Indecent pics of children and possession
The Todal
than I do) new Court of Appeal decision at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/560.html
The defendant had indecent pictures of children on his computer but all had
been deleted and if he had wanted to view them he would have had to purchase
additional software, which he had not attempted to purchase. Did he
therefore possess those images for the purpose of committing an offence?
"On behalf of the appellant, Mr Milne submits that a person does not commit
the offence of possession of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs on
the hard disk drive of his computer unless the images are "readily
accessible to the accused for viewing at the time when they are said to be
possessed, or capable of being made so accessible without the need to obtain
additional specialist software". He further submits that a person who has at
some time in the past been in possession of such images, but who has taken
all reasonable steps to destroy them or make them irretrievable by him (such
as by placing them in the recycle bin of his computer and emptying the bin)
is no longer in possession of them."
"Suppose that a person receives unsolicited images of child pornography as
an attachment to an email. He is shocked by what he sees and immediately
deletes the attachment and deletes it from the recycle bin. Suppose further
that he knows that the images are retrievable from the hard disk drive, but
he believes that they can only be retrieved and removed by specialists who
have software and equipment which he does not have. It does not occur to him
to seek to acquire the software or engage a specialist for this purpose. So
far as he is concerned, he has no intention of ever seeking to retrieve the
images and he has done all that is reasonably necessary to make them
irretrievable. We think that it would be surprising if Parliament had
intended that such a person should be guilty of an offence under section
160(1) of the 1988 Act. "
and the decision (perhaps a cop-out)
"It will, therefore, be a matter for the jury to decide whether images on a
hard disk drive are within the control of the defendant, and to do so having
regard to all the circumstances of the case. Such is the speed at which
computer technology is developing that what a jury may consider not to be
within a defendant's control today may be considered by a jury to be within
a defendant's control in the near future. Further, in the course of time
more and more people will become skilled in the use of computers. This too
will be a relevant factor for the jury to take into account. "
Ken
Hows about the case of a supposed computor expert, who has admitted to
downloading and viewing kiddie porn, and has told everyone on usenet
that he has done so?...........Is this a matter for police
investigation I wonder?
k
Derek Potter
wrote:
I'm not sure that it's a cop-out. A blanket ruling would prevent a
jury deciding whether *in any particular case* the defendant was in
control of his files.
It seems to me that the jury *must* be informed of the measures that
the user has taken on his machine and his level of skills, in order to
decide whether he is or has been in possession of any images.
Derek Potter
wrote:
>
>Hows about the case of a supposed computor expert, who has admitted to
>downloading and viewing kiddie porn, and has told everyone on usenet
>that he has done so?...........Is this a matter for police
>investigation I wonder?
People often talk bollocks on Usenet, so I imagine they'd need a bit
more evidence before prosecuting.
GB
> and the decision (perhaps a cop-out)
>
> "It will, therefore, be a matter for the jury to decide whether images on
> a hard disk drive are within the control of the defendant, and to do so
> having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Such is the speed at
> which computer technology is developing that what a jury may consider not
> to be within a defendant's control today may be considered by a jury to be
> within a defendant's control in the near future. Further, in the course of
> time more and more people will become skilled in the use of computers.
> This too will be a relevant factor for the jury to take into account. "
You left some things out of your summary, Todal:
"Our starting point in resolving this conflict is that the first question
for the jury is whether the defendant in a case of this kind has possession
of the image at the relevant time, in the sense of custody or control of the
image at that time. If at the alleged time of possession the image is beyond
his control, then for the reasons given earlier he will not possess it. If,
however, at that time the image is within his control, for example, because
he has the ability to produce it on his screen, to make a hard copy of it,
or to send it to someone else, then he will possess it. It will be a matter
for the jury to decide whether images are beyond the control of the
defendant having regard to all the factors in the case, including his
knowledge and particular circumstances. Thus, images which have been emptied
from the recycle bin may be considered to be within the control of a
defendant who is skilled in the use of computers and in fact owns the
software necessary to retrieve such images; whereas such images may be
considered not to be within the control of a defendant who does not possess
these skills and does not own such software. "
"It follows from what we have said that the judge was right not to accede to
the submission that counts 16 and 17 should be withdrawn from the jury. But
his summing up to the jury was flawed. He directed them that the only issue
for them to decide was whether the defendant knew that the images were
indecent or likely to be indecent. He did not direct them about the factual
state of affairs necessary to constitute possession, and the result is that
a vital issue was wrongly removed from the jury. Nor did he direct them
about the mental element required to constitute possession. It seems to us
that in principle this would require proof that the defendant did not
believe that the image in question was beyond his control. However, as we
have not heard argument on the point, we express no concluded view on it. "
The cop out seems reasonable to me. This guy had 3500 paedophile still
images and 40 movies on his PC. He may have deleted them, but he sure as
hell has some explaining to do.
*We* all know that you can delete these images but still retrieve them with
the right software. This guy was an IT professional. Hell, I've done it
(not with Paedophile images, please note Andre) but with files on a crashed
hard drive - damn IBM Deathstar. PC Inspector is a very good programme and
does the job well, and it's freeware!
So, it's no good deleting the files 5 minutes before the cops arrive, with a
view to getting them back again later. Alternatively, one could imagine
someone 'using' the images then deleting them, then resurrecting them next
time he wants to use them again, and so on. It seems entirely reasonable to
put all this to a jury and let them decide in the context of a particular
case.
In some cases it might be reasonable to have this many images of kids. Maybe
you run a public photo serever like imageshack. Out of millions of photos,
maybe a few thousand kiddie porn ones are understandable, and the jury will
believe you when you say you have deleted them and had no intention of
resurrecting them. OTOH if you have 3500 deleted kiddie images and not much
else, then it's going to be a lot harder to convince the jury. Either way, I
agree with the appeal court judges that the jury are the ones to decide.
Deleting the images should not be an automatic get out of jail card.
sean
<NotSo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In some cases it might be reasonable to have this many images of kids. Maybe
>you run a public photo serever like imageshack. Out of millions of photos,
>maybe a few thousand kiddie porn ones are understandable, and the jury will
>believe you when you say you have deleted them and had no intention of
>resurrecting them. OTOH if you have 3500 deleted kiddie images and not much
>else, then it's going to be a lot harder to convince the jury. Either way, I
>agree with the appeal court judges that the jury are the ones to decide.
>Deleting the images should not be an automatic get out of jail card.
>
>
Agreed. people dumb enough as not to encrypt their entire
system deserve everything they get.
I am sure I have no illegal content on my PC but in the
unlikely event of my PC being confiscated by the police,
they won't be able to anylize it at all. And nor should they
be able to.
Kadaitcha Man
puncher who likes earth-shattering dry hole boring with pandas, and
whose partner is a hustling-hussy with a spreading spunk pit, wrote in
<l9bm12llj14t61i8m...@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:05:54 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>> and the decision (perhaps a cop-out)
>
> No IMO at last some common sense.
>
>> "in the course of time more and more people will become
>> skilled in the use of computers. This too will be
>> a relevant factor for the jury to take into account. "
How the fuck is that commonsense, you legal shit for brains? The defendant
might as well have been accused of larceny and the judge might as well have
instructed the jury, "in the course of time more and more people will become
thieves. This too will be a relevant factor for the jury to take into
account."
Come on, show how the fuck that demonstrates anything approaching sensible,
let alone commonly sensible.
--
DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without
notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if
defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an
authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for
children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly
required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no
preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep
away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes;
avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store
above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source;
smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second
only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were
used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt,
MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to
peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning,
tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse,
self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation,
broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, flying projectiles or
dropping the item are also excluded; other restrictions may apply. If
something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move on. All conditions
apply. Not available in all stores. Facts have been changed to protect the
guilty.
desethyl-propanal-benzoylphenyl-1-maleic-acid
GB
"Kadaitcha Man" <fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com> wrote in
message news:5gqh80$mhp$6...@joyless-buttons.net...
> tur...@hotmail.com, the farting pauper and tightfisted doughnut hole
> puncher who likes earth-shattering dry hole boring with pandas, and
> whose partner is a hustling-hussy with a spreading spunk pit, wrote in
> <l9bm12llj14t61i8m...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:05:54 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> and the decision (perhaps a cop-out)
>>
>> No IMO at last some common sense.
>>
>>> "in the course of time more and more people will become
>>> skilled in the use of computers. This too will be
>>> a relevant factor for the jury to take into account. "
>
>
> How the fuck is that commonsense, you legal shit for brains? The defendant
> might as well have been accused of larceny and the judge might as well
> have
> instructed the jury, "in the course of time more and more people will
> become
> thieves. This too will be a relevant factor for the jury to take into
> account."
>
> Come on, show how the fuck that demonstrates anything approaching
> sensible,
> let alone commonly sensible.
I think it's sensible. Let's make a more concrete analogy.
Suppose you rent a flat and the landlord leaves a locked trunk in it.
Now suppose the police raid and find kiddie porn in it. You will say, quite
reasonably, not your trunk, you did not open it, had no idea what was in
it. Quite likely to be believed, unless the police find a key to the trunk
on your key-ring.
Now suppose that ITV runs an amazingly popular series on lock-picking.
Suddenly an alternative plausible scenario presents itself, namely that you
picked the lock on the trunk and hid your porn in it.
So, in one case a locked trunk (analogy: inaccessible data) is a good
defence. In the other case, it isn't a good defence because the trunk could
easily be unlocked (data could be made accessible).
Kadaitcha Man
post-surgical transsexual who likes inhuman carnal pleasures with
calves, and whose partner is a fallen woman with a big easy bake oven,
wrote in <dvfcnn$iuj$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
> "Kadaitcha Man" <fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com> wrote in
> message news:5gqh80$mhp$6...@joyless-buttons.net...
>> tur...@hotmail.com, the farting pauper and tightfisted doughnut hole
>> puncher who likes earth-shattering dry hole boring with pandas, and
>> whose partner is a hustling-hussy with a spreading spunk pit, wrote
>> in <l9bm12llj14t61i8m...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:05:54 -0000, "The Todal"
>>> <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and the decision (perhaps a cop-out)
>>>
>>> No IMO at last some common sense.
>>>
>>>> "in the course of time more and more people will become
>>>> skilled in the use of computers. This too will be
>>>> a relevant factor for the jury to take into account. "
>>
>>
>> How the fuck is that commonsense, you legal shit for brains? The
>> defendant might as well have been accused of larceny and the judge
>> might as well have
>> instructed the jury, "in the course of time more and more people will
>> become
>> thieves. This too will be a relevant factor for the jury to take into
>> account."
>>
>> Come on, show how the fuck that demonstrates anything approaching
>> sensible,
>> let alone commonly sensible.
>
> I think it's sensible. Let's make a more concrete analogy.
I think you're a fuckwit. Let's see how much of a fuckwit you are...
> Suppose you rent a flat and the landlord leaves a locked trunk in it.
>
> Now suppose the police raid and find kiddie porn in it. You will say,
> quite reasonably, not your trunk, you did not open it, had no idea
> what was in it. Quite likely to be believed, unless the police find a
> key to the trunk on your key-ring.
>
> Now suppose that ITV runs an amazingly popular series on lock-picking.
> Suddenly an alternative plausible scenario presents itself, namely
> that you picked the lock on the trunk and hid your porn in it.
>
> So, in one case a locked trunk (analogy: inaccessible data) is a good
> defence. In the other case, it isn't a good defence because the trunk
> could easily be unlocked (data could be made accessible).
You made a number of fuckwitted assumptions. For starters:
1.
> Now suppose that ITV runs an amazingly popular series on lock-picking.
> Suddenly an alternative plausible scenario presents itself, namely
> that you picked the lock on the trunk and hid your porn in it.
You seem to assume that just because a TV station broadcast such a program,
that anyone watched it, let alone the accused.
So, shitwit, let us assume that it is the case that the accused saw it.
Where is the evidence that the accused saw the program? Where is the
evidence that the accused actually picked the lock? Your analogy is as
fuckwitted as you are; it is not plausible in the absence of evidence.
Indeed your fuckwittted idea, which is not a "plausible scenario", requires
evidence to be plausible. There is no such requirement in the text that was
being replied to, you fuck-knuckled fool.
2.
> So, in one case a locked trunk (analogy: inaccessible data) is a good
> defence. In the other case, it isn't a good defence because the trunk
> could easily be unlocked (data could be made accessible).
That the program was popular does not imply that the act of lock-picking is
easy, shit for fucking brains. Do you often run up the ladder of fuckwitted
inference like a rat up a drainpipe?
Now, you snotfucked fool, show how your utterly fuckwitted analogy relates
to the statement that was made, viz:
>> The defendant might as well have been accused of larceny and the judge
>> might as well have instructed the jury, "in the course of time more
>> and more people will become thieves. This too will be a relevant
>> factor for the jury to take into account."
Call the fire brigade, retard. I just immolated your idiotic straw man.
4-3-indolyl-oxopropyl-dimethylpyrimidin-tert-butyl-4-carboxylic-acid
GB
>
> I just immolated your idiotic straw man.
>
Yes, sure, have it your own way. Well done.
Kadaitcha Man
bandit who likes gross load dropping with dachshunds, and whose partner
is a woman-of-Babylon with a dirty mucker, wrote in
<dvfeqj$7an$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
It's entirely your problem if you're too stupid to recognise plain facts,
retard.
chloro-4-hydroxycyclohexyl-cyanoethoxy-erbium-3-4-ethyl-3-terephthalic-acid
GB
> GB <NotSo...@microsoft.com>, the boring down-and-out and naughty bun
> bandit who likes gross load dropping with dachshunds, and whose partner
> is a woman-of-Babylon with a dirty mucker, wrote in
> <dvfeqj$7an$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com> wrote in
>> message news:tsu1o0$yfe$u...@brutish-playground.co.uk...
>>>
>>> I just immolated your idiotic straw man.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, sure, have it your own way. Well done.
>
> It's entirely your problem if you're too stupid to recognise plain facts,
> retard.
>
Good arguments you are raising. Unanswerable. Very high standard of debate.
Well done, again.
Kadaitcha Man
xenophobic sword swallower who likes debauched undercover delights with
flounders, and whose partner is a motorcycle slut with a crappy hairy
headache, wrote in <dvfin7$gf1$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
And also it's your problem entirely if you can't see a valid argument; you
snipped it, remember?
1-1-hydroxyiminomethyl-oxabicyclo-hydroxyphenylmercury-o4-ethoxyacrylic-acid
Peter
> I cannot see the point of prosecuting people who have picked up
> something accidentally and then deleted it again. It maybe different
> if that item had been saved to a folder but even then it is just a
> thought crime.
It all turns on the facts of the case. It is possible to concoct a system
whereby such files appear to be totally deleted but can easily be bought
back to life. Therefore no judge is going to rule that because they were
deleted, this is a complete defence to possession. The door will be left
open for conviction where the facts indicate that things are more sinister
than an accident.
Anyway, does anyone know of any site that downloads a torrent of kiddie porn
on to an unsuspecting user?
Cynic
wrote:
>"It will, therefore, be a matter for the jury to decide whether images on a
>hard disk drive are within the control of the defendant, and to do so having
>regard to all the circumstances of the case. Such is the speed at which
>computer technology is developing that what a jury may consider not to be
>within a defendant's control today may be considered by a jury to be within
>a defendant's control in the near future. Further, in the course of time
>more and more people will become skilled in the use of computers. This too
>will be a relevant factor for the jury to take into account. "
That is not only a cop-out, it is inaccurate. Nobody who wants to
keep images would delete them (as opposed to moving to the "recycle"
bin) and trust to luck that they may be retrievable at some time in
the future. The data itself will be overwritten at an unknown time
making the images impossible to retrieve no matter *what* software may
become available.
It also begs the question as to what to do if you accidentally
download or receive an illegal image. Quite possible when images on
many legal websites may be declared illegal by a court (such as
children in swimsuits). There are software tools that will "wipe" a
file, but the average user would not have such a tool. Even if s/he
does, and "wipes" the file, the software that downloaded or displayed
the image may well have made temporary copies of the file, which have
been delted but not wiped and which the used does not know ever
existed (nor any way to easily find out).
--
Cynic
Cynic
<NotSo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>So, it's no good deleting the files 5 minutes before the cops arrive, with a
>view to getting them back again later.
Except that he wouldn't have any hope of getting them back after the
cops have seized the computer. Even if he is not charged, the images
would not be returned to him. So an expert would *wipe* the images if
he knows the police are coming.
> Alternatively, one could imagine
>someone 'using' the images then deleting them, then resurrecting them next
>time he wants to use them again, and so on. It seems entirely reasonable to
>put all this to a jury and let them decide in the context of a particular
>case.
Every write operation to the HDD between the time the images are
deleted and the time a resurrection is attempted stands a good chance
of overwriting the data and making the image irretrievable. Just
shutting down or booting a Windoze system involves disk writes. I
therefore think it is extremely unlikely that an IT expert would risk
losing his images in that way (especially as better ways to hide
images exist that would not allow the cops to find them).
--
Cynic
GB
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:78qm12d9kg7fdnhlc...@4ax.com...
I agree with all you are saying. The ineptitude speaks in the guy's favour -
either that or he was in a huge rush. I can't see what's wrong with the
Appeal Court decision, though.
Cynic
wrote:
>> I cannot see the point of prosecuting people who have picked up
>> something accidentally and then deleted it again. It maybe different
>> if that item had been saved to a folder but even then it is just a
>> thought crime.
>It all turns on the facts of the case. It is possible to concoct a system
>whereby such files appear to be totally deleted but can easily be bought
>back to life. Therefore no judge is going to rule that because they were
>deleted, this is a complete defence to possession. The door will be left
>open for conviction where the facts indicate that things are more sinister
>than an accident.
Such a system would have to leave the sectors used by the images as
"in use" or "damaged" and just mark the directory entries as deleted.
It would therefore be detected by the prosecution forensic expert.
>Anyway, does anyone know of any site that downloads a torrent of kiddie porn
>on to an unsuspecting user?
It would usually be possible to prosecute deleted images on the basis
that the defendant "made" the images. That is in any case the more
serious offence. If he was chrged only with "possession", it is
likely that the prosecution could not prove that the defendant was
responsible for putting the images onto the HDD in the first place.
It is not impossible that someone else downloaded the images onto the
PC, and the defendant decided to delete them rather than reporting it
to the authorities. The prosecution may have been able to prove that
the defendant was ther person who deleted them without knowing who
downloaded them, and decided to prosecute for "possession" because the
defendant refused to tell the police who downloaded them.
--
Cynic
marc_CH
> does, and "wipes" the file, the software that downloaded or displayed
> the image may well have made temporary copies of the file, which have
> been delted but not wiped and which the used does not know ever
> existed (nor any way to easily find out).
Good point. But what if the deleted images that were recovered were
themselves temporary copies of images he is regularly viewing day in,
day out that are held (say) in an encrypted disk volume? I'm not saying
that these are the facts of this case, but that would seem to be another
possibility where the inclusion of deleted images in evidence would be
relevant.
marc
marc_CH
> I have been online 6 years and I have never come across kiddy porn. I
> believe the fuss is just that internet watch organisation making a job
> or getting publicity for themselves.
Are you saying that this material doesn't exist?
marc
marc_CH
> So, in one case a locked trunk (analogy: inaccessible data) is a good
> defence. In the other case, it isn't a good defence because the trunk could
> easily be unlocked (data could be made accessible).
The problem here is that deleted files are hardly 'inaccessible data'.
Recovering them is as simple as a bit of Googling followed by running
someone else's program. Picking a physical lock is way different to
that. Besides, the files would show a certain course of previous
conduct; a picked lock would not.
marc
Dave the exTrailer
wrote:
Well he says he hasnt used any of 16 other identities, so why not?
Smolley
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:480c3pF...@individual.net...
Dedicated viewers of illegal images could run a computer without a hardrive
and therefore be free from ever being discovered.
Smolley
Mr X
<marc...@crumhorn.org> writes
Why don't you learn to read and then learn to comprehend?
This is what he said and I'll space the letters out to help you:
"I h a v e n e v e r c o m e a c r o s s k i d d y p o r n"
--
Mr X
greb
In this case the 3500 images were not atually full image files, they
were the thumbnail database from an image viewer program.
I have seen other cases like this where the prosecution claim that
100's of images were 'downloaded' in about 3 seconds.
But what actually happened is someone used an image viewer or selected
the thumbnail view in explorer which creates the thumbs.db file.
You should always remember that when you read about someone having
thousands of images many of them are just database thumbnails.
greb
>
>I have been online 6 years and I have never come across kiddy porn. I
>believe the fuss is just that internet watch organisation making a job
>or getting publicity for themselves.
Pretty much everythign the IWS get is people reporting spam emails
advertising dubious soinding (but probably not illeagl) websites.
without the spammers there would be no IWF now.
Anon
"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:vkH3sBAB...@privacy.net...
> In article <15075....@crumhorn.org>, marc_CH
> <marc...@crumhorn.org> writes
>
>>In article <i0om12dpqmccrd4p8...@4ax.com>
>>tur...@hotmail.com
>>wrote...
>>
>>> I have been online 6 years and I have never come across kiddy porn. I
>>> believe the fuss is just that internet watch organisation making a job
>>> or getting publicity for themselves.
>>
>>Are you saying that this material doesn't exist?
>
> Why don't you learn to read and then learn to comprehend?
Because he's a copper and therefore very very dim.
sean
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:59:08 +1300, Peter <pet...@parazzdise.net.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>tur...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I cannot see the point of prosecuting people who have picked up
>>> something accidentally and then deleted it again. It maybe different
>>> if that item had been saved to a folder but even then it is just a
>>> thought crime.
>>
>>It all turns on the facts of the case. It is possible to concoct a system
>>whereby such files appear to be totally deleted but can easily be bought
>>back to life. Therefore no judge is going to rule that because they were
>>deleted, this is a complete defence to possession. The door will be left
>>open for conviction where the facts indicate that things are more sinister
>>than an accident.
>
>If I delete something I have no idea how to get it back nor do I have
>software or hardware that would do the job either. If ever I received
>a kiddy porn attachment I would immediately report it to the police to
>cover my own arse whereas in a more liberal society I would just
>delete it.
>
>>Anyway, does anyone know of any site that downloads a torrent of kiddie porn
>>on to an unsuspecting user?
>
>I have been online 6 years and I have never come across kiddy porn. I
>believe the fuss is just that internet watch organisation making a job
>or getting publicity for themselves.
>pete
Of course you haven't comne across cp, cause you have not
actively searched for it. On the other hand the IWF jobs is
to search for this stuff so there are in a better position
to inform you of the problem, and there is a problem, a huge
one.
dcj...@aol.com
>making the images impossible to retrieve no matter *what* software may
>become available.
AIUI the hard drives heads NEVER land on exactly the same place twice
so will NEVER truly overwrite old data.
Even a Peter Guttman wipe will not totally remove data. The only sure
way
to totally remove data is to degauss the hard drive.
sean
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:31:44 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Of course you haven't comne across cp, cause you have not
>>actively searched for it. On the other hand the IWF jobs is
>>to search for this stuff so there are in a better position
>>to inform you of the problem, and there is a problem, a huge
>>one.
>
>This is a link from the BMW site of a nutter getting his rocks off
>being chased by cops and eventually crashing into a car carrying a
>woman and her baby. It has excited many immature BMW wannabees. Do you
>think it should be illegal to watch this below?
> http://www.jumpingpixels.com/chasecrash.html
>pete
>My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
>
>In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/
I'm not debating whether cp should be illegal or not. My
point is people still have the same mentality of decades ago
when people denied child abuse occurred because they
couldn't accept it was possible. But it was happening as
much back then as it does today.
But now we have a method of cp being mass marketed through a
medium and is met with the same denial of backward thinkers
who can't possibly believe this can happen. Well it does,
and it's a massive business for those involved in it.
sean
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:31:44 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Of course you haven't comne across cp, cause you have not
>>actively searched for it. On the other hand the IWF jobs is
>>to search for this stuff so there are in a better position
>>to inform you of the problem, and there is a problem, a huge
>>one.
>
>I have seen streaming of exceptionally violent acts. There is plenty
>of that but I cannot see how it can be claimed to be a problem anymore
>than I can understand why cp is a problem. No you really think if
>there was no violence on tap on the net then it wouldn't happen. There
>is also a load of stuff about football. Do you think that should be
>banned too?
>pete
>My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
>
>In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/
It's only a problem for those who think it's a problem. You
are right that pictures of cp are not in themselves the
problem. The problem is the person who commits the crime in
the photos. But catching the person who views it is an
easier bait, and maybe, that is the problem.
sean
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:54:15 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Agreed. people dumb enough as not to encrypt their entire
>>system deserve everything they get.
>>
>>I am sure I have no illegal content on my PC but in the
>>unlikely event of my PC being confiscated by the police,
>>they won't be able to anylize it at all. And nor should they
>>be able to.
>
>Your "entire system" is encrypted?
Of course. It's my Personal Computer. And that means
everything on it is my business and no one elses. All my
hard drives are completly encrypted with Twofish so no
bugger can ever snoop around any of my personal data.
Mr X
<srl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>Of course you haven't comne across cp, cause you have not
>actively searched for it. On the other hand the IWF jobs is
>to search for this stuff so there are in a better position
>to inform you of the problem, and there is a problem, a huge
>one.
Why is there a "huge problem" if the stuff can't be found easily?
--
Mr X
Mr X
<srl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>But now we have a method of cp being mass marketed through a
>medium and is met with the same denial of backward thinkers
>who can't possibly believe this can happen. Well it does,
>and it's a massive business for those involved in it.
That is irrelevant -- it is the underlying child abuse that needs to be
addressed -- everything else is diversionary.
--
Mr X
Guy Fawkes
sean wrote:
> Of course. It's my Personal Computer. And that means
> everything on it is my business and no one elses. All my
> hard drives are completly encrypted with Twofish so no
> bugger can ever snoop around any of my personal data.
so, how many days will you rot in a cell incognito facing various
terrorist charges, sans lawyer or other such basic diversions, before
giving up the pass phrase?
Derek Potter
wrote:
I think he is wondering how you manage to encrypt the OS *and* the
encryption software and still get it to boot.
Scott
>>everything on it is my business and no one elses. All my
>>hard drives are completly encrypted with Twofish so no
>>bugger can ever snoop around any of my personal data.
>
>
I use 5 loaves, it's a miracle anything works.
sean
<dave...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Ever heard of plausible deniability? Hidden encryption?
Human rights? I'm not stupid enough to not cover such
events, even though they are ridiculously unlikely.
But you never can be too careful in the crazy fucked up
place we call Great Britain.
sean
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:23:58 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>You sound to be a bit of a smart arse to me.
In cryptography, Twofish is a symmetric key block cipher
with a block size of 128 bits and key sizes up to 256 bits.
It was one of the five finalists of the AES contest, but was
not selected for standardisation. Twofish is related to the
earlier block cipher Blowfish.
Twofish's distinctive features are the use of pre-computed
key-dependent S-boxes, and a relatively complex key
schedule. Twofish borrows some elements from other designs;
for example, the Pseudo-Hadamard Transform (PHT) from the
SAFER family of ciphers. Twofish uses the same Feistel
structure as DES.
On most software platforms Twofish is slightly slower than
Rijndael (the chosen algorithm for AES) for 128-bit keys,
but somewhat faster for 256-bit keys.
As of 2005, there is no known attack on Twofish more
efficient than brute force key search.
Twofish was designed by Bruce Schneier, John Kelsey, Doug
Whiting, David Wagner, Chris Hall, and Niels Ferguson; the
"extended Twofish team" who met to perform further
cryptanalysis of Twofish and other AES contest entrants
included Stefan Lucks, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Mike Stay.
sean
I use Drivecrpyt. It re-writes the master boot record before
you encrypt the boot drive. On boot up, a DOS program is
executed enabling you to enter a password so it can then
decrypt the OS and load it up. It will also encrypt any
other hard drive on your system so everything is secure.
Guy Fawkes
sean wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2006 07:47:07 -0800, "Guy Fawkes"
> <dave...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >sean wrote:
> >
> >> Of course. It's my Personal Computer. And that means
> >> everything on it is my business and no one elses. All my
> >> hard drives are completly encrypted with Twofish so no
> >> bugger can ever snoop around any of my personal data.
> >
> >so, how many days will you rot in a cell incognito facing various
> >terrorist charges, sans lawyer or other such basic diversions, before
> >giving up the pass phrase?
>
> Ever heard of plausible deniability?
I've heard of it, meanwhile you would remain locked up.
> Hidden encryption?
see above
> Human rights?
see above
> I'm not stupid enough to not cover such
> events, even though they are ridiculously unlikely.
>
> But you never can be too careful in the crazy fucked up
> place we call Great Britain.
you miss the point, if you have something about you that is a closed
book, and if "they" take in interest in you, then the sole purpose of
that closed book is defeated, because you are locked up, bereft of
liberty and access to the outside world.
in short, THEY encrypt YOU, and you cease to exist, until you decide to
hand over the pass phrase.
your encryption has gained you nothing, and cost you much.
worthwhile encryption must remain totally invisible, even under
scrutiny, it must be apparent that there is no encryption of any form
present to all tests than can be made.
Steve Robinson
"scrambled egg" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tgfo12donuggqnr54...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:52:54 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> chunk of text, and forget to attribute it to whoever you nicked it
> from.
>
>>>You sound to be a bit of a smart arse to me.
>
The attack on your hard drive encryption system will not be done by the
local plod and his trusty laptop , it will be performed by highly skilled
programming
engineers with state of the art computer equipment , it will no dought take
several months but they will crack the encryption
sean
<dave...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
You don't understand encryption. If the police arrest me I
would co-operate fully. I would even give them a passphrase
to access my PC. Hell, I'd even give it to you. It's
iloverockandroll (Yes, that really is a valid passphrase. )
Question is, what does that passphrase access? Maybe it
accesses all of my personal data or maybe it accesses just a
load of boring OS system files.
My encryption isn't even identifiable, because it doesn't
have any file headers to give away that encryption is being
used. To an anylist, all it shows is random data found on
every computer.
There absolutely no way to determine that encryption is
being used on my system. What's more, I gave them my
passphrase. I co-operated fully. The passphrase unencrpted
my PC. No encryption was found. No illegal files were found.
There is nothing left to prove. There is no case to answer.
It would all be sorted out extremely quickly.
And another thing, they can't lock you up for using
encryption.
GB
"sean" <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dneo129rbtf5hr4s6...@4ax.com...
>
> As of 2005, there is no known attack on Twofish more
> efficient than brute force key search.
>
Very good. Presumably there's a speed penalty to pay compared to a
non-encrypted PC?
I must say that you do make yourself sound like a very suspicious character
indeed.
GB
"Kadaitcha Man" <fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com> wrote in
message news:jzcvbs$uws$h@hefty-satan's-love-pillows.org...
>>>
>>
>> Good arguments you are raising. Unanswerable. Very high standard of
>> debate. Well done, again.
>
> And also it's your problem entirely if you can't see a valid argument; you
> snipped it, remember?
>
Blind as a bat, here.
By the way, is this the 5 minute argument or the 10 minute one?
sean
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:52:54 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>Ah, I see - you know how to look something up on Google, copy a great
>chunk of text, and forget to attribute it to whoever you nicked it
>from.
>
Kinda smart, huh? I don't need to attribute it to anyone
because there is no one to attribute it to. The source is
Wikipedia, no author, no copyright issues involved. Read
their GNU License. Anyway, why should I waste 5 minutes of
my time when I have Wikipedia at my disposal? Obviously you
would have wasted your time writing it all out and probably
got the details wrong. Better to be accurate.
>>>You sound to be a bit of a smart arse to me.
>
>I rest my case.
You can't rest your case because you no longer have one.
sean
<NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>"sean" <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:dneo129rbtf5hr4s6...@4ax.com...
>>
>> As of 2005, there is no known attack on Twofish more
>> efficient than brute force key search.
>>
>
>Very good. Presumably there's a speed penalty to pay compared to a
>non-encrypted PC?
>
Nope. Modern PC can handle on the fly encryption without any
noticeable effects.
>
>I must say that you do make yourself sound like a very suspicious character
>indeed.
>
Why? Because I use encryption? In the future, everyone will
be using it. It will even become a standard feature of
Windows.
Anyway, I bet that poor sod who got charged with child porn
when all he had were family snaps on his PC wished he had
used encryption. Or the man who accidently downloaded
thumbnail images of child porn in his browsers cache, I bet
he wished he had used encryption. Or what if a hacker hacked
your PC and used it to download child porn, leaving some of
it on your PC? Or what if some scum bag sent you a load of
child porn and reported you to the police? Would you like to
hand over your PC to a bunch of half wits to then see
something 'suspicious' and instantly arrest you on child
porn charges? Ruin you life, loose you job, family, friends,
everyone thinking you like to have sex with little girls?
Call me paranoid, but I like to make my system secure so in
an unlikely event of my PC getting confiscated, that's the
end of the story.
Derek Potter
wrote:
>I use Drivecrpyt. It re-writes the master boot record before
>you encrypt the boot drive. On boot up, a DOS program is
>executed enabling you to enter a password so it can then
>decrypt the OS and load it up. It will also encrypt any
>other hard drive on your system so everything is secure.
Are you quite sure it's a DOS program (shudder)? If *I* were designing
an encryption system or even a bootloader, I'd run it from the MBR
without any OS at all. (*Unlike* XP's multiboot, grub, lilo, etc.)
I'm also wondering whether it can encrypt an existing NTFS system
without mucking it up.
Anyway thanks for the tip, I use PrivateDisk which just creates what
it says. I don't really see the point in encrypting the OS, though
Windows is so messy I suppose it's easier as you say to encrypt
everything.
I see the clueless trolls are onto this now...
Derek Hornby
> Of course you haven't comne across cp, cause you have not
> actively searched for it. On the other hand the IWF jobs is
> to search for this stuff so there are in a better position
> to inform you of the problem, and there is a problem, a huge
> one.
But if someone has *never* seen kiddy porn on internet, how do they
know whether it's there, or not there?
Does one just believe the media reports!
I suggest most people have seen such porn not because they had unhealthy
interest, but simply because they wanted to find out:
"what's all this fuss in the media really about"
Derek
sean
wrote:
>In article <988o12lm2qbkl2kj6...@4ax.com>, sean
><srl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>>But now we have a method of cp being mass marketed through a
>>medium and is met with the same denial of backward thinkers
>>who can't possibly believe this can happen. Well it does,
>>and it's a massive business for those involved in it.
>
>That is irrelevant -- it is the underlying child abuse that needs to be
>addressed
Which of course is impossible to address. Paedophiles have
existed since the dawn of time and will no doubt exist to
the end of time. That's why images are banned in the hope to
prevent abuse. Of course, this has no effect whatsoever.
Just because there are no images, doesn't mean abuse has'nt
happened. In fact, the images are a mere reflection of how
widespread the abuse is.
I wish there was a solution to the problem, but I can't
think of a single one. Maybe there is'nt one
Derek Potter
Somewhat unlikely when they're just doing a crackdown on soft targets
(casual downloaders, not abusers). Twofish is believed to be
unbreakable except by brute force - the difference between it taking a
few minutes and a few months is less than 20 bits in the cipher
length, and twofish is designed to be future-proofed. So the only way
they will break it is if they have actually found a way other than
brute force. That poses a problem. If they use the best tools that
GCHQ can devise, they show their hand. That's why it would not be used
even in cases of more serious crimes unless it was a matter of
national security.
There's a simpler reason it takes months for Plod to find your
pictures. They just take their time sifting though hundreds of hard
disks looking at all the pictures. Yours has to take its turn in the
queue.
Derek Potter
wrote:
>I must say that you do make yourself sound like a very suspicious character
>indeed.
Not to me he doesn't but *I* probably sound like the devil incarnate
to some people >:)
sean
wrote:
>On 18 Mar 2006 09:43:01 -0600, Mr X <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <988o12lm2qbkl2kj6...@4ax.com>, sean
>><srl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>But now we have a method of cp being mass marketed through a
>>>medium and is met with the same denial of backward thinkers
>>>who can't possibly believe this can happen. Well it does,
>>>and it's a massive business for those involved in it.
>>
>>That is irrelevant -- it is the underlying child abuse that needs to be
>>addressed -- everything else is diversionary.
>
>Of course. The way some people talk you would think there was no child
>abuse before the Internet.
>pete
So how many pedophiles in your area did you think existed
before the internet? None? one? The dirty old man in the
raincoat? I, like most didn't think it was that
widespread. The internet has revealed that pedophilia is a
bigger problem than people thought. But yet they still deny
a cp industry can exists even though there are enough
pedophiles to keep the cp producers busy making money using
technology and the internet.
I can't open a paper without reading of another pedophile in
court on child porn charges. Look at all the famous people
who have been busted for pedophilia. Pete Townsend, Michael
Jackson, R. Kelly, Gary Glitter to name just a few, and
these are just the celebs. How many 'normal' people are
pedophiles buying cp?
My point is, people still deny that pedophilia is a problem
which feeds the internet cp industry. Just like people use
to think child abuse was rare, or never really happened.
They just can't see it or comprehend it fully. I can
sean
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:03:55 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I use Drivecrpyt. It re-writes the master boot record before
>>you encrypt the boot drive. On boot up, a DOS program is
>>executed enabling you to enter a password so it can then
>>decrypt the OS and load it up. It will also encrypt any
>>other hard drive on your system so everything is secure.
>
>That's enough to get you locked up. Plod doesn't like people having
>computers they cannot get into. Come to that nor do the spooks.
>pete
What a load of crap. You need to understand advanced
encryption. They can access my PC anytime they want. If any
spooks or police are here, here is my passphrase; ( Not a
joke, this is a real passphrase which will decrypt my OS)
iloverockandroll
Now I may or may not be using hidden encryption and they may
or may not just be accessing a restricted area of my PC
where my personal data is not stored. They cannot detect any
encryption because it's just random data ( there's no header
info to give away the algorithm.) In the eyes of the law I
have cooperated fully and that's the end of the story.
I stay secure and the authorities just have to accept it.
sean
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:03:55 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I use Drivecrpyt. It re-writes the master boot record before
>>you encrypt the boot drive. On boot up, a DOS program is
>>executed enabling you to enter a password so it can then
>>decrypt the OS and load it up. It will also encrypt any
>>other hard drive on your system so everything is secure.
>
>Are you quite sure it's a DOS program (shudder)? If *I* were designing
>an encryption system or even a bootloader, I'd run it from the MBR
>without any OS at all. (*Unlike* XP's multiboot, grub, lilo, etc.)
>
It doesn't boot into DOS. I tried to imply that a program is
executed before anything else.
>I'm also wondering whether it can encrypt an existing NTFS system
>without mucking it up.
>
My boot drive is encrypted using NTFS and I have had no
problem with it in over 2 years.
>Anyway thanks for the tip, I use PrivateDisk which just creates what
>it says. I don't really see the point in encrypting the OS, though
>Windows is so messy I suppose it's easier as you say to encrypt
>everything.
>
I know Windows stores all sorts of personal information and
it seems to store it everywhere. One of the reasons I chose
to encrypt everything. Things like Window Washer are
pointless with the ever increasing ways that Windows seems
to takes your data and decide to put it in some obscure
place even though you thought you had deleted it
sean
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:24:53 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Kinda smart, huh? I don't need to attribute it to anyone
>>because there is no one to attribute it to. The source is
>>Wikipedia, no author, no copyright issues involved. Read
>>their GNU License. Anyway, why should I waste 5 minutes of
>>my time when I have Wikipedia at my disposal? Obviously you
>>would have wasted your time writing it all out and probably
>>got the details wrong. Better to be accurate.
>
>If you are that smart would you learn to snip your posts.
>pete
Why? Have you not heard of the scroll bar?
sean
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:06:56 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>You don't understand encryption. If the police arrest me I
>>would co-operate fully. I would even give them a passphrase
>>to access my PC. Hell, I'd even give it to you. It's
>>iloverockandroll (Yes, that really is a valid passphrase. )
>>
>>Question is, what does that passphrase access? Maybe it
>>accesses all of my personal data or maybe it accesses just a
>>load of boring OS system files.
>>
>>My encryption isn't even identifiable, because it doesn't
>>have any file headers to give away that encryption is being
>>used. To an anylist, all it shows is random data found on
>>every computer.
>>
>>There absolutely no way to determine that encryption is
>>being used on my system.
>
>Of course there is. This post.
>pete
Your right, I'm gonna unistall my encryption straight away.
I don't really need it you know, just testing it out but
it's slowing my system to a crawl.
What a load of crap!
sean
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
LOL! Several months? more like several millenniums. The
highly skilled engineers would be dumb to even attempt to
brute forcing 256 bit key encryption
How much computer power do you think is needed to do a brute
force attack on a key having 2^256 possible calculations?
All the known computer power in the world linked together
would not even be any where remotely close to cracking the
encryption within my lifetime. It would take from now until
the Sun burns all its energy to try every key. Not only
that, the cost would also be _phenomenal_
The truth is, 256 key is secure for at least 100 years,
possibly longer. The algorithm also has no known
weaknesses, so brute force is the only way to crack it. I
sure hope everyone is enjoying this education on encryption
Any other questions? Yes you at the back.
sean
He is an encryptionist!!! People who don't like people using
encryption because they think they are trying to hide
something.
Encryption is about protecting your personal data, not
about hiding anything.
Derek Potter
wrote:
>I sure hope everyone is enjoying this education on encryption
>
>Any other questions? Yes you at the back.
Please Sir, what's that damp patch on your trousers?
Peter
>
> Such a system would have to leave the sectors used by the images as
> "in use" or "damaged" and just mark the directory entries as deleted.
> It would therefore be detected by the prosecution forensic expert.
>
A skilled programmer could 'hook' various API's so they remain safe from
over-writing despite the FAT indicating that the clusters in question are
unallocated. The 'hooks' would be similar in concept to the hooks used in
the SONY copy protection scheme.
greb
wrote:
>
>So how many pedophiles in your area did you think existed
>before the internet? None? one? The dirty old man in the
>raincoat? I, like most didn't think it was that
>widespread. The internet has revealed that pedophilia is a
>bigger problem than people thought. But yet they still deny
>a cp industry can exists even though there are enough
>pedophiles to keep the cp producers busy making money using
>technology and the internet.
>
>I can't open a paper without reading of another pedophile in
>court on child porn charges. Look at all the famous people
>who have been busted for pedophilia. Pete Townsend, Michael
>Jackson, R. Kelly, Gary Glitter to name just a few, and
>these are just the celebs. How many 'normal' people are
>pedophiles buying cp?
>
>My point is, people still deny that pedophilia is a problem
>which feeds the internet cp industry. Just like people use
>to think child abuse was rare, or never really happened.
>They just can't see it or comprehend it fully. I can
>
No one is denying it exists, just denying it exists on the scale that
some (police/charities/IWF) claim it does.
Because all those groups need the public to believe it is a massive
problem for them to keep their jobs.
sean
Sorry sonny, your in the wrong classroom. You want the next
room along where they are taking a class in "Why am I such
an unlikable person?" I hope it proves educational.
.
On seconds thought, just go home and have a wank. You will
still be unlikable but at least it will take your mind of it
for a few seconds.
Alex Heney
wrote:
<snip>
>>
> The source is Wikipedia,
How to blow all credibility in just four words :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Buy Land Now. It's Not Being Made Any More.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
wrote:
<snip>
>Call me paranoid, but I like to make my system secure so in
>an unlikely event of my PC getting confiscated, that's the
>end of the story.
The end of the story concerning your freedom, yes.
Alex Heney
>In article <15075....@crumhorn.org>, marc_CH
><marc...@crumhorn.org> writes
>
>>In article <i0om12dpqmccrd4p8...@4ax.com> tur...@hotmail.com
>>wrote...
>>
>>> I have been online 6 years and I have never come across kiddy porn. I
>>> believe the fuss is just that internet watch organisation making a job
>>> or getting publicity for themselves.
>>
>>Are you saying that this material doesn't exist?
>
>Why don't you learn to read and then learn to comprehend?
>
>This is what he said and I'll space the letters out to help you:
>
>"I h a v e n e v e r c o m e a c r o s s k i d d y p o r n"
Why don't you learn to read ALL of a paragraph?
he then went on to say " I believe the fuss is just that internet
watch organisation making a job or getting publicity for themselves."
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Self-made man: A horrible example of unskilled labor.
GB
"sean" <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o6ko12lbl0uphuvot...@4ax.com...
>>
>>I must say that you do make yourself sound like a very suspicious
>>character
>>indeed.
>>
> be using it. It will even become a standard feature of
> Windows.
>
> Anyway, I bet that poor sod who got charged with child porn
> when all he had were family snaps on his PC wished he had
> used encryption. Or the man who accidently downloaded
> thumbnail images of child porn in his browsers cache, I bet
> he wished he had used encryption. Or what if a hacker hacked
> your PC and used it to download child porn, leaving some of
> it on your PC? Or what if some scum bag sent you a load of
> child porn and reported you to the police? Would you like to
> hand over your PC to a bunch of half wits to then see
> something 'suspicious' and instantly arrest you on child
> porn charges? Ruin you life, loose you job, family, friends,
> everyone thinking you like to have sex with little girls?
>
> Call me paranoid, but I like to make my system secure so in
> an unlikely event of my PC getting confiscated, that's the
> end of the story.
>
Ok, you're paranoid ;-)
Hmmm, actually, I am begining to come round to your point of view, so maybe
it's catching.
The trouble is that, at the moment, hardly anyone does what you do. So, that
does make you a more suspicious character. When encryption catches on, hen
you won't stand out so.
Cynic
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>The attack on your hard drive encryption system will not be done by the
>local plod and his trusty laptop , it will be performed by highly skilled
>programming
>engineers with state of the art computer equipment , it will no dought take
>several months but they will crack the encryption
Hmmmm. Your evidence for that statement?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>Anyway thanks for the tip, I use PrivateDisk which just creates what
>it says. I don't really see the point in encrypting the OS, though
>Windows is so messy I suppose it's easier as you say to encrypt
>everything.
It depends what you are hiding. The Windoze operating system leaves a
heck of a lot of data lying around in system directories and files.
If a "recent files list" in your system registry contains a reference
to "How to make a bomb.doc" it may lead to questions that would not
have arisen had that filename not been discovered.
Programs that you might use on data in an encrypted container may make
temporary copies of that data in non-encrypted directories.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>Of course you haven't comne across cp, cause you have not
>actively searched for it. On the other hand the IWF jobs is
>to search for this stuff so there are in a better position
>to inform you of the problem, and there is a problem, a huge
>one.
How do you know that there is a huge problem?
One "huge problem" IMO is that none of us can find the truth for
ourselves without risking being convicted of a very serious offence.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>I'm not debating whether cp should be illegal or not. My
>point is people still have the same mentality of decades ago
>when people denied child abuse occurred because they
>couldn't accept it was possible. But it was happening as
>much back then as it does today.
>
>But now we have a method of cp being mass marketed through a
>medium and is met with the same denial of backward thinkers
>who can't possibly believe this can happen. Well it does,
>and it's a massive business for those involved in it.
Though probably not as big as the mass-marketing of snuff videos.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>I can't open a paper without reading of another pedophile in
>court on child porn charges.
And if those people had *not* been arrested, what problems do you
think would it have caused?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
But the "hooks" would be detectable. And if a person is knowlegable
enough to do that, they would surely choose a *far* easier method of
hiding files?
--
Cynic
sean
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:08:44 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>My point is, people still deny that pedophilia is a problem
>>which feeds the internet cp industry. Just like people use
>>to think child abuse was rare, or never really happened.
>>They just can't see it or comprehend it fully. I can
>
>You must be blessed then. I cannot see any connection between cp and
>computers.
>pete
Well then you are not a technical expert. Here's how it work
1.Become a citizen of an Eastern Block country (preferably a
Russian with a criminal record or connections with the
mafia)
2. Buy a domain
3. Get in contact with 1 of the 1000's of web host providers
in the world to store the cp content
4.Setup an e-gold account so people can pay you
5 Post your advert on all the pedophile groups.
6. Sit back and watch the money roll in
7. It gets reported to IWF
8 IWF contact the police
9 The police inform the Russian authorities
10. The Russian authorities say they have more serious
problems to deal with than running after some cp site. Or
they are paid off in bribes. CP in Russia is not as bigger
deal as it is here and bribes are part of the system.
If the web host closes down the operation, or the domain is
pulled, no problem, there disposable, just repeat steps 2-5.
Cynic
wrote:
>In article <48om12tl2b1eosos7...@4ax.com> cyni...@yahoo.co.uk wrote...
>
>> does, and "wipes" the file, the software that downloaded or displayed
>> the image may well have made temporary copies of the file, which have
>> been delted but not wiped and which the used does not know ever
>> existed (nor any way to easily find out).
>
>Good point. But what if the deleted images that were recovered were
>themselves temporary copies of images he is regularly viewing day in,
>day out that are held (say) in an encrypted disk volume? I'm not saying
>that these are the facts of this case, but that would seem to be another
>possibility where the inclusion of deleted images in evidence would be
>relevant.
Yes, it would *if* it could be shown that that is where they came
from. Otherwise it would be quite unfounded speculation.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>> The data itself will be overwritten at an unknown time
>>making the images impossible to retrieve no matter *what* software may
>>become available.
>
>AIUI the hard drives heads NEVER land on exactly the same place twice
>so will NEVER truly overwrite old data.
>
>Even a Peter Guttman wipe will not totally remove data. The only sure
>way
>to totally remove data is to degauss the hard drive.
True to some extent, but the police would not atempt to do such
expensive hardware recovery of data, and any evidence gathered by that
means is unlikely to be admissible in criminal court anyway because it
is based to a large extent on probabilities.
--
Cynic
sean
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:24:53 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>> The source is Wikipedia,
>
>How to blow all credibility in just four words :-)
I have sound knowledge of cryptography. The Wikipedia is
correct in what it says about Twofish. I just could'nt be
arsed to write it myself.
sean
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:13:02 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:03:08 +0000, Derek Potter
>><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:06:59 -0000, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I must say that you do make yourself sound like a very suspicious character
>>>>indeed.
>>>
>>>Not to me he doesn't but *I* probably sound like the devil incarnate
>>>to some people >:)
>>
>>He is an encryptionist!!! People who don't like people using
>>encryption because they think they are trying to hide
>>something.
>>
>>Encryption is about protecting your personal data, not
>>about hiding anything.
>
>Why are you obsessed with "hiding" your personal data? Who are you
>hiding it from? Have you got a strong-room in your house in which you
>store your paper records?
>
You didn't read my statement correctly. I am not hiding
anything. I am protecting my data. Would you want someone to
tie you to a chair, insert electrodes into your brain so
that they could gain information from your memory.
Information you don't want to divulge?
This is exactly how I view my data. It is a part of me that
I do not want others to rummage around in. And I think
that's a human right.
>Or have you got something in your past you want to keep secret?
Even if I did, that would be my business and no one else's.
Chris Lawrence
> It depends what you are hiding. The Windoze operating system leaves a
> heck of a lot of data lying around in system directories and files.
Indeed. I use SecureDoc (www.winmagic.com) which does a one-time sector
by sector encryption of the disk. At bootup I insert a USB token and
log into it in order to release the key which decrypts/encrypts data on
the fly. If my laptop gets nicked I feel happy that no-one is trawling
through my private data. Everything is encrypted including the swap
file, hibernation file, etc.
--
Chris
sean
I don't mind people thinking I'm a suspicious character, I
find it quite amusing. Encryption and especially advanced
hidden encryption is a relatively new technology and it will
be more common in future. Security has been a big issue
recently and encrypting the whole system with on the fly
encryption with no performance loss is a logical step in
security by protecting your PC from unwanted snoops.
All I am doing is exercising my right to privacy and I think
that is a human right even if people think it's suspicious.
sean
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:39:31 GMT, sean <srl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Call me paranoid, but I like to make my system secure so in
>>an unlikely event of my PC getting confiscated, that's the
>>end of the story.
>
>The end of the story concerning your freedom, yes.
LOL, lighten up for god's sake.
greb
wrote:
All correct but you missed the vital piece that the IWF etc. hoodwink
the public with. I'm sure your method involves collecting up some
images from file sharing networks or Usenet but the authorities are
claiming that the owners of these sites are raping thousands of little
kiddies to make the content.
At least you aknowledge that the IWF are basically useless and are
nothing but self-serving.