5 ms·

The big problem with all of this is that despite Tor being a decentralised network, 50% of sites on Tor were centralised in the hands of one provider. For Tor,

by iuguy 13y ago

The big problem with all of this is that despite Tor being a decentralised network, 50% of sites on Tor were centralised in the hands of one provider. For Tor, this is like Amazon EC2 permanently going down. It'll route around the problem and they FBI will have probably stopped a total number of 0 child porn consumers and authors in the process, but it'll be heralded as a success by the FBI because they'll have stopped an individual person from facilitating child porn for a short while by destroying his life and taking out a large amount of legitimate free speech in the form of collateral damage.

bkoa 13y ago
Why do HN people feel the need to portray everything the US federal government goes after as a martyr for free speech? Of all the Internet-related crimes, I think stopping pornography depicting minors is one of the least controversial laws to possibly enforce. I know it's more convenient to group everything the FBI, CIA, and NSA do into an "obviously evil" bin, but sometimes you need to appreciate enough nuance to not defend all their online targets on principle. If this isn't one of those times, I don't know what is. Just like they can always make the argument that they are protecting people with xyz questionable tactics, you can always make the claim that something on the Internet is for the purposes of free speech. That doesn't make you right, or even mean that free speech is the primary legal or moral distinguishing factor even if you are.
- Kliment 13y ago
  From what I can tell, the issue is that there has so far been no evidence that this move will do anything to actually prevent the distribution of child pornography. That is, it might be collateral damage without fulfilling its primary objective.
  - dil8 13y ago
    I was thinking the same thing... While I agree that hosting cp is definitely a problem. Going after the service provider does not get to the root of the actual problem. Having said that, the story is quite young so I guess we will have to wait and see what transpires.
  - bkoa 13y ago
    So? It's pretty clear that the owner knowingly allowed it and perhaps even promoted it. It's obvious that this person broke a serious law. Should the FBI just turn a blind eye because shutting down a hosting service won't be 100% effective at eliminating that content forever? No. We don't prosecute any crime conditionally on the basis of how effective that specific prosecution is at eliminating current/future instances of the same crime. Just because prosecutions of some Internet-related crimes are unjust doesn't mean you should employ mental gymnastics to side with every alleged Internet criminal.
    - dil8 13y ago
      I don't dispute that this if convicted is a criminal offence. I guess I was coming from the angle that the children who are the victims should be the priority...
- belorn 13y ago
  > I think stopping pornography depicting minors is one of the least controversial laws to possibly enforce. While it might be uncontroversial, some people would still prefer if the state used effective and evidence-based methods to prevent child abuse, rather than using ineffective, costly, and what ever method that get most media attention. For example, mandating that schools has trained counsels at staff is a prime example in identifying and preventing child abuse. Having a trained expert which kids, parents and teachers can go to is important line of defense. New teachers should also receive basic training when studying at the university, so they can detect psychological, emotional, social, and physical signs of abuse. Current studied methods in creating effective prevention program also includes group-based sexual abuse prevention education for children (http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/04_02_10.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/...). Sadly, the efforts in creating more effective prevention efforts is sadly somewhat low priority (see linked document). It should also be noted, that in that whole document, more strict Internet regulation is not mentioned at all as effective prevention method. Feel free to speculate widely why the researchers did not mention it.
ewillbefull 13y ago
Seems like a lose-lose situation for the FBI. They propose laws to spy on everyone to protect children, and people tell them to do some "old fashioned police work" instead. You know, go after the real bad guys and you don't need draconian laws to make it easier. Then they do some old fashioned police work, and you get cynical responses like yours. They didn't warrantlessly wiretap anyone, or violate anyone's rights, to take down someone who was knowingly breaking a horrific law.
- belorn 13y ago
  They did take down a email provider which was known as "safe" to use by activist and political refugees. By now, they will have to live with the knowledge that anything they wrote is the property of the FBI, and could be leaked at any time. It can be used by the foreign office of the USA as a barging chip, to trade spy information or get prisoners released in exchange for the information. Anyone who used TorMail or freedom hosting as part of an political dissidents campaign will now have to put their life in the FBI/USA hands.
  - FedRegister 13y ago
    If you didn't encrypt your mail in Tor then you have made a big mistake and you get what you deserve.

by iuguy 13y ago

bkoa 13y ago

Why do HN people feel the need to portray everything the US federal government goes after as a martyr for free speech? Of all the Internet-related crimes, I think stopping pornography depicting minors is one of the least controversial laws to possibly enforce. I know it's more convenient to group everything the FBI, CIA, and NSA do into an "obviously evil" bin, but sometimes you need to appreciate enough nuance to not defend all their online targets on principle. If this isn't one of those times, I don't know what is. Just like they can always make the argument that they are protecting people with xyz questionable tactics, you can always make the claim that something on the Internet is for the purposes of free speech. That doesn't make you right, or even mean that free speech is the primary legal or moral distinguishing factor even if you are.

Kliment 13y ago
From what I can tell, the issue is that there has so far been no evidence that this move will do anything to actually prevent the distribution of child pornography. That is, it might be collateral damage without fulfilling its primary objective.
- dil8 13y ago
  I was thinking the same thing... While I agree that hosting cp is definitely a problem. Going after the service provider does not get to the root of the actual problem. Having said that, the story is quite young so I guess we will have to wait and see what transpires.
- bkoa 13y ago
  So? It's pretty clear that the owner knowingly allowed it and perhaps even promoted it. It's obvious that this person broke a serious law. Should the FBI just turn a blind eye because shutting down a hosting service won't be 100% effective at eliminating that content forever? No. We don't prosecute any crime conditionally on the basis of how effective that specific prosecution is at eliminating current/future instances of the same crime. Just because prosecutions of some Internet-related crimes are unjust doesn't mean you should employ mental gymnastics to side with every alleged Internet criminal.
  - dil8 13y ago
    I don't dispute that this if convicted is a criminal offence. I guess I was coming from the angle that the children who are the victims should be the priority...
belorn 13y ago
> I think stopping pornography depicting minors is one of the least controversial laws to possibly enforce. While it might be uncontroversial, some people would still prefer if the state used effective and evidence-based methods to prevent child abuse, rather than using ineffective, costly, and what ever method that get most media attention. For example, mandating that schools has trained counsels at staff is a prime example in identifying and preventing child abuse. Having a trained expert which kids, parents and teachers can go to is important line of defense. New teachers should also receive basic training when studying at the university, so they can detect psychological, emotional, social, and physical signs of abuse. Current studied methods in creating effective prevention program also includes group-based sexual abuse prevention education for children (http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/04_02_10.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/...). Sadly, the efforts in creating more effective prevention efforts is sadly somewhat low priority (see linked document). It should also be noted, that in that whole document, more strict Internet regulation is not mentioned at all as effective prevention method. Feel free to speculate widely why the researchers did not mention it.

ewillbefull 13y ago

Seems like a lose-lose situation for the FBI. They propose laws to spy on everyone to protect children, and people tell them to do some "old fashioned police work" instead. You know, go after the real bad guys and you don't need draconian laws to make it easier. Then they do some old fashioned police work, and you get cynical responses like yours. They didn't warrantlessly wiretap anyone, or violate anyone's rights, to take down someone who was knowingly breaking a horrific law.

belorn 13y ago
They did take down a email provider which was known as "safe" to use by activist and political refugees. By now, they will have to live with the knowledge that anything they wrote is the property of the FBI, and could be leaked at any time. It can be used by the foreign office of the USA as a barging chip, to trade spy information or get prisoners released in exchange for the information. Anyone who used TorMail or freedom hosting as part of an political dissidents campaign will now have to put their life in the FBI/USA hands.
- FedRegister 13y ago
  If you didn't encrypt your mail in Tor then you have made a big mistake and you get what you deserve.