old women. Would photos of those who were a few minutes younger suddenly be 'disgusting', 'sickening', and 'revolting', whereas the others would merely be, say, 'vulgar'?

      And if one agrees that the above makes no sense, how is one to come to a judgment on the sickeningness, revoltingnossity, or repubnicassity (not 'republicanassity', mind you) of an unseen collection of images whose only known qualification is illegality?

      After all, anything else would presume a degree of fantasy on the reader's part regarding what, precisely, that collection contained - and I, for one, believe that anyone engaging in such prurient daydreaming is disgusting, revolting, sickening, vile, repugnant, repulsive, horrifying, and filthy.

      Just saying.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Again?

        I've watched a Pauly Shore movie. It wasn't that bad, compared to the likes of Epic Movie and such. It sure as hell wasn't a classic, nor anything I'd watch twice.

        I think the interesting point is "what is a child". I've known some pretty mature 12 year olds, and some 20 year old babies. I don't think that a person suddenly becomes an adult at the turn of their 16th birthday. Legally, yes. Mentally and emotionally, no. But, then, we are relating this to our understanding. Other places have a lower age of consent, 13 for instance. Does this mean the age of being considered an adult is different? Some places, it is higher.

        I think the big problem with child porn is that everybody agrees it is a BAD thing, but nobody really agrees what exactly it is. A very young girl, say six, yeah, you have a point. A fifteen year old?

        How about a sixteen year old? We also have an interesting situation where two "adults" in consenting sex will fall foul of the rules if they video themselves...as adults, except in this case. What?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Again?

          "I think the big problem with child porn is that everybody agrees it is a BAD thing, but nobody really agrees what exactly it is."

          Go back far enough, and girls got married and had a child, (and most likely immediately died) by their mid teens. Hell, if you're only expected to live until you're 30, and your teeth fall out by the time you're 22, 12 is pretty much over the hill.

          Also, if you go medically, the amygdala, the brain center responsible for self-control and understanding of long-term consequences, isn't really 'done' until you hit your mid 20s.

          So by the logic of 'able to consent', maybe photographs of people under 25 should be illegal.

          But hell, we're living in a world where an 8-year-old can be "tried as an adult", whatever the hell that means. As far as I can tell, it means that the 8-year-old is accused of something that *really* pisses people off, instead of just some normal illegal thing like car theft.

          So then the justice system decides that since they really pissed us off, we can treat them like adults because... if they, uh, if they... uhh... well, don't try to answer that.

          I can just see it.

          Judge in murder case: The defendant is 8 years old, but acted as brutally as someone in his 20s, so we tried him as an adult.

          Defendant in statutory rape case: Your honor, I know she was 8, but she was as sexy as a 25-year-old, so I fucked her as an adult.

          Right.

          1. Aaron Em

            Re: Again?

            Well. I wish I'd seen this before I'd tried explaining mens rea to you; I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known it'd just be a waste of my time.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Joke

              Re: Again?

              And I wish you'd seen the 'Joke Alert!' icon.But we've all got wishes, haven't we?

              Regardless, you seem to be arguing a point I'm not contesting. I'm really not sure why - surely there are bigger holes in my claims, given that I wrote most of them at 2am after a day consulting with my fellow hairy-assed Reds. I will have you know, though, that depilatory technology has come on leaps and bounds, and with appropriate maintenance, an ass of significantly reduced hirsuititude is now within reach.

              So to speak.

              1. Aaron Em

                Re: Again?

                Okay, okay -- clean-assed Reds. Happy?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Again?

          It's much worse and much more confused than that.

          Here in the UK a 50 year-old man can engage in any sex act he wants with a properly consenting 16 year-old boy or girl. The Age of Consent in the UK is 16 for boys and girls, gay or straight. 'Consent' is the key word. Once consent is established and can be proven to have been given the police and courts have no further business interfering (assuming the adult in question was not 'in a position of trust' over that child - i.e. teacher, sports coach, scout master, social worker or policeman, etc).

          BUT if that 50 year-old man then takes a photo of his 16 year-old consenting partner in the nude (or even semi-clothed, posing 'provocatively') and posts it online he can be successfully prosecuted by the Old Bill for 'distributing' IIOC (indecent images of children). In the UK, for the purposes of imagery alone, a 16 year-old (who can, remember, legally consent to the act of intercourse, buggery or marriage with a much older man) is considered a 'minor' - a child.

          Funny old world, ain't it?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Angel

            Re: Again? (AC: 12:15)

            Watch out - keep posting stuff like that, and someone will try to explain Mens Rea to you for no apparent reason.

          2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Again?

            Since you can also get married at 16 you could be taking a picture of your legitimate child being born 9months later and be done for child porn!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Again?

              "Since you can also get married at 16 you could be taking a picture of your legitimate child being born 9months later and be done for child porn!"

              Oh, I can see you and raise you on that - there was a case in Pennsylvania (Where else but a place with towns name 'Intercource' and 'Sugar Notch'?) recently in which an underage girl was charged with distributing child pornography because she *took pictures of herself*. You've got to wonder about the guys sitting around the DA's office saying, "Yep, this is a great idea. We've got to protect the victims who have their pictures taken and... uhh... any coffee left?"

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm...

    Vigilantism never ends well.

    Look at the situation in Northern Ireland at the moment with the anti-drugs gangs going around kneecaping and murdering people.

  15. Robin 12
    Meh

    Good Luck

    Watching a news show from Canada a few years ago and it showed a police officer using some P2P monitoring program. In the interview, he clicked on a small rural town and showed the number of people trading files that (I believe by hashs) were child porn. Went to a major city and then showed hundreds if not thousands of people trading files.

    His basic comments were that there are way too many people and not enough resources. Now this is was normal, non-secretive trading. Not through TOR or even back room servers but in the open.

    As Graham Dawson stated, the governments have used the trading of child porn as a tool to get laws passed to spy on their citizens even more. I beleive it was on this site a few years ago that published a paper showing that the Australian government was doing this exact thing to help out the media companies?

    Also, recently the Canadian government tried to equate those that were against their internet spying bill as being supportive of child porn users.

    So, governments in a way don't wnat trading to stop as it works to their benefits for political purposes. it is hard to get people to jump in and support internet spying when you want to help out the big media companies. Anonymous is a target of governments due to the fact that it releases the governments dirty laundry all over the net. This alone is a reason why the government won't support them in this matter. Didn't anonymous also do this in the past and law enforcement complained about how it ruined their efforts and investigations. How long until this happens again.

    Good luck anonymous.

    1. Aaron Em

      Re: Good Luck

      Tell you a secret? A big chunk of the reason they don't crack down hard isn't just because "too many people, not enough resources". It's the same reason they don't bust people for writing underage slashfic, which is every bit as illegal whether you think it should be or not. As with underage slash, a lot of the people involved aren't the kind of scum you'd expect to find passing around kiddie porn on say 4chan, but rather entirely respectable men and women (almost entirely women in the case of slashfic) who are generally pillars of their communities.

      The FBI could trivially bust hundreds or thousands of such people tomorrow, no doubt. (Thought you got away clean, huh? Keep thinking that.) They won't, though, because to do so would start a conversation which no one but NAMBLA really wants to have.

      This is what really amuses me about the ubiquitous progressive terror of "governments spying on their citizens". All governments do that, to the extent they're able, or at least all governments that have any interest in survival -- there's about as much point complaining that the sun comes up every morning; you can hate it all you want and it's not going to change a damn thing. If you've looked at kiddie porn on the Internet, you may safely assume the FBI knows about it. Are they going to come kick your door down at three in the morning over it? Most likely not, for the same reason nobody bothers busting white-collar potheads with the sense to keep quiet about it: such people are far more valuable to society outside of prison than they would be inside it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good Luck

        "writing underage slashfic, which is every bit as illegal..."

        I'm guessing I don't live in the same jurisdiction as you. Do they ban *thinking* about it, too? Better hope they don't come around enforcing that one, too...

        "Your honor (m'lud?) , I know that my piece of fiction said the character was 13, but she was actually 18. I have her card here - I wrote a description of it. It was important to deceive the readers for entertainment purposes, but all characters were indeed 18 or over at the time of writing."

        Jesus. You have to wonder who thinks up these laws.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Aaron Em

          Re: Good Luck

          Did you just skip over everything I wrote about enforcement and why it doesn't happen? A conversation about adult sexual interest in children is a conversation no government wants to start if they can help it, because in the modern United States it's going to be a conversation that goes roughly like this:

          1) "Hey, there sure are an awful lot of adults with a sexual interest in children, aren't there? They can't all be awful, horrible, deviant perverts, can they?"

          2) The Million Molester March on Washington, and a latter-day descendant of Ore as the kiddie-fiddlers' Stonewall.

          3) Feminism: "Well, why can't children give consent? We've granted them due process, after all, and plenty of other rights. Why shouldn't they have the right to choose with whom to have a sexual relationship?"

          4) Conservatives (so-called): "Hey, are you sure this is such a hot idea?"

          4.5) The neologism 'pedophobe' is coined, and reaches #1 on Twitter "Trending Now" within forty-five seconds of its first use in a blog post.

          5) Conservatives (so-called), fifty million shrieks of outrage later: "We're sorry! We'll be good!"

          6) The left in general: "How could anyone possibly be against freedom of sexual choice? What a horrible person you must be, to want to tell people whom they may and may not have sex with! Get your laws out of my bedroom, you pedophobe!"

          7) One of the Old South states (or maybe Arizona) attempts to enforce laws prohibiting sexual contact between adults and minors.

          8) The case is appealed to the Supreme Court, which either refuses to hear it or upholds the original ruling, evoking fifty million more screams of outrage.

          Repeat 7 and 8 a half-dozen or so times, and then go from 7 to:

          9) The case is appealed to the Supreme Court, which rules that laws prohibiting banning sexual contact between adults and minors are unconstitutional.

          10) Twenty years later, nobody can remember why this was ever a problem, except for a whole lot of people who were molested as children, most of whom will at best be half broken all their lives because of it. They have little language at best to describe their situation, because "molestation" now has social valence comparable to "miscegenation"; that is, you won't go to jail for using it, but no one even slightly fashionable will invite you to a party ever again, and if you work in academia or for the federal government you may quite safely expect to lose your job over it, too.

          None of this concerns the social engineers, of course; every revolution has its casualties, after all, and why should the (latest) sexual one be any different? In any case the new generation have moved on, and are now busily working to redefine your pet dog as an "animal slave", and agitating for laws which will force you to either manumit her, i.e. turn her out to starve to death, or turn her over to PETA, who will kill her.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            WTF?

            Re: Good Luck

            What?!

            I assert that laws prohibiting writing about illegal things are a disaster, and you interpret that as my supporting the legalization of child molestation and dog slavery? I mean... I've encountered misinterpretations before, but... uhh...

            The only possible connection I can make is that opposing any given tactic used against molestation, regardless of efficacy or collateral damage, will irrevocably set the world on a path to reckless hedonism and universal misery. I've seen some pretty loony theories today (notably the suspicion of a West Virginia official that Barack Obama is a gay Muslim in cahoots with an actually-not-dead Osama Bin Laden) but this one is definitely up there.

            1. Aaron Em
              WTF?

              WTF indeed!

              You're taking this very personally, for no reason I can see. All I'm doing is trying to explain why the laws you consider such a disaster are nothing that really needs much worrying about, because, however ominous you find them, they are not going to be enforced. Are you sure you're arguing with me? It kind of sounds like you're talking to a wingnut specter between your ears instead.

              -- If you're thinking I am a "wingnut", by the way, think again, sonny. Did you follow links from my last comment? Of course you didn't. Had you done so, you'd have seen that my opinion of conservatism (so-called) follows that of the incomparable Dr. Dabney, who showed it all the respect it was due. I am a royalist, which, in terms of the usual political spectrum in the US, puts me so far off the right-hand edge as to be in metaphorical orbit. Despise me just as you please, but kindly do me the courtesy of despising me for what I am, rather than what you imagine me to be.

          2. Robin 12
            Thumb Up

            Re: Good Luck

            Good comments.

            I think that you have hit a very sensitve note for many that will look at pedophilia and associate it with homosexuallity. If there was proper medical research into pedophilia there may be a biological link. In fact, I think it was the New York Times or CNN that just reported about a study that there may be a link. This is what happened to homosexuality over the decades and if there was medical evidence then there is nothing to use the same argument. If people start saying that pedophilia can be treated then the same reasoning can be used for homosexuality.

            I really doubt that any researcher would go to their funding adviser and ask about doing research into either adults attraction to children or childrens sexuallity. Kinsey did research this and now there are many that are doing everything they can to get that research buried.

            Once upon a time, child porn was a legal business in many countries. Walk down a street in Copenhagen in the late 70's and you could purchase it like any other porn. I think it was Switzerland that has a whole section of these published magazines from the time and these, until recently were available to the general public.

            As my original comment stated, there are thousands of people trading childporn on P2P that the police can hunt down in minutes. It is a very large problem for law enforcement and governments to deal with.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Aaron Em

              Re: Good Luck

              It used to be true that pedophilia could not be justified under the same theory as homosexuality; someone elsewhere in the thread pointed out that homosexuality involves two consenting adults while pedophilia does not, and that does indeed make a fundamental difference.

              When you get people, such as one linked in my earlier post, agitating for children to be extended rights and autonomy they really are not prepared to use, that changes; if children can consent to sex just the same as adults can, then there ceases to be a difference between the argument that homosexuality is harmless, and the argument that pedophilia is likewise. I'm sure that is an extremely sensitive point for a lot of people, but I'm really not the person with whom to argue about it; I didn't do it and can't undo it either, any more than I have a say in whether 2 + 2 works out to 4.

              If you don't think it would come to that, consider: things change, and the rate of change accelerates all the time. Every other "privilege checklist" I've ever seen has been, exactly and precisely, a list of things for progressivism and feminism to fight against. Are you really going to argue that, both now and twenty years from now, the "adult privilege checklist" won't be?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Good Luck

                Oh, one other thing, as the thread runs dry - saying that a bad law isn't worth worrying about because it won't be enforced is a *really* bad idea. Hey, why not make talking illegal! They won't enforce it, right? But if they want someone for something else, hey presto - nab them for talking; they're surely guilty of -that-, so there's no reason to worry about convicting them of the actual crime!

                If you take that logic to its extent, you essentially are letting the police decide on-the-spot what ought to be legal and what shouldn't be. That's a really bad idea.

                1. Aaron Em

                  Re: Good Luck

                  It's what police already do, more or less. They absolutely do use judgment in deciding how to deal with a given situation; it's part of their job.

                  I agree that, by themselves, police should not have the power to decide what is de jure lawful and what is not. That's why we have judges.

                2. Aaron Em

                  Re: Good Luck

                  Judges and legislatures, I should more accurately say. The legislature proposes; the police interpret; the judge disposes.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Excellent

    About time Anon went back to its old school days and stamped on a few pedo heads.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pathetic

    I personally read one of the websites that was DDoS'ed. It has nothing to do with child porn. 'Anonymous' claims that they defaced the site, but actually they did not.

    The 'hackers' are pathetic and just want attention.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not so anonymous or ethical

    Trying to change their disgraceful image is futile.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: Not so anonymous or ethical

      Indeed, regardless of the "cause", one must wonder about people who enjoy hurting others.

  19. Eenymeeny
    FAIL

    It's funny...

    ... how Anonymous styles itself as so anti-authoritarian and yet it's so similar to the governments of the world.

    No, I don't condone paedopihilia.

    BUT.

    I also don't think kiddy porn is the greatest threat to our civilisation right here, right now.

    In fact, just focusing on Internet and the provision of information itself, jingoistic hot-button campaigns like Anonymous is running are more of a hindrance than a benefit.

    Just like the Russian Government, Chinese Goverment, US Government, British Government and so forth and etcetera, Anonymous is pandering to the mistaken belief of the unthinking masses that the world's problems are best addressed by cracking down on pornography.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's funny

    But a quick trip to pastebin revealed a list of the sites with some 'info' from Anonymous and a few quite disgruntled people saying that most of the sites listed were nothing of the sort described.

    Someone with a bit too much imagination and indignation has started this up and all those who associate themselves with 'Anonymous' have seen fit to jump on the Daily Mail bandwagon and follow suit.

    Anon for obvious reasons

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm confused...

    ...surely target number one is 4chan.org, (we all know which board) but it's the spiritual home of Anon.

    Or will that get "accidentally" get missed out

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm confused...

      Me too I heard 4chan, the "home" of Anonymous was awash with that sort of stuff.

      Maybe they should Dox themselves?

      1. Aaron Em

        Re: I'm confused...

        Maybe they're trying to put a supposedly noble face on their latest collection run.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Effective or not

    Leave the experts to this.

    Children like anon should stick to LOL catz and Facebook

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anonymous

    Should it become the standard that all comments on El Reg articles about Anonymous are automatically set as Anonymous?

    1. Aaron Em

      Re: Anonymous

      Good God, no. They should never have given people the Guy Fawkes option in the first place.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is this the same Anonymous that grew out /b, a message board famous for requesting, posting, discussing and rating photos of underage girls? The board where underage boys post webcam images of their dicks?

    I hope the vigilante, short-sighted, arrogant, patronising idiots take themselves down before they ruin some innocents life.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Monkey Dust

    Am I the only one seeing the Guy Fawkes mask as and a cowl as resembling the Paedofinder General? What could possibly go wrong? :)

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So

    It's kids vowing to defend kids then? How very charitable, I bet they wish someone would do that for them when they're being beaten up in the playground for being nerds.

  27. adam payne

    The cause might be noble but they way they will be doing it isn't.

  28. Jim 59

    "...for our own enjoyment we shall... expel...systematically destroy..." etc.

    The language in this statement indicates Anonymous are not people of great judgement, but perhaps chippy social inadequates with a weaner problem and alot of suppressed aggression to get of their chests. I imagine they watch the Matrix alot.

    Seriously, unilateral and aggressive vigilantism is not an attractive proposition. And proving that somebody is trading illegal images requires you to view those images, thereby breaking the law.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I have to say, though, their 'press releases' tend to be written reasonably well, if with a bit of extra melodrama. I credit them at least for that.

  29. f1rest0rm

    Again?

    Does anybody have any time or respect for Aonymous and their self aggrandising bollocks?

    No?

    Thought not ...

  30. mike acker

    Anon Computer Group

    this morning I'm playing some Joan Baez music and have renamed my file for the Anon Computer Group

  31. Dana W
    Meh

    Seriously.

    I wish half of you were as wound up for defending the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians as you are in defending the rights and freedoms of child predators.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seriously.

      Perhaps you should wait for a thread about the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians before you rush to judgment. Why should any poster here launch into a discussion about an unrelated subject? You might as well complain that we're not concerned about the victims of war crimes - after all, we haven't mentioned them at all!

      You also managed to come in with one of my major pet-peeve fallacies - mainly, that defending the rights of the unjustly accused is (somehow) the same thing as excusing the crimes of the guilty. This may be difficult to believe, but not everyone who is accused is actually guilty (this, shockingly enough, is why we have trials to begin with).

      In the US, republicans seem to have a fetish about this; anyone who advocates ensuring the ability of the innocent to defend themselves in court is tarred as being in favor of crime. Families of crime victims seem to take the 'guilty even when proven innocent' viewpoint too; the acquittal of an innocent man is nearly universally regarded (with sanctimonious outrage) as a miscarriage of justice. I'm not really sure why people who think that anyone the police haul in must certainly be the perp, also distrust the system so much that they can't believe that anyone found not guilty is actually innocent...

      I find this particularly odd coming from people who profess such skepticism for the competence of the government, but there you go - apparently you can completely trust the government with a huge army, broad police and prosecutorial powers that assume that those on trial are guilty, and unchecked surveillance of private citizens, but goodness knows you can't let them get involved with healthcare or education or road building - they're sure to screw it up.

      But I digress.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is lame

    Now I realize of course that Anonymous isn't really a single organization, but with few exceptions, campaigns undertaken in its name have always had a stick it to the rich and powerful sort of flavor. But this... It's like if Robin Hood decided one day that his archery skills could be better put to use shooting out the tires of drunk drivers.

    This change in direction seems either a sad attempt to appeal to masses, or more likely, just an excuse to get some lulz while picking on an acceptable target, which frankly is low.

    Of course if they could actually bring something new to the table and and take on actual child abusers who can't be stopped by traditional methods, ROCK ON! But based on their previous efforts, it looks like they're doing exactly the same thing as The Man, albeit by different methods: blocking and/or punishing the distribution of child pornography. And just like government attempts, their previous efforts did significant collateral damage.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021