Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kmfkewm

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 249
376
Security / Re: Let's talk about security
« on: August 19, 2013, 09:58 pm »
Quote from: astor on August 18, 2013, 12:30 am
Quote from: Bluto on August 17, 2013, 04:04 pm
Here's another thought.

Why not use tor to connect to a remote shell sponsored by PRQ (clearnet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRQ) )

Then connect to your drug dealing site.  You can subscribe to PRQ anonymously and pay with bitcoin...

I don't think the DEA or the FBI could get access to their logs and the Swedish courts have more important things to worry about.

One of the Tor developers draws the distinction between "privacy by design" and "privacy by policy". Tor gives you privacy by design. It's difficult for someone to know who you are and what you are doing, because of the design of the network. VPN provides offer privacy by policy. They "promise" not to log what you are doing. You have no way to verify their claim, they could change their minds, or they could be compelled by their authorities to start logging.

What you seem to be promoting is privacy by red tape. :)

Julian Assange is not confident in the Swedish government's ability to resist the US government's demands, so I don't know if I would base my safety on that.

If the VPN is in Sweden we already know all traffic to it from outside of Sweden and all traffic that exits it to outside of Sweden is being logged by Swedish signals intelligence.

Quote
I agree... but you have to have the hidden service (if the attack is for "all SR users", they have to have SR) side before owning the entry guard tells you more than "Sparky from Omaha is using Tor."   Otherwise you still don't know who's using SR.

You don't need to have the hidden service if you have all of its HSDIR nodes, you can do timing attack from the targets entry guard to the HSDIR node request for the hidden service. Although then to actually tie users to their accounts on SR would require a bit more handy work, although once you are pretty certain the user is surfing SR fingerprinting attacks could be used to tie them to specific accounts with little hassle, if they make posts or send messages the attacker can view.

Quote
I was always working under the assumption that all HSDir nodes had access to all hidden service descriptors  (telling them who the Introduction Points for the HS were).     I know there was a new feature added in the past year or so to allow the use of a key to only allow clients where knowing the key the ability to find the IP for the service.. but that's a non-starter for "public" hidden sites, since all users have to know the key.

Cookie to access hidden services (and tell if they are up without owning their HSDIR node) is pretty old feature.

Quote
Firstly, you say a hard drive can be COMPLETELY encrypted. Does this literally mean if my computer is seized by law enforcement, NO info at all with be able to be seen be them? Can this be done with TrueCrypt as from what I hear, it can, and not even the FBI can crack it....I would REALLY appreciate a step by step guide on totally encrypting my harddrive and not even have to worry if my computer ended up in the wrong hands....

How much info they can see depends on the implementation and the way you use it but in the majority of cases FDE is not actually FDE. At least the boot sector is usually on the drive without being encrypted, often other things are not encrypted as well. This was news to me (other than boot sector which obviously cannot be encrypted) as I thought FDE meant that the entire drive looked like randomness, but in most cases there are still non encrypted areas, just no areas that you would normally have anything incriminating on or write to at all for that matter. You can put the boot sector on a USB stick and boot from that, but there will still be some non encrypted areas on the drive in most cases.

377
Security / Re: Let's talk about security
« on: August 19, 2013, 09:46 pm »
Quote from: Bluto on August 17, 2013, 04:04 pm
Here's another thought.

Why not use tor to connect to a remote shell sponsored by PRQ (clearnet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRQ) )

Then connect to your drug dealing site.  You can subscribe to PRQ anonymously and pay with bitcoin...

I don't think the DEA or the FBI could get access to their logs and the Swedish courts have more important things to worry about.

Quote from: kmfkewm on August 16, 2013, 04:09 pm

Application Attacks: More likely to be noticed
Traffic Analysis: Much less likely to be noticed



All of your traffic would be coming from a PRQ anonymously registered IP address...

100% of traffic coming into or out of Sweden is logged by their signals intelligence agency.

Quote from: ECC_ROT13 on August 17, 2013, 06:30 am
kmfkewm - I'm having a hard time disagreeing with your concept of the long term threat of traffic analysis.   The attractive part from a government perspective is that it's probably not "wiretapping", it's the equivalent of a pin register.   "We're just looking a metadata, we never actually look at the user's payload.  Just where it's going, when it's going there, how it fragments, and what the sequencing looks like."     Hit the ISP/hosting company serving the bandwidth up to the node with a NSL for Netflow data.   Shove into large database.  Mine, rinse, and repeat.

It is certainly not wiretapping.

Quote from: ECC_ROT13 on August 17, 2013, 03:42 pm
Thought about this some more.  Assuming you're talking about identifying users accessing hidden services, the key is the attackers' ability to successfully deanonymize the hidden service.   They have to be able to monitor the traffic going to the hidden service to correlate it with monitored user guard node traffic.

And if they can deanonymize the hidden service (AND intercept traffic directly to it for correlation) they'd just be choosing not to bring it down in order to perform traffic analysis.  Or they'd perform that analysis while they were waiting to bring it down.   I think I'm finally understanding your theory about the FH attack.

It's a fairly difficult scenario, though.  They'd need to be able to monitor the traffic to the hidden service, but not be able to bring it down.

The payoff from a LE perspective would depend on the target.   For something like SR, I'm not sure they get any value from long-term traffic analysis if they have the option to just bring it down and calling a press conference (or backdoor it)...because looking at websites serving up a variety of possibly illegal goods isn't (easily) an overt criminal act.    For FH, I'm betting the broad-ranging CP definitions and laws might make just accessing some of the hosted sites illegal, regardless of what was/wasn't transferred/downloaded.

Long-term, the solution is better hidden service anonymization (which is difficult).   Because for broad traffic analysis, you can only correlate guard node traffic with the destination activities to get any useful information.   Leaving either correlating with exit nodes or hidden services.

The feds could obviously have monitored all traffic coming from and going to the FH server. If they owned your entry guard during the time that they pwned the server, they could deanonymize you without application layer attacks, and if they didn't do this in addition to application layer attacks they are idiots. I wouldn't be surprised if this is how they found the admin in the first place, I do not think it is by chance that they got him shortly after he made a post to FH server and he wasn't using Windows so. They would correlate activity to vendors, there seems to be a misconception that traffic analysis can not be used to tie users of SR to their accounts on SR but this is not the case.

Quote
Most of the attacks on the Tor network that I've heard about involve surveillance at the edges. You have to run one of your target's entry nodes, and then you can pursue several different attacks.

I think every deanonymizing attack against Tor requires the attacker to own the targets entry guard, or at least be able to observe traffic between the user and an entry guard (ie: monitor the user from their ISP, or the ISP of the entry guard).

Quote
There are more complex attacks, like brute forcing a relay identity key so it is close to the descriptor ID, so you can become a service directory for the hidden service. That's what Donncha did and it allowed him to count the number of descriptor fetches for Silk Road and other hidden services. That's how we know that Silk Road is about 100 times more popular than Atlantis, because it got 100 times as many descriptor fetches in the 24 hours that Donncha counted them. ;)

Yes and this can allow the attacker to deanonymize all users of the hidden service who use an attacker entry guard, without the attacker needing to actually be able to monitor traffic to the hidden service.

Quote
If you run the service directory, you still need to become an entry node for your targets. Tor clients keep entry nodes for a month and semi-randomly select new ones. That's why most of these attacks are statistical in nature. They depend on randomly being selected by the target. They are expensive and time consuming if you have a specific target in mind, like a hidden service, but if your target is "all Silk Road users", it's easy to pwn a small random sample of them, because out of tens of thousands of people, some of them will choose your entry guard very quickly.

And when users are using Tails it makes it take much less time before they use one of your compromised entry guards. This is why I strongly suggest against using Tails unless you also use persistent bridges.

Quote
I don't think LE would be satisfied with simply bringing the site down. For one, DPR almost certainly has backups and could redeploy the site elsewhere within hours. They would want first to identity DPR and other admins, and second to identify top vendors. That seemed to be their MO in the FH attack -- to identify as many people visiting CP sites as possible, but more importantly to identify the admins of those sites and perhaps accounts that posted a lot of content (ie, major CP distributors).

I agree in regards to silk road. In regard to the CP sites to the best of my understanding they didn't even attempt to sort people based on what they were doing, but rather went for getting as many people as possible. Since the exploit was afaik delivered from a 'down for maintenance' page, they couldn't tell the people browsing jailbait from the people uploading self produced child rape photographs.

Quote
Yes, definitely. The Tor developers had said that hidden services are experimental. They are a proof of concept. Nobody is getting paid right now to improve the hidden service protocol and make it robust against attacks. The Tor developers work on things that people pay them to work on. They have sponsors who give them specific deliverables. Mostly they are getting paid to work on things that help people in censored countries. That's why they push for more bridges and they've create the obfsproxy protocol. We need to pool money or find someone with deep pockets to anonymously sponsor hidden service development.  :)

Hidden services suck at anonymity.

378
Security / Re: how can privnote be safe
« on: August 19, 2013, 08:42 pm »
Quote from: Hungry ghost on August 19, 2013, 08:46 am
I'm pretty sure PGP IS impossible to crack. It has been suggested that 1024 bit keys are vulnerable to cracking by an adversary with a lot of computing power, but its not a trivial task.
         Add another bit and you double the number of possibilities, so a 1025 bit key will be twice as hard to crack. So a 2048 bit key will be 2^1024 times as hard to crack, which is a fucking huge number: 2x2x2x2x...(1024 times)......2x2.
So it is not expected that 2048 bit keys will be cracked any time soon, unless you believe that government agencies have computers 2^1024 times more powerful than those available to us.
        Most people here use 4096 bit keys which some might argue is overkill, but why not.

Adding a bit only doubles key space with symmetric algorithms, with RSA it adds only  (x-1 bit primes) - (x - 2 bit primes) where x is the bit strength of the key.

379
Off topic / Re: Political breakdown of SR users? (poll)
« on: August 19, 2013, 08:34 pm »
Quote from: FreedomOutlaw on August 18, 2013, 10:26 pm
What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist/Voluntaryist?


6 months to a year.


BTW, Randroids are anarcho-capitaists but don't realize it.

Objectivists are not anarchists because they think there should be a centralized government. Objectivists are libertarians with an intricate philosophy, anarchists are libertarians in favor of extreme decentralization of power. Liberals on the other hand are communists and socialists, but don't realize it.

380
Off topic / Re: Political breakdown of SR users? (poll)
« on: August 19, 2013, 08:27 pm »
I am an agorist anarchist but voted libertarian since you for some reason decided to merge anarchist with everything and nothing else other than liberal and conservative, thereby making the result for anarchist completely fucking useless.

381
Security / Re: Taking Down The Largest Child Porn Network (cheers) Very interesting. Info On PI
« on: August 19, 2013, 07:01 pm »
Yeah I think was a jailbait forum and pretty tame by most CP standards, I think they tried to be borderline illegal/legal and went a bit too far towards the illegal side. But the new article says they had actual CP as well, so unless it was all none nude shit they knew what they were doing. I guess some of the members took pictures of really young teenagers. Some of them were charged with hands on offenses but who knows if any of them did anything that would have been illegal in Spain. Some were predators for sure though, the leader rape raped two teenage girls. 

Quote
A Baltimore man who helped run an online message board where members shared millions of child pornography images insisted Wednesday that he only took part so he could bust the ring.

But prosecutors in federal court in Indianapolis don't believe Roger L. Loughry had any intentions of turning in members of the Cache website. He was sentenced to federal prison Wednesday along with another ring member. Loughry received a 30-year sentence for his role.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven DeBrota said there was no evidence Loughry made efforts to disrupt the site's operations. The 57-year-old was a co-administrator of the site and one of the international online ring's five top-ranking members.

Defense attorney Joe Cleary said he believed Loughry, a candidate for Baltimore mayor in 1999, was mentally ill. But DeBrota said Loughry "knows what he's doing" and is "in control of his faculties."

Judge William T. Lawrence said a psychiatric evaluation found Loughry competent to stand trial.

Loughry told the judge he intends to file an appeal in his case. He asked for a new lawyer.

He could have faced up to 450 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. DeBrota had asked for Loughry to be sentenced to 50 years, but said the 30-year sentence was adequate.

"He'll be very old when he gets out," DeBrota said.

Another ring member, Charles Trull, 43, of Carterville, Ill., was sentenced to 19 years in prison Wednesday. Trull was a low-level member of the website, but his sentence was enhanced because he took seminude photos of a teenage girl beginning when she was 13 and shared them with other members of the Cache.

DeBrota said that in one of the photos, the online nicknames of several Cache members were written on the girl's body.

Trull told the judge his "shame knows no bounds," but that he hadn't thought of his acts as child pornography.

"I had no clue how wrong it was," he said.

Defense attorney Ross Thomas said Trull and other Cache members thought they understood the limits of the law and tried to push the envelope.

"They were idiots. They were fools," he said.

Judge Lawrence said Trull helped to spread "a social disease."

Both Loughry and Trull were sentenced on charges of conspiracy to advertise and distribute child pornography. Loughry was found guilty after a jury trial in April, and Trull was convicted through a plea agreement.

The judge placed them both on lifetime probation, ordered them to register as sex offenders and restricted their computer access for life.

The convictions stemmed from a two-year international investigation called Operation Nest Egg. The group's alleged ringleader, Delwyn Savigar, is serving a 14-year prison term in England for sexually assaulting or trying to abuse three underage girls.

The Justice Department said 26 people have been charged in the conspiracy, and 20 have been convicted. Authorities are still trying to identify four suspects known only by their screen names.

DeBrota said the case is believed to be the largest child pornography conspiracy ever prosecuted.

The password-protected Cache website had 1,000 members at its peak and numbered more than 500 when it was shut down in 2008. Members were granted access to the hierarchical group's website by invitation only and had to be vetted by senior members. Only the most trusted members controlled the huge stash of child pornography, and members advised one another in forums on how best to cover their tracks.

382
Security / Re: Taking Down The Largest Child Porn Network (cheers) Very interesting. Info On PI
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:55 pm »
I think the cache was mostly a jailbait oriented forum, I kind of remember reading about it in the past because it was the first primarily jailbait trading group to get busted that I am aware of. Or maybe the article I read back in the day just didn't mention that they had a lot of very underage stuff as well. It kind of made it seem like they were mostly into teenagers and that a lot of them thought they were not breaking the law but just dancing around the edge of it. I wonder when they will arrest all of those teenagers who took pictures of themselves.

Operation Joint Hammer is pretty much the genesis of every major CP operation since it. The Cache was very insecure and Dreamboard was only slightly better, nothing really concerning in either case and in both cases they only got some of the people involved. I am much more concerned about the recent rash of busted secure CP hidden services, it really demonstrates quite clearly that Tor is not safe from the police any more. I guess a ten year run isn't so bad. This is the first time I even heard The Cache had actual CP when I first read of it getting busted it sounded like a purely jailbait forum.

I think it is funny how every single CP ring they bust is the absolute biggest ever of all time and generally has the most violent absolute worst CP of all time. You will be hard pressed to find a CP ring that was busted without it being the biggest bust the world has ever seen bar none, with the worst CP the world has even been forbidden from seeing bar none.

383
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:04 pm »
Quote
People like you JohnTheBaptist, who justify the rape and abuse of children because some people in an Eastern Block country have no money and can't pay a bill, have clearly been affected by long term drug abuse or perhaps were born retarded!

Well, all the Eastern European studios are long since gone. He is wrong to say that CP production is a multi million dollar industry, in the past it was worth a small number of millions, but today there is essentially no financial component involved. People vastly over estimate the financial aspect of CP even in the past when it played an infinitely more significant role than it does today. That said, the children pictured in the softcore porn from Eastern Europe did all "consent" to be pictured and had the consent of their parents and largely of the community it was based out of. They apparently figured having food for the family was a higher priority than their daughters not posing semi nude for a production studio. That said I don't even try to justify the production of CP, it is another can of worms and not something I am interested in fighting for. I will say there are shades of gray with even that though, from the teenagers self producing to the softcore studios to the actual rape and abuse filmed by molesters.

I will say that I find it completely arbitrary that the US has ruled the following image of Brooke Shields as art and not child porn: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/6248757/Brooke-Shields-photographer-disappointed-by-police-pornography-claim.html (cropped photo, full thing is legal in US but possibly considered CP in UK and probably CP in other countries so not gonna post link to full picture but you can find it on google really easily if you look)

http://www.artlyst.com/articles/police-censor-richard-prince-photograph-at-tate-modern

Quote
The work in the Pop Life exhibition,also titled Spiritual America was due to go on public show at Tate Modern today. It has now been voluntarily withdrawn after a warning from Scotland Yard that the nude image of heavily made up actor Brooke Shields, aged 10 could break obscenity laws. The pop artist Richard Prince reuses the image taken,by Gary Gross when Brooke was 10. Shields's mother authorised the shoot, and the photographs appeared in a Playboy Press book entitled "Sugar and Spice" (wow,where were they at in the 1970's???) In 1981 Shields launched  legal action aimed at preventing further use of the pictures. It was unsuccessful.

but the softcore images from Eastern Europe of course are all child porn, when many of them are to the best of my knowledge essentially identical. In both cases the parents consent, the child consented at the time (although as we can see in the case of Brooke Shields, she later wished she had not, which makes sense since she was 10 at the time and a 10 year old pressured by her mother can not be seen as consenting in my eyes), and in both cases the family was paid. So it is essentially identical to much of the softcore Eastern European CP, so why is it the courts say people go to prison for that but in the case of Brooke Shields they say she cannot have it classified as CP or restrict people from looking at it? It is arbitrary bullshit and people are going to prison over shit like this in some cases and in other cases they get the blessing of the US government.

   
Quote
  >:(  To suggest I'm not looking at things objectively when you have put forward this farcical claim that people won't have any money if CP is shut down in their country, is beyond comprehension.

Well, I am sure people still have money in Ukraine now that all of the production studios have been shut down. The production studios generally claimed to be making art, much like the Brooke Shields photograph was claimed to be art and ruled as such by the US courts, and not to be making child porn, but later on in their careers I think they started taking even more suggestive photographs. In any case they were not taking photographs of rape and torture and snuff, and they do account for a huge percentage of CP produced so I really want to see the citations for these "almost all" and 70% statistics.

Quote
>:( You would have to be a pedo yourself or completely insane to allow children to suffer such horrific abuse.  >:(  You wouldn't have a clue about anything I have so shove your assumptions up your ass champ.  >:(  Your reasoning is absurd and completely irrational to anybody with a shred of intelligence.  >:( Only a twisted, idiotic, vile fool like yourself could put forward the preposterous notion that people can't eat or pay bills without their children being raped and abused during CP scenes, which are taped or photographed so sick bastards like you JohnTheBaptist, can get off!

I don't think any of the Eastern European CP from the two major studios even had penetration. It was mostly semi nude and nude posing as far as I can tell, not going to actually go looking through it as that would be illegal and would result in me getting ass raped in prison for some reason. I think most of it wasn't much different from that infamous Brooke Shields photograph series. It probably also really did help with the bills for the poor people in the areas it was made in, but hey I agree that child abuse to pay the bills is no justification for child abuse. That is an even more libertarian argument that what I am putting forth (many libertarians are in favor of legalized child prostitution in cirumstances where the child can pick between starving to death and prostitution, I am not going to get into that can of worms right now).

Quote
You, like your best mate, will hopefully one day end up in prison, where you'll get what you deserve once the general population gets wind of why your there.  >:(  They love people like you in there.  :P You can tell them your justifications for looking at such sick, vile acts on poor, innocent children and I'm sure they'll lend you a shoulder to cry on. Next you'll probably claim that you don't even look at CP?? Go to hell!!  >:(

Certainly I do not try to look at anything I would consider to depict children in pornographic situations, largely due to the fact that I don't find myself as being sexually attracted to children.

384
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 19, 2013, 05:42 pm »
Quote from: operatorplease on August 18, 2013, 01:57 am
I think this thread is disrespectful.

Regardless of whether or not CP may or may not be okay so many young lives have been scared by it. Not to mention the exploitation of children we don't see. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong that is our own personal opinion which doesn't need to be brought out into the open out of respect for the many who have hurt by this.

Yes we should censor ourselves even in our discussions. CP should remain illegal and in addition to that we should not even talk about it! You sound like such a totalitarian. Censorship and censorship of those who oppose the censorship. It does matter who is right and who is wrong. Millions of people are being sent to prison and labeled as sex offenders for life for no fucking reason at all. It is disrespectful to them that we should ignore the unjust way they are treated.

Quote
Exactly. +1 for yourself and Praetorian. This argument that looking at CP is harmless is completely nonsensical. Children are irreparably scarred for life, having to suffer the torturous indignation of being forced by adults to participate in the sick fantasies of these bastards for the sexual gratification of low life pedo's.

I fail to see the mechanism of action through which looking at configurations of pixels leads to children being irreparably scarred for life. That sounds a bit absurd doesn't it? I mean , can you really say that with a straight face? "Looking at the pixel configurations that this series of 1's and 0's has caused that monitor to display irreparably scars children for life, forcing them to suffer torturous indignation of being forced to participate in sick fantasies", I mean I cannot say that with a straight face. To think that when a person looks at a picture it causes some magical thing to happen to the person depicted in the picture, sounds so absurd to me, it is like you think Harry Potter is real. Like you think there is a child living in the picture begging to not be molested by the evil person looking at it and touching them through the picture. It makes me think that you must have a mental illness honestly, people without mental illness do not become so disconnected from reality.

Quote
50 years ago is irrelevant. It should be permanently destroyed and anyone caught with it, put in prison.
I'm so sick of these convoluted justifications being posted here about "I only read CP, not participate in it." What ever the case may be, children are hurt and abused to make CP and will never get over it. Viewing it is just WRONG, plain and simple!

And Jews were executed to make the pictures of the holocaust possible, is looking at such pictures then equal to genocide?

385
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 19, 2013, 05:34 pm »
Quote
OP is going to tell you that your 70% statistic is made up and act as if he knows everything there is to know about CP. 

I see a lot of people claiming that "most CP is rape or snuff" and "70% of CP is violent rape", but I see no citations for these figures. When I counter this with my own extreme doubt in regard to these figures, while pointing out that I am not certain, I am called out for talking out of my ass. Well, where are your citations for these statistics? I can give citations that only 1:5 people arrested with CP have violent CP in their collections, and that only means a single image out of possibly thousands. I can give citations for studios that produced millions of softcore images with consent of parents. I can give citations for how something like 25% of all teenagers in the USA have produced CP of themselves, that is a pretty big number right? So where are you citations for 70% of CP being violent or for almost all CP being rape or snuff? I am really interested to read these studies because so far I have not found anything on it. Of course, it doesn't make any difference is 100% of CP is rape or snuff, but I just wonder if you guys are just emotionally fear mongering people or if you actually have any evidence for your claims.

Quote
But then he will retract halfway stating that he does not support CP; just 'happens' to know everything about it.

I don't support people causing the abuse of children. Nothing I have done in my life has ever led to a single child being abused in any way, and this will remain true for my entire life. I have never told someone to molest children, or paid for anyone to molest children, or in general done anything that can be seen as having caused harm to come upon a child. I have never defended the people who molest children and I have never suggested that it is okay for people to molest children. So I don't see how I would be seen as someone who supports child porn, I merely support the right of people to view child porn. I support the right of people to view images of the holocaust as well, does that mean I am a Nazi supporter?

Quote
He'll probably also tell you something about how he studies young teens and their sexuality and how it applies to his own views on sexuality, stating that 'of course' when you're 14 years old you 'just know' the absolute consequences to your actions.

You think at age 18 people have the knowledge of sexuality come down from the heavens and enlighten them? That is a strange idea to hold.

Quote
By example, OP believes that if a 14 year old wants to fuck random filthy, semi-retarded middle-aged men who can't even get laid within their own age bracket; they should be allowed to, because the ultimately 'know' what they are doing.

Sure thing! And it is legal in many parts of the world at that. Who am I to tell a 14 year old who they can fuck or to tell a semi-retarded middle-aged man who they can fuck? As long as they are not fucking children without awareness and free agency I do not care. A 14 year old should have developed free agency by that point in their life. If a man tells a 6 year old to touch him in a sexual way, the 6 year old probably will as they do not understand the implications and they are likely to trust an adult. If a man tells a 14 year old the same and the 14 year old does it I can only imagine that the 14 year old had an active personal desire to do so, as 14 year olds are much more cognitively developed than 6 year olds.

Quote
I don't know that the middle aged men who are fond of 14 year-olds' are 'all' mentally retarded... I'm just going by something the OP stated as fact earlier in this thread!

I said that pedophiles typically have low intelligence. Men fond of 14 year olds are not pedophiles, are not considered to have any mental illness at all, and indeed studies show that they are quite normal in that they are average men. 

Quote
Pretty sure anyone who is a mature adult with an education knows the quality of a 14 year old's 'decision making' skills, and their level of knowledge of the 'real world' ...

A 14 year old who kills a person will be charged as if they are an adult, an 18 year old who has sex with a 14 year old will be charged as if the 14 year old is a child. A 6 year old who kills a person will not be charged, an 18 year old who has sex with a 6 year old will be charged for having sex with a child. I think we all can see that society is hypocritical on certain issues. A 14 year old is an adult when they want them to be, and capable of making the adult choice to illegally take the life of another, but they are not capable of touching another in a sexual way without being manipulated? It is no different than the sick and twisted society of the USA saying that a 20 year old is old enough to be forced into war to die fighting and killing but not old enough to drink alcohol.

386
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 19, 2013, 05:18 pm »
Quote
Another fundamental disagreement here, I think: pornography is not information (imo)

Your opinion is a stupid one then, digital pornography consists of the same 1's and 0's as a political manifesto.

Quote
Well that's what I was suggesting. Although I think if the CP is very violent in nature and a psychological evaluation shows the person is a sexual predator in addition to a pedophile, I would have them labeled a sex offender. But it was hypoble because I wasn't suggesting jail time and registration on SO list right off the bat. I'm always for more nuances sentencing and I think sentencing should focus largely on helping offenders.

A sexual predator is someone who preys on others in a sexual way. I think it is insane to think you should label a person who looks at violent CP the same way you label a person who violently rapes children. People who view violent CP are most likely sadistic pedophiles, they are sick in the head for sure, but why do you want to condemn them just because there is a *chance* they will hurt a child? There is a chance that anybody will do a bad thing should we all go to prison to protect us from each other?

Quote
Now you're rationalizing. A six year old masturbates for the same reason everyone else masturbates: it feels good. They ask other kids to join for the same reason the rest of us do: it feels even better when someone else does. It's a very base instinct and it's no more complex in adults than it is in children. What's there to 'understand'? The exploitation is in the power dynamic due to experience and age, not 'consciousness.' And it doesn't only happen between children and adults, it happens between adolescents and adults as well.

First of all I do not think that a six year old derives the same pleasure from masturbation as an adult does. Also, a six year old simply doesn't understand the sexual nature of masturbation, a fourteen year old certainly does. There is no rationalization here, it is obvious fact. A fourteen year old should know all about sex and sexual behavior and the social implications of it and everything else, at least to a significant degree. A six year old simply does not. By comparing sex with 14 year olds to sex with 6 year olds, you are essentially saying that many developed nations have age of consent laws that may as well be lowered to the age of 6, since there is no difference. Obviously there is a difference and you know it, and the difference is the level of awareness is greatly different between a 6 year old and a 14 year old, the level of awareness between a 14 year old and an 18 year old is minor when it comes to what sex is.

Quote
This is all your opinion, obviously, and your cutoff of puberty because of 'awareness' is as arbitrary as the state's cut off 'because parents said so.' It's a fact that puberty isn't require to enjoy sexual stimulation and 'conscious sexually-oriented capacity' is something you've made up to explain why your wiring, like the rest of us who aren't faulty, makes the idea of an adult and child having sex repulsive.

Sure puberty is not required to enjoy it on some level, but it is required for ejaculation and it is required for strong orgasms. Puberty also correlates with when humans *naturally* seek out sexual ineractions for the sake and goal of sexual interaction. There is a massive difference between a 6 year old innocently playing with himself and a 14 year old seeking out sexual interactions with others. You really make it sound like you are wired in a faulty way if you think there is not a difference between the "sexuality" of a 6 year old and the sexuality of a 14 year old. Additionally, as I already pointed out, average males have sexual response to 12-16 the same as they do to 17+, so what about my wiring is faulty? The only difference I see between myself and many others is that they lie to themselves and they lie to others, I do not lie to myself and I do not lie to others, I have science and testing backing up my own normality they have only a group lie pretending that they are a normal that is not normal and never has been normal.

387
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 19, 2013, 05:07 pm »
Quote from: Croskin on August 17, 2013, 02:48 pm
Are we really arguing about CP... How about OP goes and visits all of the CP sites on Tor and then makes a statement that CP isn't harmful.

Well, legally I am forbidden from going to CP sites on Tor to come to any conclusion about CP. I suppose I could trust the same people who have lied to me about drugs, but I give them no credit. It is illegal to have an opinion on CP based on the evidence, that is part of the issue. And to the best of my understanding, there are many "CP" sites that only have self taken photographs of teenagers doing such disgusting vile things as flashing their mirrors. Of course I understand when it is discussed in the media all CP consists of the violent rape and torture of innocent prepuberty children, but from what I can legally determine that is a minor part of CP, and the spectrum pretty much ranges from the incredibly popular underage teenager sites through to prepuberty children posing partially nude or at nudist beaches, all the way to young children being molested and at the most extreme and rarest end young children being raped and tortured. And my opinion is that viewing any picture is no worse than viewing any other picture, so I do not hold those viewing rape to any different standard than I hold those viewing naked teenagers. Certainly I think the pedophiles are actually mentally ill, and the sadists of course are mentally ill as well, but I do not judge people based on their mental illnesses I judge them based on their actions. Viewing images is not an action that leads to harm upon others.

Quote
Yes, I understand that he is arguing about having images/videos.  The fact is that CP will never be legal and will be criminalized in even more parts of the world because of the innocence of children.

In the past people said black people will never be free because of the superiority of white people. You cannot see into the future, but I see the trend is that over time people come to understand things they used to fear and freedom tends to increase rather than decrease. Viewing CP is very likely to be legalized in the majority of the world eventually, too many things are in favor of this happening and only irrationality is against it. CP is already legal to view in half of the world, the main pressure against this is the USA but the power of the USA to influence other countries will continue to fall.

Quote
Even if you are just looking at "mild" photos, that isn't what constitutes as all of CP.  over 70% of CP is a child being raped, held against their will (or better knowing), being manipulated into doing something, or having a photo taken of them without knowing what it actually is.

Citation needed

Quote
Children don't have better judgement from experience in life, CP exploits that by telling children that "everything is fine" or that"everyone does this and it is okay/normal" because they don't know any better.  Any adult today that is of a sane mind, has just morales, and isn't a pedo would completely disagree with taking advantage of what we are supposed to be protecting and teaching.

People keep trying to change the subject to production for some reason, I don't know why since I already said production is bad and of course must remain illegal, as it is in essentially the entire world (versus possession which is illegal only in half of the world, with many places where it is illegal only having small penalties associated with it. The USA is bar none the most rabid country when it comes to CP, with people facing regularly multi decade sentences and life time registration as sex offenders, where as in the majority of the world where CP is illegal to view people face only fines or warnings or a few years in jail).

Quote
CP really fucks with childrens minds... Give me a case of CP where the child has grown up to be normal and to not disagree with what was done to them?  Take this thread for example: This actually projects the general opinion of most of the world on CP.  Everyone who puts any thought into it knows that it is wrong.

And you continue to argue against production although that has never been what I have said should be legal. However, much CP is actually self produced by teenagers.

Quote
When you say that CP will be illegal, there is a drop in the ocean chance that "soft" porn will even be considered in legalization.  Maybe 1 pedo official that is just jumping for juvies over the matter. As for the other 70% that a pedo rarely doesn't partake in, there is no chance whatsoever.

In the future all information will be free, people will not continue to support censorship.

388
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 19, 2013, 04:55 pm »
Quote from: Hungry ghost on August 17, 2013, 06:16 am
^no, I am rephrasing your argument to you in different terms, you are right it does sound ridiculous doesn't it? That's my point. You can't say its OK to view  child pornography that already exists, while claiming to believe its immoral to produce new child pornography. CP DOESN'T suddenly become OK once it passes into the past.

I don't see why I cannot say it is okay to view CP that already exists but immoral to produce new child pornography. Viewing CP inherently means that the act viewed took place in the past, producing CP inherently means that the act takes place in the present. There is no such thing as CP passing into the past, for CP to exist the act depicted inherently must have taken place in the past, for CP to be produced the act inherently must take place in the present.

Quote
As for the serial killer analogy, once again you are exaggerating in your analogy. We are not saying ban all newspapers. If a serial killer was mailing pictures or lurid descriptions of his crimes to the newspapers, for the thrill of seeing them published, if we suspected his crimes were at least partially motivated by the desire to see them in print, then yes I would suggest we ban the newspaper from printing them. Only in this specific case, not banning newspapers altogether.

Lots of serial killers kill at least in part for the thrill of seeing the details of their killings published in news papers. Usually the police encourage them to keep communication with news papers etc so that they can get caught. The same way that police secretly hope child molesters will take pictures so that they can track them down, but of course they will never come out and say this. The same way the police hope that pedophiles will look at child porn so that they can track them down, although of course they will not say this their actions speak louder than their words, the FBI recently ran a compromised CP hidden service forum for several weeks in an attempt to track down its members. If they really thought every time CP is viewed the child is molested again or other nonsense, they would have taken the site down immediately. But LE distribute CP in order to infiltrate pedophile groups and to catch people looking at CP, do you think the police are going to molest children in order to do the same? Even they can see that there is a massive moral difference, and even if they say differently their actions speak much louder than their words. Let me know when you hear a story about LE molesting kids to catch pedophiles, I can link to all kinds of examples of LE distributing CP to catch pedophiles.

Quote
The PIR idea just seems bizarre to me, the product of a very literal mind. Imagine we use it to distribute poetry. The poets labour and produce their verses, which they upload to the server. The poetry lovers download from the server. The poets have no idea whether their work is being read or not. But no one could deny that the poets are uploading their poetry out of a desire to be read, and that in downloading it the poetry lovers are creating demand for the stuff.

How does the demand of readers have any effect on the producers? The PIR scheme completely hides the demand. After the poems are uploaded nobody can tell if they are downloaded or not. If you think the PIR idea does not work for you, then it is clear that you don't mean actual demand but rather demand in a conceptual way. You don't mean that somebody taking an identifiable action in an attempt to get CP, you mean the desire of people to take such action. This makes you a total thought police advocate, because you don't so much have a problem with people downloading CP creating real demand but rather have a problem that people desire to see CP at all, which means you want to police the desires of others which is just absolutely sickening to me.

Here, let me say it another way. All digital CP consists of 1's and 0's. If you run a random number generator infinitely long, there is a high probability that it will produce a given CP image (including CP images that could never be produced, due to the fact that the people depicted never existed, and including CP images that are equal to what would exist if an actual child was molested on camera, but which will never exist because said child was never molested). It seems to me that you have a problem with pedophiles running random number generators until they output CP of an actual child. Let's say there is a real CP image out there, and Joe CP Viewer runs an RNG and just by chance it happens to produce the series of 1's and 0's that the actual CP image consists of. There is no way to construe this as demand for CP which can lead to production due to the fact that Joe CP Viewer does not even request the CP from anywhere, he derives it from pure random chance. But your issue is not really with his demand in an economic context (which is strange because that is what people who argue your position always seem to imply) but rather with demand in the sense that someone desires something you do not want them to desire. PIR is hardly different from this example, when the CP is uploaded to the system nobody can then tell when it is downloaded so there is no way to say that by downloading CP from this system an economic demand effect leading to supply comes into play, but you have issue with this not because you are worried about supply and demand but rather because you are concerned with the desire of others regardless of if their actions lead to the harm of others or not, and that makes you the fucking thought police. 

Quote

I think some of your arguments can only be understood from an extreme libertarian position. The libertarian asks "what will be the direct consequences of my actions?" He never asks "and what will be the consequences for my society if thousands of people commit these actions?". To a libertarian that is not part of his responsibility.

The consequence to society is over all positive, already linked to studies showing that legal access to CP reduces child molestation in every country studied. Increasing freedom rarely leads to a negative effect on society. Also many countries where CP is legal to view, like Russia, are hardly libertarian, they are just not so infected with puritans as countries like USA.

Quote
An individual downloading child porn can say to himself "I am not responsible for the abuse in these pictures, it has already happened"
But the thousands of individuals in a society who download CP ARE responsible for the abuse; if there were no one in the world who wished to view it, no more CP would be made.

But children would still be molested, and now the police have no easy way to track down the people molesting children. So you have swept the problem under the rug but in reality you have made it so people are more likely to molest children and you have made it harder for the people molesting children to be caught. But hey, at least you cannot so easily tell that people have desires that you find offensive right?

389
Security / Re: Password creation for musicians: turn a melody into a number sequence
« on: August 17, 2013, 01:38 am »
Quote from: Andromeda on August 17, 2013, 12:45 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on August 16, 2013, 07:54 pm
Patterns should be avoided when possible. They don't totally fuck you but they require you to remember more. There is absolutely no reason to remember a 50 character truly random password, anything more than 39 truly randomly generated ASCII characters is a waste of your memory since that is equal to a 256 bit random key which is what AES-256 uses anyway.
who said anything about aes256?

I figured you are using no more than a 256 bit algorithm since it isn't very common for people to use more than that, usually people use AES, Serpent or Twofish with no more than 256 bit key. What are you using Blowfish?

390
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 17, 2013, 12:58 am »
Quote from: Hungry ghost on August 16, 2013, 11:02 pm
It seems like you agree that the production of CP, where it involves the actual abuse of children, is wrong. But viewing CP, where the abuse has already taken place, is not, since your viewing of these images cannot be said  to have any causal  relationship to the abuse.
       So while you are against the production of any NEW child porn, once it is made you will have no problem viewing it.
       Will this be a situation like elephant ivory? 'Modern' elephant ivory is banned to prevent the hunting of elephants, but antique ivory goods are exempt as clearly trading them can cause no further harm to elephants. (Leaving aside whether we care about elephants or not for now).
        So legacy child porn is OK; but by this logical slight of hand you are permitted to continue to view new child porn, since after its creation it immediately becomes legacy child porn.
        So children continue to be abused, new child porn is produced, but morally you can continue to view child porn with a clear conscience, as the abuse you are witnessing is in the past. It has happened whether you look at the pictures or not.

Yeah of course the production of CP is wrong in the majority of cases (ignoring teenage self production blah blah blah). I even argue that paying for CP is wrong, because it funds child abuse, just like paying for a hitman is wrong because it funds a murder. Yes I separate people making CP from people viewing it. I think people should not make CP, and I don't care if people view CP. I look at the trees in the forest, you look at the entire forest as a whole, and this results in you burning the damn forest down when 51% of the trees are bad, but I just cut down the bad ones and let the good ones live. Nobody killed elephants just to give the ivory away so at best it is a weak analogy, it holds up best as an argument against the sale of CP for profit which I already said I am against. You see, the studios in Eastern Europe indeed produced CP because people paid them, but people also pirated the content. If nobody paid them and everybody pirated the content, only an idiot would think that they would continue to produce for the pirates. It was the payment for CP that motivated them not the people viewing the CP. And if it was the people viewing the CP that motivated them, so what anyway? If a serial killer kills because he likes to read about himself in the newspaper, does that mean we must ban newspapers from reporting on serial killers? By your logic it would mean that, you take the responsibility for the actions of people and you bounce it around as much as possible until everybody that has any connection at all to the person is called responsible for the actions of the person. But you do not do this consistently only in cases of CP, because you blame the people viewing CP for the children being raped, but you do not blame the people paying for drugs for the innocents being killed by the cartels nor do you blame the newspapers for the people being killed by the serial killers. And yeah, inherently the abuse in CP has happened in the past, or else pictures of it could not have been taken.


Quote
    Also, after rereading some of this thread, I feel your argument relays heavily on the assumption that there is nothing that could be described as 'demand' for CP, and that therefore viewing child porn is not creating this demand; that there is no element of a 'market'. Are you seriously suggesting that in the real world the consumers of CP are completely divorced from the producers, that the producers are making it purely for the satisfaction of a job well done, with no knowledge or care as to whether it will even be viewed.?

I already said two ways in which there is a market for CP. The first is the Eastern European studios, and again they would not produce unless people paid them and I already said I am again people paying for child porn because it is similar to people paying for a hitman. The second case consists of people in the private membership groups where images are traded like baseball cards and other similar private trading group models. Yes I seriously suggest that the overwhelming majority of CP consumers in the real world are completely 100% divorced from the producers, 22 million people on public P2P networks seeding identified in two single operations, probably more like 100 million people trading CP on P2P networks including those not identified and those not seeding. That number greatly shadows the number of people on private forums, which generally top out at thousands of members max, and also greatly shadows the number of people on darknet imageboards which is limited to less than a million. People who trade on public P2P networks almost never are involved in social networking with other people involved with CP, so I think it is obvious that the vast majority of people involved with viewing CP are not networked socially with others who are. Do you really think there are these people out there, who are upstanding citizens who will never molest children, but then those damn bastards on P2P download CP, and this demand triggers some latent issue in the upstanding citizens mind, and he decides that to fill the demand for this CP he must go out and film himself fucking a bunch of kids? Does that really seem like a likely scenario to you, because to me it seems totally absurd.   

Quote
       Surely by this logic it would be moral to VIEW child porn, but not to attempt to obtain it, since in a broad sense any such attempt is creating demand.

Sure totally moral to view CP. Totally moral to obtain CP too, nobody runs out and fucks kids because some anonymous dude loaded an imageboard or downloaded some shit on P2P. If you think such strange people really do exist then I guess we must make a PIR type system for CP downloaders so it is impossible for anybody to know that they looked for and obtained CP, as this will totally protect from anyone being able to tell they had demand for it. But yeah is bad for them to pay for CP for sure.

Quote
      I guess that my message to the paedophiles of the world is: any CP you have in your possession you may continue to enjoy with my blessing. But if you should attempt to acquire any new CP, thus creating demand and ,however indirectly , causing fresh child abuse, then I must withdraw my support.

So you are okay with everybody who has CP as of when you posted this, but they just cannot get more in the future? That seems kind of strange, what happened at the point in time you posted this that made it immoral to get CP after that date but not prior to it.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 249