Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

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

#71

Post by jMyles »

21 wrote: post #66
jMyles wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Two things:

1) child porn is materially different from cannabis or blockchains. Prohibition of child porn is supported widely, and banning production of child porn is supported by, as far as I can tell, nearly 100% of the population. Marijuana, on the other hand, is one of the most popular plant medicines in history. I don't know where blockchains fall on this spectrum, but I think it's fair to say that they're much closer to cannabis than child porn.

2) Sadly, I don't think that banning possession of child porn has been particularly effective, has it? I don't know enough about this area to make an assessment with a high degree of confidence, but the fact that a material that is desired by so few people is still distributed so widely suggests to me that the prohibition has failed.

> 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.

I can see why you thought I was saying that. What I was saying is subtly different: if the state becomes determined to censor blockchain content, I think that it is likely that it will not attempt to do so by naked prohibition, but instead will employ a more indirect and surreptitious strategy.

On the deeper point, of whether the state will come to the conclusion that it wants to disrupt blockchain tech - I think that it probably won't. Whether or not blockchains specifically are understood to be politically powerful and counter to centralized, authoritarian power structures is yet to be seen. But the evolution of the internet more generally clearly is. I'm sure that people who have wielded power through state channels can see that as clearly as anyone, and I don't think they'll be so childish as to stand in the way of the internet, which is a significant evolutionary step for the species.

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

#72

Post by trentlott »

duxup wrote: post #36
Tepix wrote: 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?

There was an artist that had these very low resolution pieces of at that up close looked like just some colored blocks.... but at a distance looked suggestive / pornographic (just gonna use that word and not worry about exact definitions here). It was interesting.... so is the image suggestive then, or isn't it?

I think it comes down to whether we make illegal the creation/possession of images which do not require an existing physical subject - eg cartoon porn.

If we allow all cartoon porn because nobody has been victimized, then the above scenario is more simple - does the image originate from or use as its input an image requiring the suffering/exploitation of a non-consenting party?

This would cover fancy image-hiding methods because you would presumably run a script on some extant photo. You also wouldn't be able to paint your own copy of an abuse photo and claim artistry.

You could also say "all images of abuse, real or imagined", but Australia has shown that legislating thought-only is unproductive. It also wouldn't give much extra social benefit over a less restrictive real-only law.

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

#73

Post by duxup »

trentlott wrote: post #72
duxup wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an artist that had these very low resolution pieces of at that up close looked like just some colored blocks.... but at a distance looked suggestive / pornographic (just gonna use that word and not worry about exact definitions here). It was interesting.... so is the image suggestive then, or isn't it?

I think it comes down to whether we make illegal the creation/possession of images which do not require an existing physical subject - eg cartoon porn. If we allow all cartoon porn because nobody has been victimized, then the above scenario is more simple - does the image originate from or use as its input an image requiring the suffering/exploitation of a non-consenting party? This would cover fancy image-hiding met…

Yeah the "any imagery" laws just fall into the absurd so quickly that it seems unworkable.

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

#74

Post by t0astbread »

I have multiple questions.

> In addition, Money Button has banned the user that uploaded the material.

> It has also put in place filtering systems to spot when anyone tries to upload similar content.

> "We have all the information we need to track down criminals and prosecute them."

Doesn't blockchain technology exist to prevent censorship and provide anonymity (in terms of not being able to link transactions to a real life identity)? So why would anyone want to use a client that collects and stores this kind of information about them? Doesn't it (almost) completely erase the point of having a blockchain in the first place?

And how is this case handled now? Money Button said they forwarded the identity of the uploader to the authorities but is anyone gonna do anything about the problematic data?

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

#75

Post by AJ007 »

Hello71 wrote: post #10
tivert wrote: post #4

So, possession of the Bitcoin blockchain is now illegal, according to the laws of most developed countries.

This is "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", which is completely different and appears from a quick Google search to be completely irrelevant.

A fork of a Bitcoin fork (Bitcoin Cash.) And presumably this must lead to another fork prior to when the illegal content was inserted. The alternatives being, it isn't a real blockchain at all, or all of the users become criminals.

From the singular blockchain to forks of forks, the typical misinformed person's vision of all of this must be profoundly distant from the source of truth. At least it makes a good case study in why trademarks are helpful.

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

#76

Post by johnwyles »

bilbo0s wrote: post #62
gst wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This comment is why I came to comment myself. You cannot remove these types of things once they are baked in they are there for good unless there is some very complex math involved in somehow safely removing or flagging this section of the blockchain but then that would defeat the purpose of the whole cryptographically secure nature of it.

Second is you can stomp down on websites that search the blockchain for text, images, videos, illegal documents, etc. However that is not solving the issue directly. However that is hurting a lot of positive potentially interesting uses on account of the very small percentage of abuses. What you essentially have is a GIANT public whiteboard but you've given everyone a permanent marker. If you can control the content that goes in very directly (doing some AI analysis on photos for example) then there will always be a subversive tactic like the XOR one mentioned above, etc.

I suppose the real reason I comment here is that I cannot forsee anyway that these things will not happen and will not continue to happen. Like with ThePirateBay I suppose you have to go after the sites that make it convenient to find this information rather than trying to solve the problem in the blockchain itself _somehow_, which I think we can pretty much agree from a security standpoint and tech-forward approach would render the whole concept of blockchain dubious.

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

#77

Post by Canada »

bilbo0s wrote: post #62
gst wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Actus reus and mens rea are both necessary in order for there to be a crime. In order to commit a crime, you need to do the criminal act and have the intention or knowledge of the criminal act. And you have to do it willfully, which means you can't be forced to do so under duress.

If someone throws a bag full of contraband into your house you're not guilty of possession. It can sit there for an arbitrary period of time without making you guilty of anything as long as you don't know what it is.

If, against your will, someone handcuffs a locked briefcase that you know contains contraband to your wrist, you cannot be guilty of possession of it even though you're in a real sense in possession of it. It can remain there for an unlimited amount of time, and you are not guilty of anything merely because you are unable to remove it.

Immutable data structures pose an interesting problem. Normally we can say that someone knew, or ought of have known something was there. If someone handcuffed a briefcase to you, it's expected that you would freak out and do whatever you could to detach and dispossess it. We haven't had to deal with situations like someone being forcibly tattooed with what they know to be child pornography. If that happened, would the person so marked be guilty of possession if they didn't burn or cut it off?

New technology definitely makes those assumptions highly questionable. Is Google guilty of possession and redistribution of illegal material because it indexed and cached it? It is not. Distributed situations make the issue even more acute. Your computer might need to download, process, and redistribute to others some representation of child pornography, or copyrighted material you have no license to distribute, stolen credit card numbers, classified material, or some other prohibited material. You might even be aware that it is there. But if it is necessary that your software take those actions with that data, that you have no choice, in order to send to confirm receipt of funds, then is it justified or lawful to make it a crime for you to do so?

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

#78

Post by trentlott »

duxup wrote: post #73
trentlott wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to whether we make illegal the creation/possession of images which do not require an existing physical subject - eg cartoon porn. If we allow all cartoon porn because nobody has been victimized, then the above scenario is more simple - does the image originate from or use as its input an image requiring the suffering/exploitation of a non-consenting party? This would cover fancy image-hiding met…

Yeah the "any imagery" laws just fall into the absurd so quickly that it seems unworkable.

Right. And then it has to be clarified that sex is evil but violence is fine, or we have to declare as a society that writing Batman is a crime.

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

#79

Post by nickelcitymario »

21 wrote: post #66
jMyles wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

"Government" is a term that covers an awful lot of groups with differing agendas.

Law makers make laws. But "government" includes spy agencies, law enforcement, central banks, competing political actors, as well as just rogue individuals.

Making cryptocurrency illegal would require having some degree of popular support (which maybe they would have).

One dude with an agenda, though, could poison the blockchain with a single image. And that one dude (or dudette... i shouldn't be so close minded) could very well be a high-ranking member of a government agency of some sort.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's any evidence for this. Just that it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to consider the possibility.

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

#80

Post by dzek69 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #62
gst wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Going deeper into XOR topic:

Virtually any data can be decrypted into illegal content. It's a matter of algorithm.

So if one would like to put you in jail, you could be accused of possesing illegal thing, your disk drive could be taken and then cyber crime guys will discover child abuse images in your perfectly valid zip file of a Word document.

Sounds like out of mind but it's technically valid.

And scary.

Post reply on HN