Silk Road forums

Exactly as others have said before me...and the ongoing debate on here...is that if you ever do get in trouble, this will look very bad, and you loose whatever 'plausible deniability' you might have had before you did this.  The Prosecuting Attorney might have a hell of time explaining bitcoins...but he won't have any problem at all explaing 'fake id' and the simple fact that you lied to obtain a p.o. box.  The srt of thing a jury can get their heads around.  Much of this stuff would be difficult for them to understand, and even a public defender should be able to get an aquittal...you can't prove the shit you got in the mail was ordered by you.   

Stuff like this creates more problems than it solves, and might attract attention you wouldn't normally receive.  Best shot, IMO, use your own address, have shit sent you with a slightly misspelled name...practice 'being surprised' in front of a mirror...don't add to the circumstantial evidence...*especially* stuff that seems kind of sinister...normal nice people don't need a fake p.o. box.   

Odds are, you never will get in trouble...but if you do, do you really think this will help you, or just make you look more suspicious?

how do u even browse onion land?

i had this notion that u can only find CP if u deliberately look for it.......

The age of the child shouldn't factor in. Each culture and society has a different method of child rearing that makes a kid mindful and mature at separate ages. Furthermore, it makes kids able to handle sexual situations properly at different ages. Maybe cultures with lower ages of consent socialize their children to handle sex earlier. USA always trips about sex so the age of consent is 16 to 18 varying by state. Doesn't mean one standard should be applied to another. If it's right somewhere it doesn't mean it is right in another culture and state. Thank you.

pretty hot topic!

If someone in the UK had sex with a consenting 15 year old girl then that makes the older party a pedophile and subject to all kinds of rules and regulations in the UK.
If that person were to jump on a plane and fly to many of the other countries in Europe, Germany being the example, then that person could legally have consenting sex with a 14year old, without being labelled a pedophile or being subject to all the sex offender red tape you would in the UK.
Then if our hypothetical pedophile really wanted, they could jump on a flight to Spain where age of consent is only age 13 as long as he does not use deceit to get his wicked ways with the young Spanish senorita.
Or if he really wanted a safe bet he could go hang out in Northern Cyprus, where it is only a misdemeanor to sleep with a girl age between 13 - 16. although if the hypothetical pedophile tried this with a young boy, sodomy laws in northern Cyprus would see our pedophile fucked in the ass(no pun intended) by the legal system, punishable with up to 5 years in jail. Now is that discrimination of the sexes or what!

All this being said, which country is correct?

Quote from: kmfkewm on June 18, 2012, 08:59 am

Quote

VPNs, privoxy, etc..

VPNs are pretty much worthless imo, I prefer obfsproxy bridges for membership concealment and Tor is better than any VPN. Privoxy is not needed, use tor browser bundle. Avoid polipo entirely.

I would argue using a VPN to connect to Tor would be very beneficial in protecting your IP from the Tor entry node which is the most vulnerable to sniffers to obtain origin IP's, as well as hiding the fact you are even using Tor from your ISP.

Basically my understanding and thinking is Tor is very secure with it's weakest points being the entry and exit nodes. Securing these is of the most importance - whether that's by using a VPN with Tor and then an encrypted proxy to hide the exit node as well or any other method.

Tor is so innovative in that out of the box it can provide novice users with such powerful anonymity that avid hackers a decade ago would have seen as a godsend. The problem is when you're trying to secure Tor's vulnerable entry/exit nodes, by whichever method, it's important to both understand and keep up to date on these methods or you're going to end up more vulnerable than you were without using them at all.

Quote from: kmfkewm on June 19, 2012, 12:44 am

Fuck all of you, have fun knowing that in a hundred years more civilized people will look back at people with your mindset wondering how humans could be so barbaric as to want to imprison people for viewing images. I don't care what new people to SR think about my opinions, or old people on SR, I will not hold my tongue although I agree I have said everything that really needs to be said. I'm amazed nobody has locked or deleted this thread honestly, it seems anything controversial is immediately shut down. Oscar, eat a fat dick for manipulating my words go troll somewhere else. I said I am pretty okay with the fact that she gets court ordered compensation from people, not that it is okay she was molested because she was paid for it. It is just worth noting that one of the loudest proponents of the re-victimization theory for keeping CP possession illegal, is making a substantial amount of money off of people being arrested for viewing CP, and it is also worth noting that she obviously values this income more than she values not knowing how many people are downloading CP she is in. Those are simply facts, interpret them however you like.

Quote

Or, I was fucking around on the hidden wiki, looking at hitman for hire sites, and other fucked up shit, and clicked on a few links.

hey president chomo, replace hidden wiki with limewire, hitman sites with music/movies and  few links with a few files and you perfectly fit the description of half of the people who are arrested with CP you fucking idiot. There is absolutely no difference between you and half of the 'sex offenders' that you want to do such horrible things to, the ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU IS THAT YOU USED TOR. So please go rush to turn your pedophile ass into the fucking police for viewing CP, they do not care how many links you clicked on. God are you fucking retarded or something? You are calling for death to people who do the same exact shit that you just did. Go fucking kill yourself then!

I can't believe so many people who would otherwise claim they are pro freedom or libertarian or anarchist would actually want to lock people up for looking at pictures, it is fucking barbaric and I have no doubt what-so-ever that in the future people will look back and wonder how humans could be so fucking stupid and cruel.

Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Debate Over Severity
By ERICA GOODE
Published: November 4, 2011

Does downloading child pornography from the Internet deserve the same criminal punishment as first-degree murder?

A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.

“To me, a failure to distinguish between people who look at these dirty pictures and people who commit contact offenses lacks the nuance and proportionality I think our law demands,” said Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University, who highlighted Mr. Vilca’s case on his blog, Sentencing and Law Policy.

Sexual offenses involving children enrage most Americans, and lawmakers have not hesitated to impose lengthy prison terms for offenders. In Florida, possession of child pornography is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Mr. Vilca was charged with 454 counts of possession, each count representing one image found on the computer.

Steve Maresca, the assistant state attorney in the case, said that in his view, Mr. Vilca “received a sentence pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.”

“Too many people just look at this as a victimless crime, and that’s not true,” he said. “These children are victimized, and when the images are shown over and over again, they’re victimized over and over again.”

But Lee Hollander, Mr. Vilca’s lawyer, called the sentence ridiculous.

“Daniel had nothing to do with the original victimization of these people; there is no evidence that he’s ever touched anybody improperly, adult or minor; and life in prison for looking at images, even child images, is beyond comprehension,” he said.

Mr. Hollander said Mr. Vilca had consistently said he did not know the images were on his computer. He refused a plea bargain of 20 years in prison, after which the state attorney increased the charges. The sentence will be appealed, Mr. Hollander said.

Troy K. Stabenow, an assistant federal public defender in Missouri’s Western District, noted that most people assume that someone who looks at child pornography is also a child molester or will become a child molester, a view often mirrored by judges.

But a growing body of scientific research shows that this is not the case, he said. Many passive viewers of child pornography never molest children, and not all child molesters have a penchant for pornography.

“I’m not suggesting that someone who looks at child pornography should just walk,” he said. “But we ought to punish people for what they do, not for our fear.”

State and federal laws, which generally increase penalties based on the number of pornographic images, reflect the idea that acquiring child pornography requires extensive time and effort and thus is a measure of a defendant’s involvement and interest. But with the rise of the Internet, it is possible to download hundreds of images in a matter of minutes, making the size of a stash a less than reliable indicator, Mr. Stabenow and other criminal justice experts said. It is now a rare case that does not involve the possession of hundreds, or even thousands, of images.

As a result, many federal judges have issued sentences lower than those called for by federal guidelines, which add months for multiple images and other aggravating factors. And even when such sentencing enhancements are enforced, the sentences — which can sometimes be 18 or 20 years — are often well below what Mr. Vilca received. The federal guidelines, for example, recommend a minimum of 57 to 71 months in prison for possession of 600 or more images of very young children.

Paul Cassell, a former federal judge who is now a law professor at the University of Utah, said there was no question that “consumers of child pornography drive the market for the production of child pornography, and without people to consume this stuff there wouldn’t be nearly as many children being sexually abused.”

Mr. Cassell is involved in efforts to get restitution for victims of child pornography, and has filed a petition in one case with the Supreme Court. But he said that while he was not familiar with Mr. Vilca’s case and did not know what other facts might be involved, “in the abstract, a life sentence for the crime of solely possessing child pornography would seem to be excessive.”

“A life sentence is what we give first-degree murderers,” he said, “and possession of child pornography is not the equivalent of first-degree murder.”
A version of this article appeared in print on November 5, 2011, on page A9 of the New York edition with the headline: Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Debate Over Severity.

Guru