Live data from Hacker News

Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

bbc.com

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#61
post #21
post #19

This makes me think. Any data in a certain form could be used to generate an image. What if someone added data in a form that only later after a viewer appeared will it reveal this type of content. This would make any system with that data immediately illegal. Looking down the road what it was encoded in dna would it be illegal for someone to read another person's dna? If someone had a tattoo on there face of one of…

Remember that every imaginable image is also somewhere in the digits of pi. You "just" have to find it. Does that make the number pi illegal? I guess not. Does it make programs illegal that can calculate those digits of pi? Doesn't sound reasonable, does it?

> Remember that every imaginable image is also somewhere in the digits of pi.

This isn't known for sure. It depends on the digits of pi being normally distributed, which hasn't been proven.

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#62
post #47
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: What's the smallest piece of data that qualifies? Can a 16x16 image be illegal? What about a 64x64 image? What's the situation like if you have two chunks of data (perhaps at two separate locations on the blockchain) and only if you XOR them you get the illegal image?

> What's the situation like if you have two chunks of data (perhaps at two separate locations on the blockchain) and only if you XOR them you get the illegal image? That's an interesting legal question and there's also already a content publishing system (Publius) that afaik uses a similar approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_(publishing_system) Let's assume person A publishes 1 MiB of random data on their…

I think it may cloud how the Feds pursue a production or a distribution charge. The issue in the US is that simple possession, in and of itself, is illegal. Whether the images are encrypted, xor or base64 encoded, steganographically hidden, whatever, if they are in your possession, and you don't report them, you're guilty of possession. And here's the thing in the US, not only the producers of the content are guilty of the possession, but everyone who has a storage device with that content stored on it is guilty of possession.

You can try to trickety-trick the Feds, but with that particular charge, you're not gonna get out of it. Don't try to outsmart the law on something like this. The best thing to do is to find a way technologically to remove this content from blockchains, and to report whoever had it or created it.

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#64
post #25
post #5

Possession of this type of image is a federal crime in the US.[1] When I took a digital forensics course about five years ago, we were told that if we ever discovered any on a system we were investigating, it needed to be reported to the FBI immediately or we could also be charged. If someone does this in a way that goes unnoticed, and it's discovered after long enough that rolling back is impractical, does that effe…

Related: What's the smallest piece of data that qualifies? Can a 16x16 image be illegal? What about a 64x64 image? What's the situation like if you have two chunks of data (perhaps at two separate locations on the blockchain) and only if you XOR them you get the illegal image?

Apologies in advance for the long-winded answer to what looks like a simple question.

>Can a 16x16 image be illegal?

>What about a 64x64 image?

Depends on the case. If you could show the 64x64 image of child abuse to a stranger and they'd go "that's child abuse" (repeat x12 for a jury) then yes.

However, there's another aspect of possession charges that says the suspect has to be aware they're in possession of an illegal image and able to access it. A 64x64 image is problematic, nobody watches anything in 64p so the only time you would see such a small image is thumbnails. If someone has an illegal image in a thumbs.db file, but they have since deleted the original full-sized image, they likely don't know a thumbnail of the image was being kept on their hard drive. And if they don't know how to extract images from the thumbs.db file they're not in possession.

The interesting loophole in UK law is that you can get charged for "creating" indecent images of children. Popular belief is that it means creating new images but it more often than not refers to creating copies. In the case I mentioned, they could still get arrested for creating a 64x64 copy of the illegal image as a thumbnail. And you can usually prove that they knowingly did something that would trigger the creation of the thumbnail (downloaded the image from a dodgy P2P application 99% of the time).

So to answer this:

>What's the situation like if you have two chunks of data (perhaps at two separate locations on the blockchain) and only if you XOR them you get the illegal image?

It's complicated. Mainly because it's hard to tell who the "you" is in this situation.

But assuming someone is accused of downloading both chunks of data, yes it would be illegal if the person involved knew how to XOR them to get the illegal image. The specific term in UK law is "tools or knowledge". So someone with decades of experience in anything compsci might not have to have any programs capable of XORing the two chunks together if the prosecution can prove they had the knowledge to do so using standard OS tools or write their own script/program.

Really XORing is no different than encryption, you've basically just described a one-time pad. And in any cases involving encryption if you can prove that the person possessing encrypted illegal images had either decrypted them in the past, or has the capability to decrypt them (knows the password, has a keyfile, or can bruteforce) then they're legally in possession. If they had XOR'd the two chunks together already there would likely be a copy somewhere in slack space/unallocated sectors and that would be creation. In the end it would come down to a huge number of factors specific to the case.

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#65
post #19

This makes me think. Any data in a certain form could be used to generate an image. What if someone added data in a form that only later after a viewer appeared will it reveal this type of content. This would make any system with that data immediately illegal. Looking down the road what it was encoded in dna would it be illegal for someone to read another person's dna? If someone had a tattoo on there face of one of…

>Looking down the road what it was encoded in dna would it be illegal for someone to read another person's dna?

In a way that is made to show the image, perhaps yes.

>If someone had a tattoo on there face of one of these images would security cameras need to wipe any data caught?

Probably not.

These questions are usually thought of as clever "gotchas" for the law. They're not.

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#66
post #58
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in that case embedding child porn on it will not help either, would it? I was just highlighting the massive fallacy of parent.

I think that attempting to pretextually take action based on some threat (and let's be honest, "think of the children" is one of the primary vectors for this) is more likely to curry political favor (and provide political cover) than mere censorship. So yes, I think that embedding illicit material is a more likely tactic than prohibition. The latter - because it will be such a colossal failure - will only serve to sh…

To use your own argument, "child porn being illegal didn't work for stopping child porn, did it"?

The second huge fallacy (you are also making it) is that the government wants to ban crypto, but is afraid of saying it and comes up with all kinds of contrived tactics.

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#67
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: What's the smallest piece of data that qualifies? Can a 16x16 image be illegal? What about a 64x64 image? What's the situation like if you have two chunks of data (perhaps at two separate locations on the blockchain) and only if you XOR them you get the illegal image?

Like most things, there isn't a magical number, and the notion that there should be (or that there is, but not codified) is a dream that tech people would have to imagine how the world works. They think they outsmart the law with various technicalities and hypothetical solutions - but in the end it comes down to a judge's interpretation, and no amount of "well actually"ing will get you around that. So you might think…

Related: The excellent What colour are your bits? [0]

[0] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#68
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: What's the smallest piece of data that qualifies? Can a 16x16 image be illegal? What about a 64x64 image? What's the situation like if you have two chunks of data (perhaps at two separate locations on the blockchain) and only if you XOR them you get the illegal image?

Like most things, there isn't a magical number, and the notion that there should be (or that there is, but not codified) is a dream that tech people would have to imagine how the world works. They think they outsmart the law with various technicalities and hypothetical solutions - but in the end it comes down to a judge's interpretation, and no amount of "well actually"ing will get you around that. So you might think…

Well as a non pedophile I have no desire to possess child porn, but I also don't want to be framed or blackmailed over innocent data that becomes illegal under some technicality like "when xor'd with the blackmailer's carefully constructed data this becomes child porn" - because the latter could happen to anyone?

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#69
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest solution is probably just limiting how much data you can add to the ledger. There's no real reason why people need to add more than 10kb of information to a transaction. Cryptocurrencies aren't meant to be image hosting platforms anyway.

Images can be split into 10kb blobs...

Then there's also a million other ways to store or transmit images if you use tiny segments. Encode the image in base64 and you can use Twitter, reddit comments, SMS etc.

The point is to make it unfeasibly hard to store/send the images, not impossible.

Re: Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

#70
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most things, there isn't a magical number, and the notion that there should be (or that there is, but not codified) is a dream that tech people would have to imagine how the world works. They think they outsmart the law with various technicalities and hypothetical solutions - but in the end it comes down to a judge's interpretation, and no amount of "well actually"ing will get you around that. So you might think…

Well as a non pedophile I have no desire to possess child porn, but I also don't want to be framed or blackmailed over innocent data that becomes illegal under some technicality like "when xor'd with the blackmailer's carefully constructed data this becomes child porn" - because the latter could happen to anyone?

That's an issue that's mostly irrelevant to the law, though. Even if you were to receive XOR'd data (or something encrypted), simple possession wouldn't be illegal if you reasonably weren't aware that it could be interpreted that way, or (as someone else pointed out) at least in the UK you didn't have the "knowledge or tools" for such a decryption. Intent obviously matters here, among a host of other factors. That was really my point all along - viewing this as detached from the actual workings of the law and situations is a fun mind game for hackers, but is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to human judges interpreting human laws.
Post reply on HN