Silk Road forums

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.

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.

If I may summarise it seems that the thrust of the argument in favour of decriminalising CP centres around the fact that the victim may be ignorant that firstly they are being filmed and that others are taking pleasure at their abuse.

No that is not the thrust of the argument in any way shape or form. The thrust of the argument is, looking at pictures causes nobody harm! Banning people from looking at pictures and videos is censorship and censorship is bad, especially bad when you censor things just because you don't like the people who look at those things entirely separate of any harm being done to anyone. What is so hard to understand about this that so many of you are having so much trouble to understand the argument?   

I think I would ask all of you to consider though the fact firstly that the person in question is taking pleasure at seeing an innocent person being harmed - this is what in itself makes child pornography unethical to me, though I accept a paedophile doesn't need to view CP in order to find these kind of thoughts pleasurable. The fact once again that paedophiles DO in fact view CP rather than solely fantasising should tell us something in my humble opinion.

So you think it should be illegal to take pleasure in seeing innocent people being harmed? And how is it that you don't think that this is being the fucking thought police?

Secondly, a child does not need to be aware that a specific person has viewed images or videos of them to become distressed. It would be enough to know that images/videos of them have been recorded and potentially shared on the internet.

Yes, which is great reason for keeping production of CP illegal, but a great example of why it doesn't matter if ten thousand or zero people look at images that have been uploaded to the internet. There is always the possibility that images are being viewed and that is all that matters to any potential victim, they don't know or give a fuck about the monthly bandwidth of freedom hosting.

I have been doing some (extremely!) cautious googling and managed to find a story of a girl who has been abused and filmed in secret by her own father:

Okay, first of all her father was an enormous asshole. I feel very sorry for her. Secondly, she makes a lot of money every time someone is caught with one of the videos her father took because there are laws that children in CP found on the PC of people arrested are entitled to financial compensation from those people. She is the poster child (poor use of the word maybe?) for using the legal system to collect large amounts of compensation from the people who view the CP she is in. And I am pretty okay with this! I mean, in general I am against copyright law etc, but it is an issue I am somewhat undecided on. I can by some stretch of the imagination see the CP that she is in as being her property, and see that she has the right to restrict access to it as she sees fit and sue people for copyright infringement. That is not anywhere near as absurd as SENDING PEOPLE TO PRISON FOR LOOKING AT PICTURES. CP as a civil matter you can argue to me and have a chance of convincing me, although this largely applies to copyright in general. Convincing me that people should go to prison (ie: criminal , not civil) for looking at pictures will not even happen after hell freezes over.

"They're dangerous and, even though I don't know them, they're continuing to hurt me," she said."

Well if she doesn't want to be informed every time someone downloads her images / videos I guess she could stop requesting to know about every case where they are found so that she can get compensation from everyone arrested with them. So being given the choice between knowing how popular the videos her father took are and getting court ordered compensation from everyone caught with them, she opted for the later choice. I have no doubt she is not happy about what happened and all the money in the world is not worth it to her, and I really don't mean to sound even at all cold towards her, but it is a crock of shit that people viewing images are hurting her.

I do appreciate that her awareness of people downloading videos of her is vicarious and she may not know each specific time that a certain person has viewed her being abused but that does not absolve said paedophile from their responsibility not to view such material!

She knows every time someone is arrested with her CP because they are made to pay compensation to her

1-Which operating system is your favourite for anonimity?

Strictly speaking, the operating system has not a whole lot to do with anonymity although some are more resistant to hackers than others. Hackers can indirectly pwn your anonymity by rooting you and getting your IP address around Tor. They could also directly pwn Tor by either hacking you through a vulnerability in it or by rooting the relays you use. There are several nice operating systems. Anything Linux or BSD is pretty good. OpenBSD focuses heavily on out of the box security, although the box doesn't have much in it until you add programs that are probably not anywhere near as secure as a base OpenBSD install. It does have technologies for making some sorts of vulnerabilities non exploitable though, for example ASLR. FreeBSD is another OS that has a lot of security potential, it has a very extensive and highly configurable selection of security modules, but you will need to learn how to use them and this is not trivial. FreeBSD also lacks ASLR which is pretty shitty imo. Hardened Gentoo has probably got the most depth to its potential security, in that it has a lot of configurable security modules as well as having out of the box features like ASLR. I think that Hardened Gentoo can probably be secured to a greater degree than OpenBSD or FreeBSD if you know what you are doing and take the time to do it. There are various other solutions that are much more esoteric: plan9, inferno, sel4, etc.... I honestly know little about these solutions, but I am under the impression that they can be much more secure than either Linux or BSD. sel4 is a formally verified microkernel meaning that it is in theory probably impossible to hack  (but in reality some of the assumptions they make don't hold yet, so it is not unhackable in practice yet). It is also not open source, although it has been reviewed by several people. I think sel4 is seen as largely an academic exercise still.

It it dangerous to try to enter .onion site on the clearnet browser?

Unless you are very sure that you don't need to, you should use the Tor Browser Bundle.

Can we browse the deep web and clearnet ate the same time?

It can open you up to some problems, especially if you are browsing the same site anonymously and nonanonymously simultaneously and you connection dies. In general, it is pretty safe if you avoid this, I would not worry about it. Especially if you are only surfing .onion sites

Why does the browser in liberte come with the javascript enabled?

Probably because they are dumbasses and like javascript. Having javascript enabled does give you a bigger browser fingerprint crowd to hide in, but I personally find the increased risk to haxx0ring to be unacceptable.

Should we use bridges? Public or private?

Ideally you will use a private bridge that you find anywhere other than SR (or other illegal channels), public bridge is okay though. I strongly suggest using bridges.

DNS requests

what about them ?

Mac adress spoof

I suggest frequently spoofing your mac address.

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 think it should be illegal to download and view CP because of my views on consent. I don't think people have a right to view images of a child being raped as that child has not consented to the act itself, the production of the image, or the distribution of it. My interpretation of kmfkewm's position is that he is a consequentialist of some kind or other, so I can see why he takes the position he does. And I agree that a person viewing CP does not have the same consequences as a person producing it. It's just that I don't think that the consequences are the most important issue here.

I'll try and get my point across with a non-CP example
Let's say you take a photograph of yourself where it looks like you have a double-chin, and decide you don't want anyone else to see it. I think that you are under no obligation to show it to anyone. I think that if you inform me that you care very strongly about no-one else viewing the image, that you would feel greatly upset if someone else did view the image, and if I respect you as a human being and care about your dignity (which I ought to do), then I have a duty to assist you in preventing others from viewing the image as far as I can. And I think that this has nothing to do with whether or not someone else viewing the image would cause you any harm, or even whether you would ever find out the image had been viewed. I think it is part of a duty I have to respect your humanity; to respect you as a being in your own right, not merely a means to the end of another's goals.

Now let's say that rather than you taking the photo, someone else takes it, and the photo is of you being violated in the most disgusting way imaginable. I think the argument is the same, but the imperative for me is far stronger.

I think the problem with arguing from a position like kmfkewm's is that the same type of reasoning - consequentialist - leads people to say things like:

The production of CP is bad because it harms the children in the images.

Which then leads others to make the argument:

It does not actually harm the children in some cases; sometimes they are too young to remember.

Which then leads into an empirical debate about whether or not abuse is harmful; whether some kinds are more or less harmful than others. Whereas I see it really as a moral debate, where the simple issue is: children are not in a position to offer consent; are defenseless; and should not be used merely as a means to sexual gratification. And I think this applies also to the viewing of the images: they did not consent to the production of the images, so the person who creates them has no right to them, particularly in virtue of the circumstances in which the images were produced. Thus I think no-one has a right to distribute them, and as I think that most victims of abuse, if asked, would say that they do not want the images of their abuse distributed or viewed by anyone, that we have a duty to prevent their distribution and to prevent others from viewing them.

I have no duty to prevent others from viewing images of anything. What if someone has a picture of them with a double chin leak out to the internet? Should we have task force for tracking down the people who view it? Should we send them to jail? By your logic it is just as bad to look at an embarrassing photograph of a celebrity that some paparazzi took, as it is to look at CP. I guess we should arrest everyone who reads tabloids and give them sentences equal to the sentences people receive for viewing CP? Anyway I think molestation is bad even if the victim does not remember. They are obviously not able to consent to having sex. However, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that they will remember someone anonymously viewing their picture! There is a difference between looking at a photograph of the holocaust and being a war criminal!

PS: Vinny, you stupid fuck. Earlier in this thread, you said you viewed CP on Tor. Now you argue that people who view CP should be killed or go to jail. So please, turn yourself in. You obviously intentionally browsed a CP image board after seeing it on Tor, as it is not possible to accidentally surf around CP. You broke CP laws in doing so, and should be made to register as a sex offender after getting ass raped in jail. I find it funny that the dude who admitted to checking out CP on Tor is calling someone who never said such a thing captain chomo, if I am captain chomo for saying it should be legal to view CP, what does that make you for admitting that you checked out some CP sites on Tor? President Chomo?

Man I just discovered a hidden wiki full of crazy shit. Dead animal fuckers, penis mutilation, hitmen for hire, etc. The CP sites are pretty fucked up, I saw one with a pedobear logo. That's just plain fucking creepy.

Now I'm no expert, but there seems to be child pornography and women of close to legal age, "jailbait". The CP shit is just incomprehensible. There was a listing for an incest sort of child porn site and I would literally bash some sick bastard's head in with a hammer if I knew he was an incest CHOMO.

The jailbait didn't seem all that bad, but still it's pretty fucked up in a creepy Dad wanting to fuck his daughter's friend sort of way. Some US states have different ages of consent, so in some states one could legally fuck a 14-17 year old.

How are you going to explain to the feds why you were looking at jailbait and sites with pedobear logos? What is it okay for YOU to check out CP but if others do it they are sick fucks and must die right? You are special I guess? The only thing that makes you special in the eyes of the law is the fact that they can't see you because you used Tor, as far as they are concerned YOU are a CP sex offender who just has not been busted yet.

Quote from: mooshroom on June 17, 2012, 12:47 pm

WPA2 is considered unbreakable by the law here. Or at least in one case it was a proof in itself that the WLAN was only used by the associated client so a judge won't even considered that the AP with WPA2 could have been hacked.

Exactly, someone with a brain, thank you mooshroom.

Actually article two details a device for pinpointing laptops that are piggybacking on open wireless, did you fail reading comprehension when you were getting your masters degree in computer bullshit? You send data to wireless router. It sends data back to you. If it didn't send data back to you, then you couldn't very well surf the internet with it. If you didn't send data to it, you couldn't very well surf the internet with it. I don't understand how you can possibly think that you can locate the router without being able to locate the devices the send signals to it. Anyway I could give you links to literally dozens of news stories and technical papers about tracing wireless signals and people being traced while using neighbors WiFi, but I already gave you two and don't feel like wasting my time on an obvious troll / fed. Please by all means continue using Linux BSD with a two character password with a bridge you got from a drug forum  using your neighbors wifi without using LE backdoored truecrypt, after all you have a masters in IT security so that must be the way to do things right!

Quote from: kmfkewm on June 17, 2012, 01:41 am

One thing I disagree with, public bridges are not safer than private bridges.

nah that is what i meant, i just kinda explained it like a retard.

Quote

I would be hesitant listening to oscarzulu, some of what he says is correct but he gets a lot of things wrong too. I highly doubt that he has a masters in IT security considering some of the extremely stupid shit he has said

i think there's a 50% chance he doesn't know anything and is suffering from illusory superiority, and a 50% chance that he's a fed spreading misinformation to make sr users more susceptible to deanonymization. not like feds don't do that already: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch3.pdf

Quote

It is also possible to initiate internal attacks on criminal networks, however, where the objective is to create dysfunctional relations that seriously degrade the capacity of the network to function effectively. One option, for example, might be to destroy trust through misinformation and actions designed to create suspicion and acrimony. One way of doing this would be to identify some of the network crossovers and, rather than remove them, use them to feed misinformation into the network. Not only could this have a corrosive internal effect, but also it could encourage the criminals to move in directions that make them increasingly vulnerable to external attack.

I agree. The fact that he says some true things and some bullshit & dangerous things also leads me to think he may be a clever disinformation agent. A troll would have no reason to say some things that are true with a few well placed dangerous pieces of misinformation. I also doubt that he suffers from delusions of having any idea wtf he is talking about, because he claims to have a masters in IT security...this makes it seem like he should know what he is talking about to people who are not very tech savvy, but is also obviously a lie (or if it is true, is pretty solid proof that he is intentionally spreading disinformation). So my money is on disinformation agent.

for example, allow me to translate one thing he said:

personally I think Silk Road needs to set up a private bridge for us all to use which we can trust as it would be self defeating for them to allow it to be breached.

that is essentially equivalent to saying "Silk Road should be a clearnet website, and people should use no anonymization technology to connect to it" , however the way he words this very dangerous idea makes it sound like it is advantageous to security, and could fool a lot of people who don't 'speak technical security' well enough to 'translate' it

In fact in many cases it is now standard procedure for law enforcement to check if someone is having their wifi stolen prior to raiding them

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/wireless-router-exposes-child-predators-using-the-internet-20090615/

here this details one device they use:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/238107/cops_use_device_to_find_child_porn_on_wireless_networks.html

It used to be they would always raid the person whose IP address showed up in their investigations, but now they are more patient and will analyze wireless connections prior to determining who to raid. So no, using neighbors wifi is not very helpful. It is better than not, but only very slightly.