Firstly, so - the writer is geek_slop? - let me get this straight about you?: · You adopted a girl at some point. · You are not law enforcement, and are not a

Firstly, so - the writer is geek_slop? - let me get this straight about you?: · You adopted a girl at some point. · You are not law enforcement, and are not authorised by them in any way. · You disclose, here in this webpage, that you ran a hidden service site, via Tor, explicitly for paedophiles. · You have admitted the above, to the FBI. · You haven't considered what child protective services' post-adoptive services might think of your doing this? Um, I am a trifle concerned that you may have let your emotional investment get in the way of good research, or good sense, thinking this vigilantism through to its logical conclusion. Secondly, I think I'm enough of an expert on the topic of malware to say that the software, designed to cause a privacy breach upon whomever runs it and to disguise that purpose so that they may be tricked into running it voluntarily, is definitely malware: what is technically known as a "Trojan Horse", essentially doing the same job as the FBI's "CIPAV", but worse. Thirdly, I've spoken with law enforcement on this topic before, in the context of discussing anonymous networks like Tor. They are frequently displeased about vigilantes ruining their operations by doing shit like this - it makes the paedophiles more paranoid and careful, actively disrupting ongoing law enforcement investigations. Fourthly, it's not valid research. geek_slop doesn't appear to be familiar with how Tor actually works, in fact, they actually list the wonderful exit nodes they got, apparently unaware that the list of exit nodes is public and by design doesn't tell you anything at all about the visitors to your site. Web crawlers (including "Dark Web" - a wording which is another sign that the author does not have a strong background in anonymous networks - it's correctly "onion site" now, formerly "hidden service") naturally find related sites that link to each other, if you're going by links, which they might have done. If they're neutrally HSdir crawling, most of them are dead (because they're ephemeral services created by a P2P chat app?). We know all that from previous research (Dr Gareth Owen, University of Portsmouth, Tor Hidden Services and Deanonymisation, 31C3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZdeRmlj8Gw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZdeRmlj8Gw ). Finally, this crawler might in fact be the exact same "dumb crawler" I previously identified as doing repeated HSdir directory service lookups (instead of caching) while refreshing paedophile sites, causing disproportionate load on the Tor network's HSdir services and strongly skewing Dr Owen's results on this topic (if it's not yours, it's probably IWF's). So, um, thanks for that.