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

Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

geekslop.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#71

Post by allendoerfer »

wstrange wrote: post #67
allendoerfer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "just be watching". If you watch a child getting raped, you are committing a crime and better have a very convincing argument why you had to do it. It is in fact that simple. Of course they need help, too. We need both prosecution and prevention.

If watching a crime is a criminal offence, you better lock up the viewers of CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. I do think their ought to be laws against the distribution of this kind of material (there probably are?), and there is no question that producing it is a criminal offence, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Watching a report about a crime is not the same as consuming a product that was produced and shared or sold by the criminal that committed the crime. You are actively supporting the criminal, either through money or through community.

On a different note: There is nothing wrong with regulating how footage of crimes can be shown to protect the victims and even the offenders. I know this argument is hard to make on HN, because free speech, but I think privacy is an important right, too.

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#72

Post by nkurz »

ThomPete wrote: post #60
api wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, and I think the problem is the framing. Call it rape porn, because it is. What would you think of someone trading files like "REAL video of ISIS soldiers gang raping and beheading girl!" Child porn, especially the "hard core" sort alluded to here, is in the same category. I do dislike the OP's guilt by association and vigilantism though. There's a reason we have a proper justice system. Imagine if someone…

There is a world of difference between desiring, watching, touching and actual penetration. We might find the people watching child porn disgusting but they are after all only watching and not necessarily doing anything resembling rape porn.

What do you feel is the important distinction between "touching" and "actual penetration"? I'd think they both would fall under the same category of "child molestation".

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#73

Post by darkmighty »

narrator wrote: post #50
Gankro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their argument doesn't appear to be "Tor is bad because it can be used for bad stuff" but "Tor is bad because it is overwhelmingly used for bad stuff today ". That seems to be a meaningful distinction to me. (I don't really care about the argument/premise itself, I just find your sloppy attempt at a counter-argument to be weak)

Since we're talking about the devil: The biblical standard for acceptable collateral damage is kind of interesting. God in the old testament said he wouldn't smite a city if there are at least 10 righteous people in it. /theologynerd http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Gen%2018.20%E2%80%9333

What was the population of a median city at the time? :P

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#74

Post by dools »

chimeracoder wrote: post #61
forrestthewoods wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war on drugs didn't work out as intended. The war on pedophilia seems much safer. Except of course for teenage sexting. Where the legal system has ruined lives for no reason. Or the weird edge cases it introduces. Such as a theoretical case where someone wearing Go Pro comes across a pedophile actively abusing a child out in the wild. The good samaritan Go Pro wearer is now guilty of both production and possessio…

> The war on drugs didn't work out as intended. The war on pedophilia seems much safer. We don't have a war on pedophilia. We have a war on "child pornography". I put "child pornography" in scare quotes because it's abundantly clear that many of the laws that aim to target child pornography really only use it as a bogeyman to obscure some other agenda. Also, as for "safer", whatever we're doing now is clearly putting…

Yes this has long been my concern. Is pedophilia something that can be rehabilitated? Is it mental illness? A sexual orientation? By providing people with no choices are we creating underground networks? To me there are echoes of drug prohibition here. I go fucking crazy thinking about my kids getting taken. When I watched true detective i was seriously ready to throw up. Particularly chilling was the last line: "we'll never get them all". Since law enforcement can never possibly eradicate a problem, and since we provide no way for someone to get help without being incriminated, aren't we just leaving the opportunity wide open for this to fester under the surface?

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#75

Post by mikekchar »

dvt wrote: post #33

It seems like the author is emotionally invested in this topic: > Given my circumstances, I have seen first-hand, the psychological damage a pedophile’s actions cause. The damage done to these children is permanent and no matter how much counseling and assistance they seek – the experience is forever embedded into their self, shaping (and sometimes limiting) what they become as adults. I can't pretend like I really g…

I couldn't really finish reading the article. I hope the original author will realize that hanging on to his anger will only perpetuate the crimes committed against his daughter. His characterisation of permanent damage done to his daughter makes me wonder if she will ever be able to escape the trauma in his eyes. Will he be able to provide a safe place for her to go where people know about her past but care only about her present? If he thinks of her as having limited potential for the future, how will she escape that past? She needs a father, not an avenger.

It's amazing the damage people can do chasing justice.

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#76

Post by prawn »

dvt wrote: post #33

It seems like the author is emotionally invested in this topic: > Given my circumstances, I have seen first-hand, the psychological damage a pedophile’s actions cause. The damage done to these children is permanent and no matter how much counseling and assistance they seek – the experience is forever embedded into their self, shaping (and sometimes limiting) what they become as adults. I can't pretend like I really g…

For any who don't read the article, the writer explains their emotional investment:

"However, I have adopted a beautiful daughter who was abused in the most unimaginable ways (physically and sexually beginning at age 5). Her abuse was doled out via multiple pedophiles while she shuffled in and out of the child protective services system (which repeatedly failed to protect her)."

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#77

Post by ThomPete »

nkurz wrote: post #72
ThomPete wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a world of difference between desiring, watching, touching and actual penetration. We might find the people watching child porn disgusting but they are after all only watching and not necessarily doing anything resembling rape porn.

What do you feel is the important distinction between "touching" and "actual penetration"? I'd think they both would fall under the same category of "child molestation".

A kid touching a mans penis maybe barely aware that the man is getting aroused vs. a man penetrating a little kid.

They both fall under the same category but they are two very different things.

Also don't forget that a big part of the issue with pedophilia is actually society which because of the tabu and inability to distinguish between the different types of them ends up making the experience even worse and further adding to the problem.

And again I am not in any way defending this behavior, I have kids myself. I just believe that the very thorny subject requires more careful thinking than just calling evil.

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#78

Post by htns »

userbinator wrote: post #39
nightpool wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is clearly by someone who doesn't really understand how Tor works. Revealing exit node IP addresses is completely useless—this is a fundamental tenant of Tor's security. In fact, I believe that at any given time you can easily query the network for a list of all Tor exit nodes. I think the "why I now think Tor is the devil" question is answered in the opening—because it has illegal/immoral stuff on it. I'm…

I don't know what percentage of people using Tor for illegal activity would be incautious enough to run some random program on their computer, but I would be surprised if it was very high. I think it would certainly depend on the type of "illegal activity"; it's quite plausible that those looking for drugs or counterfeiting are going to have much higher suspicion and opsec than porn-driven pedophiles, leading to the…

Another thing is that Tor is global. People might not think twice about their security when they are effectively within the law or at worst may get a fine.

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#79

Post by hackuser »

narrator wrote: post #50
Gankro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their argument doesn't appear to be "Tor is bad because it can be used for bad stuff" but "Tor is bad because it is overwhelmingly used for bad stuff today ". That seems to be a meaningful distinction to me. (I don't really care about the argument/premise itself, I just find your sloppy attempt at a counter-argument to be weak)

Since we're talking about the devil: The biblical standard for acceptable collateral damage is kind of interesting. God in the old testament said he wouldn't smite a city if there are at least 10 righteous people in it. /theologynerd http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Gen%2018.20%E2%80%9333

There's a much different notion of God in that passage (and much of the Old Testament) than most have now. The number 10 is arrived at after Abraham persuades God to lower the standard from 50. There are at least a few stories where mortals persuade God to change his/her mind.

Re: Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

#80

Post by woah »

Wait... Is anyone else seeing this? The guy ran a crawler that visited many such illegal sites, then used stats on the number of visits that his honeypot got to draw conclusions about TOR. What is the standard of evidence that he is using? Seems like some weird methodology.
Post reply on HN