Live data from Hacker News

Child abuse images hidden in crypto-currency block chain

bbc.com

81–83 of 83 posts

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

#81
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?

Speaking of DNA, hypotheticals, and really crazy possibilities: let's assume some troll encodes an illegal image as DNA and implants it (CRISPR is all hype and rage these days, right?) in some sperm; An embryo is generated from this sperm so the image will always exists in this new person and their descendants for a good number of generations.

Nobody with a sound mind will think anybody apart from the initial CRISPR-troll has any guilt here, but the image will exist and once its presence is revealed, the victims will be knowingly generating more copies by just staying alive and passing the "guilt" along by reproducing. And no government could declare a person's life illegal.

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

#82
post #77
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ti…

> is it justified or lawful to make it a crime for you to do so?

Certainly not. My point above yours although you were not replying to it is asking a question I'd like to also ask you. We clearly have a very clear definition on what intent is and how that is the resounding factor considered in such a case. However, do we simply do nothing because it's the nature of the project itself to be distributed and immutable history through time. We clearly cannot change the overwhelming applications that technology has so my guess is the only way this is dealt with is a few easy low-hanging fruit items can be done to safeguard against it and if anyone is caught operating outside of that with the sole intent of some illegal activity then we deal with it like we would any other case of illegal materials being found in someone's possession. The nice thing here is that everything is traceable given enough time and calculating power and that this person can theoretically be caught, even if at one point they were to have paid cash for coins with someone off the street. Good old detective work can kick in from there.

I guess I am more curious if these instances can be used to shoehorn law enforcement or the federal agencies into areas that hinder the full capability of the various blockchain applications. I remember back to the San Bernardino shooters cell phone needing to be unlocked and how nail-biting it was that Apple might give away that they had a secret backdoor they were willing to give out to all of our horror. Likewise I hope this doesn't go that same route, and it seems really unlikely, that something such as this would slow the progress of these technologies - not building a backdoor but slowly down transactions to check for illegal content essentially.

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

#83

BSV is, apparently, yet another bitcoin fork — it’s a 4 month old Chinese bitcoin fork with 1 released version and a very vague website[1]. BBC does not explain at all how this differs from Bitcoin or the relevance of this coin. [1]: https://bitcoinsv.io

It’s principally backed by Craig Wright (Australian with dubious claim of being Satoshi, original creator of Bitcoin) and Calvin Ayre (investor born in Canada). I wouldn’t categorize it as Chinese (Bitcoin Cash/BCH is probably better categorized that way, being backed by Bitmain)

Thanks for the correction. I was assuming going off the Chinese flag on their site and the vague descriptions.
Post reply on HN