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 ... 171 172 [173] 174 175 ... 249
2581
Security / Re: UK getting ISPs to report on internet activity
« on: June 17, 2012, 01:58 am »
Quote
No, hacking your neighbors wifi and spoofing your MAC address and computer name as one of theirs is best because then you don't need to leave your lounge / bedroom.

Yeah that will buy you approximately five minutes of extra time, that is about how long it takes to trace a Wifi signal with a directional antenna. Using Wifi for anonymity is only helpful if you do it for short periods of time from random locations. Thousands of people who used neighbors Wifi for anonymity have been busted.

2582
Security / Re: Tor Bridges and why you should use them
« on: June 17, 2012, 01:41 am »
Quote
I will leave OscarZulu to decide whether your understanding of node enumeration attacks is correct.

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, like it being possible to brute force 13 character passwords in minutes, or BSD being a type of Linux (for two examples). Most of what Shannon said is correct. One thing I disagree with, public bridges are not safer than private bridges. However, it is an extremely bad idea to use private bridges that you get on an illegal forum like silk road, and using public bridges would be better than using such a private bridge. Not only do you give your IP address to the person running the bridge, you also give your IP address to anyone who monitors the bridge after determining its IP address. Normally it wouldn't matter that the person running the bridge knows your IP address, but if they know who you are and the illegal sites you visit then you pretty much are deanonymizing yourself to them and any potential feds that learn the 'private' bridges IP address. Also, I know you mean well, but it is not that offensive for Shannon to point out that feds have engaged in similar tactics many times in the past, running private VPNs only advertised on carder forums in order to scoop up IP addresses of the people who visit carder forums.

Shannon is correct in saying that you should use less bridges. For someone in China, more is better. Because they want to have one that is not blocked at all times, and the more they have the less likely all of them will be blocked. They use bridges for censorship evasion. We use bridges for membership concealment. The more bridges you use, the more likely one of them will be owned by an attacker, and thus the more likely the attacker will be able to determine your IP address is using the Tor network. Additionally, using more than three bridges at a time makes you significantly weaker to end point timing attacks than using Tor without bridges and with the standard number of entry guards selected (3).

The reason to use bridges is indeed what oscar said (wow I guess even a broken clock can be right sometimes). Let's say a vendor lives in a remote rural area. They leak their rough geolocation to customers every time they ship a package. If they ship to law enforcement and law enforcement can get a list of Tor client IP addresses (numerous ways to do this), then they can come to the conclusion that the one Tor client in the middle of nowhere is probably the vendor who just sent them drugs from the middle of nowhere. Even if you live in a more densely populated area, law enforcement could still narrow you down to maybe a few hundred IP addresses. Pretty much any crowd size reduction is bad, and should be avoided. You want to use protocol obfuscators because they strongly compliment bridges, bridges can hide the fact that you are connecting to Tor relays based on IP addresses, but it can not hide that the traffic you are sending has a fingerprint that is consistent with Tor traffic.

Also you misunderstood Shannon when he/she pointed out that a bridge doesn't hide Tor traffic patterns. It is true that bridges do not hide Tor traffic patterns. This is why they made obfsproxy. Obfsproxy hides Tor traffic patterns, and is used IN ADDITION to bridges which hide that you are connecting to Tor relay IP addresses.

Quote
If someone was to configure only a few bridges, which lets get real, most people here will do, then forget about it and only be left with one working until that dies which is when they will reconfigure it again as they will realise their Tor isn't working, well from my perspective (having done it before) someone using only one bridge is like a godsend to pinpointing someone using endpoint timing correlation.

Another example of Oscar saying stupid shit. Oscar, end point timing correlation requires the attacker to be able to monitor entry and exit of traffic. If you use multiple entry points you are increasing your exposure. In fact, using two entry points instead of one doubles the risk of being pwnt by an end to end correlation attack. Regular Tor used three entry points which rotate every month to two months, I believe that you should configure bridges in a similar way (use three at a time, and change them every month to two months).

Quote
To an extent this is true, 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. Although then again there's nothing stopping law enforcement from joining Silk Road and using that private bridge too making the whole damn thing pointless.

More stupid bullshit from Oscar. Yes let's concentrate all of our IP addresses to a "private" SR run bridge! Then anyone can monitor a single point on the internet to deanonymize all of us! Most fucking god damn stupid shit ever, the school that gave you a masters should be ashamed of themselves lol (oh wait you don't really have a masters in IT security). Go read about shadowcrew if you think this idea is even remotely good, that is how they were pwnt (by being stupid enough to all use a VPN run by the feds).

Quote
i missed this initially, but if you're setting up companies to buy anonymous webhosting you're doing way too much work. there's plenty of hosts operated by russian organized crime which accept bitcoin, pecunix, liberty reserve, and other digital currencies which can be cashed into anonymously, then obscured through multiple offshore exchangers or converted to bitcoin, mixed, and converted back again. some hosts don't even require a referral to purchase a server from them, in fact i posted one in this thread. :)

True dat. There is absolutely no reason to set up a fake company to get a server.

Quote
Another issue I just though of with protocol obfuscators like obfsproxy, although this wouldn't really affect the UK or US, but may affect places like Iran or Morocco, is that you may cause suspicious spikes and volumes of traffic in protocols that are rarely used in your country or area, highlighting yourself to the government more not less. This is be particularly prevalent if you were a novice user and didn't know which options to choose properly in obfsproxy and chose something you thought sounded random, but really puts you in more risk.

Nothing sticks out more than streams of 512 byte cells, and that is what Tor traffic looks like if you don't use a protocol obfuscator.



2583
Security / Re: Tor Bridges and why you should use them
« on: June 17, 2012, 01:14 am »
Quote from: Shannon on June 16, 2012, 10:42 pm
Quote from: vlad1m1r on June 16, 2012, 03:06 pm
After tentatively making enquiries to see if anyone was interested in using a private Tor bridge I plan to set up in Belize for a small fee I received a few messages asking for further info about bridges in general.
private bridge? nice try fed. i kid, i kid. ;)

Quote
TLDR : Although Tor does its best to mingle itself in with your regular SSL traffic, the data packets are apparently quite easy to detect (I've not done this myself but have some learned friends!).
bridges don't protect against this, protocol obfuscators like obfsproxy do.

Quote
- You live in a place where not many people use Tor/The internet and don't want to be traced due to being one of the few IP addresses in this area. (This is the reason I use bridges).
- You live in a country like the UK where ISP's are required to record certain parts of your internet traffic such as IP's to which you've connected and you don't want it revealed you were using Tor at a later date in case it's used against you in court e.g you try to deny that you knew a package you accepted into your home contained drugs and want your internet activity not to show you've been using Tor hidden services.
this is actually really great advice but there's no way for anybody to detect that you've been visiting location hidden services on tor, in fact the majority of tor usage in us/eu is people looking at legal pornography.

Quote
You can view the latest publicly available bridges by going to https://bridges.torproject.org/ - please note that these are not as secure as private bridges as in the nature of things more people know about them - for instance the Police could write these down every day for all we know!
the public bridges are actually safer since they've been selected from the total available consensus.

Quote
Your connection is more secure the more bridges you use so make sure you update your list of bridges regularly.
wrong, you are more vulnerable to endpoint timing correlation with every additional bridge you use. the best choice is to pick two or three bridges on port 443 or 465 and use them for a while.

Quote
As I said the most secure solution is to use a private bridge but naturally you need to make your own arrangements to set this up.
key disclaimer there, you should be setting up your own bridge on a bulletproof webhost like 2x4.ru, not using a bridge somebody else is giving to you.

don't take this the wrong way, it sounds like you know a lot about finance but leave the security stuff to security pros. :)

Private bridges are safer than public bridges, but using private bridges that people on SR are running is stupid as you are giving them your IP address and they already know where some of your traffic is going to.

2584
Security / Re: hidden service tutorial
« on: June 17, 2012, 01:11 am »
Quote from: Shannon on June 16, 2012, 11:42 pm
can't speak for kmf but imo hardened gentoo can be made more secure than openbsd if you have the right chops, which i have no doubt kmf has. i also think x64 openbsd is safer out of the box though. and yeah mojoman probably doesn't know what he's talking about but i will eat my own shit if he shows up here with something cool.

Pretty much this. OpenBSD is more secure out of the box, hardened gentoo can be made more secure if you have the time and skill to put into it.

2585
Security / Re: Tor Bridges and why you should use them
« on: June 16, 2012, 10:12 pm »
Nobody should use your bridge. That would mean that you know their IP addresses.

2586
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 16, 2012, 02:22 am »
Quote
- Are we sure that this is the way material is shared in practice? Are there no comment sections on images or videos? I imagine there would be on image boards? Also wouldn't it be possible for the people who set up a site like this to monitor visitor traffic to see if there's an interest for their materials, even if they can't tell if a specific file has been downloaded?

This is not how material is currently shared in practice, other than maybe on OFFsystem. There are most likely comment sections on all the distribution mechanisms other than Limewire style P2P networks. It is not a site per-se, it is a network. The network would need to host various things other than CP. If it is PIR, nobody will be able to differentiate the interest in CP from the interest in other things on the network. There could be zero interest in the CP, or it could be all CP, nobody can know. Likewise, monitoring traffic will not tell you what is a client is requesting, it could be CP or it could be anything else on the network.

Here is the most basic PIR system, and the only way to do it with a single server. There is a website that hosts images. Anyone can upload images. To download any image, you need to download all of the images. If you want image of an apple, you need to download the entire archive of images and then filter it for apples. Now nobody can know which image you were interested in, thus the demand for certain images is perfectly concealed. This is an extremely basic example of PIR but it shows that it is possible and maybe gives you a better idea of what it is. You can do a lot with PIR, don't be fooled by the simplicity of the example I gave.

It is actually kind of ironic that, in the extremely basic PIR example I gave above (everyone downloads everything, then filters it for what they are interested in), you perfectly hide the demand for CP by having a lot more people downloading it than actually want it. So download CP to combat child sex abuse I guess. I just proved that, if demand for CP leads to production, less production will happen if more people download CP ;). 

Quote
- Does removing this particular obstacle through use of technology necessarily mean that the downloader won't encourage others by sharing such material themselves with other paedophiles? If so, wouldn't it make them responsible for encouraging the creation and viewing of such materials anyway?

Apples and oranges man, we were talking about if downloading and viewing CP should be illegal, not if sharing CP outside of a PIR system should be illegal.

Quote
- Does removing this particular moral objection to downloading CP i.e that it encourages the creation of yet more CP necessarily mean that there are no other reasons to find such material objectionable? If you don't believe the fact that it causes moral outrage for the majority is a good enough reason to make something illegal where should we draw the line? What about hurtcore and snuff pornography and the like?

Snuff and hurtcore should also be legal to possess and view. We draw the line no where. There is no line. No picture or video should be illegal to view. There is also moral outrage over drug use as far as the majority goes, is that good enough of a reason to keep drugs illegal?

Quote
- Does this issue need to be about legalising or criminalising CP across the board? I imagine you're aware that there are different categories of CP depending on the age of the child and the degree of sexual activity? For instance if a man were caught with a video of intercourse with a six year old girl this would be treated much more severely than a 21 year old man having a picture of his topless 16 year old girlfriend on his phone.

Yes it needs to be about legalizing viewing of CP across the board. I am not saying "Hm, some CP isn't that bad at all, and these teenagers who took pictures of themselves and uploaded them to the internet are not sexually abused when people view the pictures", I am saying "Even the worst most disgusting sort of CP imaginable should not be illegal to view, because it is a fucking series of pixels, and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on anyone other than the person viewing it, and censorship is bad in all of its forms".

Quote
As such, can't we just have faith in the current system where apply our common sense on a case by case basis by outlawing more extreme forms of CP involving young children but dealing leniently with teenagers who share provocative images of themselves?

First of all, the age of consent to make pornography should be lowered to such that pictures of naked 16 year olds are not even illegal to produce, and for two, no, censorship is bad.

2587
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 16, 2012, 01:57 am »
d00d did u kno that lsd causes chromosome damage and weed makes ur dick fall off it must be true police.com said so!! They have absolutely not got a massive financial stake in keeping people terrified of drugs and drug users so I can trust what they say!!!!!

It isn't like hunting people down for downloading CP is a multi billion dollar a year industry. It is one of the biggest scams in the world. Omg people who download CP are 110% child molesters who want to rape your children!!!!! 0_0 send us moneys !!!! We spider limewire for a billion dollars (pinky in mouth)!!! think of teh childrenz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111

ps: before you say 'omfgzmgz even 10% is too much!' I want you to think of the percentage of white males who molest children, so should we lock all white males up to prevent that small %  from potentially molesting children? If you say no my only reply is , you are a pedophile scum fuck and I hope you are ass raped with a butcher knife.

2588
Shipping / Re: Bitcoin is insecure. So is Tor.
« on: June 16, 2012, 01:51 am »
Quote from: vlad1m1r on June 16, 2012, 01:34 am
Quote from: Sands on June 16, 2012, 01:19 am
I wish there were a team of KMFs whose 9to5 was to try to de-anonymize us in the intersection of Tor, SR, and GPG....

And then to make patches when they are successful...

I think it would be worth the expense, DPR...

Well they've had 14 months now...  :-)

V.

I don't have the extra two thousand dollars or few extra hundred hours of time required to try and trace hidden services for a hobby. Clients would be much harder for me because even after the hidden service is identified I couldn't put it under passive surveillance, and the attack that would allow me to force it to use my node as entry guard would potentially be quite expensive to keep up over time, depending on the luck of the draw (ie: if I only need to DOS one set of entry guards before it selects my node as entry, I can maintain possession of one of its entry guards for about one or two months, but if I need to DOS twenty sets it will be less likely). So there is a significant probability that I can trace it all the way to its IP address, I can certainly trace it to each of its entry guards though. If I got lucky I could use a timing attack to deanonymize all of the clients that use my secondary node as entry while I own SR entry guard, failing that I could try website fingerprinting attacks with markov models from an entry guard that would potentially allow me to correctly guess some peoples IP addresses if they used my entry guard to connect to SR. None of these things would be trivial for me to do and I simply do not have the motivation or the funding for it, plus I am busy working on other things.   

I am 100% positive that I can give you three IP addresses that are one hop away from SR though, this would be much easier too but would still require me to have a server to dedicate to it, preferably two.

2589
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 16, 2012, 01:26 am »
Quote from: oscarzululondon on June 15, 2012, 11:45 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on June 15, 2012, 08:41 pm
Pretty much my goal is to reduce your arguments to their core, which is "The thought of people thinking children are sexually attractive repulses me, let's kill them because of how they feel and think, regardless of what they actually do"

We have established that it is possible to legally download child porn in such a way that no information about the demand for child porn can be known, via use of private information retrieval in the Czech Republic. So it is theoretically quite possible to completely shoot down the "demand leads to supply" and "it is illegal" arguments. Numerous scientific studies have been done that shoot down the "child pornography viewing leads to pedophiles being more likely to molest" argument. So really you are simply left with the "These people think things I don't like, let's kill them!!!" argument.

Actually that's wrong:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18442288

http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOP%20IIOCTA%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

"A meta-analysis24 of research which looked at prevalence rates of contact sexual offending within different IIOC offender samples established a correlation of 55%"

Basically, 55% of people who view child pornography online go on to abuse children in real life.

Actually that is wrong and made up bullshit propaganda from law enforcement agencies

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html#ncm40

Quote
"40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children"

According to an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise (ECPAT in Australia), published in the The Australian on 8 January 2008: "In 2005 the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that 40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children."[77]

The 40% number was in a report distributed by the NCMEC in 2005 and the percentage concerned research findings in relation to a total of 429 cases during the 12 months beginning 1 July 2000. However, insofar as the phrasing of the assertion quoted above appears to imply that 40% of persons arrested for possession of child pornography were found to have sexually abused children, it does not accurately reflect the research findings.

The research found that "one out of six", i.e. 16% of "cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so".
Findings of the N-JOV Study

The source of the 40% figure is the second report on the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study ("N-JOV Study")[78] conducted by researchers (Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitchell) at the Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire (in north-western U.S.A.). The research report was "funded by the U.S. Congress Through a Grant to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children".

(Note: Although NCMEC's media release of 18 August 2005 cites the above research report as the source of numerous NCMEC claims about 'growing', 'increasing', etc, the research report did not find, or claim, that anything is increasing, growing, etc. The research concerned a one year period beginning 1 July 2000 and did not compare findings from that period with any other period.)

According to the research report:

    The goals of the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study were to survey law-enforcement agencies within the United States (U.S.) to count arrests for Internet-related sex crimes committed against minors and describe the characteristics of the offenders, the crimes they committed, and their victims.

The above report was the second report on the N-JOV Study and it was focussed on a 'representative national sample' of persons arrested for Internet-related sex crimes who possessed child pornography, i.e. a sub-set of the cases identified in the N-JOV survey.

The researchers found that "[U.S.] Law-enforcement agencies nationally made an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography during the 12 months beginning July 1, 2000". The estimate of 1,713 was projected from 429 actual cases identified.

The researchers also stated "[T]o give some perspective on this estimate of 1,713 arrests for Internet-related CP possession, we estimate there were approximately 65,000 arrests in 2000 for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors".

In the sub-set comprising persons who possessed child pornography (429 actual cases), 47% of the cases arose in the criminal-justice system as cases of child sexual victimization or attempted child sexual victimization (solicitations to undercover investigators) and 53% of the cases arose as cases involving child pornography possession.

The 40% number is a further sub-set which comprises cases/persons whom the researchers termed 'dual offenders' because "They sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the course of the same investigation":

    We found 40% of the cases involving CP possession in the N-JOV Study involved dual offenses of CP possession and child sexual victimization detected in the course of the same investigation. All of these offenders had identified child victims. An additional 15% both possessed CP and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors. When these cases of attempted child sexual victimization are counted, 55% of the CP possessors were dual offenders (unweighted n = 241, weighted n = 936).

(Note that the actual number of dual offender cases identified was 241).

84% of the dual offenders were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child sexual victimization which subsequently turned up child pornography possession (55% child sexual victimization plus 29% solicitations to undercover investigators). 16% were discovered in cases starting as investigations of child pornography which subsequently detected a sexually victimized child or an attempt to do so (solicitation to an undercover investigator).

The researchers stated:

    When we looked at all of the cases originating as allegations or investigations of CP possession and examined how many resulted in the arrests of dual offenders, we found

        In 14% of cases investigators found dual offenders who both possessed child pornography and sexually victimized children
        In 2% of cases investigators found offenders who possessed child pornography and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors
        84% of cases involved CP possession but investigators did not detect concurrent child sexual victimization or attempts at child victimization

    This means one out of six cases [i.e. 16%] originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

The research report also states:

    Limitations
    The N-JOV Study is the first research gathering information about a national sample of arrested CP possessors. Data from a national sample is a strength of the N-JOV Study, but like every scientific survey, the study also has limitations. Readers should keep some of these important things in mind when considering the findings and conclusions of this study.
    First, ...
    Second, ...
    Third, there is an additional caution to our findings about dual offenders. Knowing a considerable number of dual offenders were discovered during investigations of Internet-related, child-sexual-victimization and CP possession cases does not explain how possessing child pornography is related to child sexual victimization or whether it causes or encourages such victimization. We did not have the data to determine this. In particular we had no information about the sequencing of the crimes committed by dual offenders or about undetected crimes they may have committed and little information about their criminal histories and how they used the child pornography they possessed.
    [emphasis added]

In summary, the U.S. case research from which the NCMEC's 40% figure originates, found in a one year period beginning 1 July 2000, an estimated 1,713 arrests for Internet-related crimes involving the possession of child pornography (of which 55% also involved sexual victimization of children, or attempts to do so), and an estimated 65,000 arrests in the U.S. for all types of sexual assaults committed against minors. Of the Internet-related cases, one out of six [i.e. 16% of] the cases originating with an allegation or investigation of child pornography discovered a dual offender who had also sexually victimized children or attempted to do so.

so 16% is a more realistic figure, of course then you also need to filter out the people who are called sex offenders for doing things like fucking 16 year olds, that will probably drop at least a few percentage points. Then you also need to take into consideration that this is not at all a comprehensive study, they can at best go off of the people they arrested, and in many cases they found people with CP after busting them in undercover operations where they were pretending to be minors, of course that population of CP possessors is going to have a much higher rate of prior offending. The entire thing is a bunch of propaganda bullshit, at the very worst the figure is 16% and even that is a bullshit exaggeration in reality it is probably below 10%.

2590
Shipping / Re: Bitcoin is insecure. So is Tor.
« on: June 16, 2012, 01:10 am »
Quote from: Sands on June 15, 2012, 11:29 pm
If KMF can find my IP, then I would encourage him to post it here.

If he does that then I will pay him 100 coins.

I can probably find the IP address of SR, and maybe a tiny fraction of user IP addresses, but I can not select a specific target and have a high probability of being able to deanonymize them in a realistic amount of time. It would also cost me more than 100 bitcoins, but not an unrealistic amount.

2591
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 15, 2012, 08:47 pm »
Pretty much I just want you to admit that you have no good reason to hate all pedophiles, and the reason you hate them all is based entirely on their feelings instead of their actions, and that you think it is okay to kill  or arrest someone over the way that they feel instead of over any real harm that they actually cause. Instead of trying to disguise your baseless hate as having any rational reasoning behind it.

2592
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 15, 2012, 08:41 pm »
Pretty much my goal is to reduce your arguments to their core, which is "The thought of people thinking children are sexually attractive repulses me, let's kill them because of how they feel and think, regardless of what they actually do"

We have established that it is possible to legally download child porn in such a way that no information about the demand for child porn can be known, via use of private information retrieval in the Czech Republic. So it is theoretically quite possible to completely shoot down the "demand leads to supply" and "it is illegal" arguments. Numerous scientific studies have been done that shoot down the "child pornography viewing leads to pedophiles being more likely to molest" argument. So really you are simply left with the "These people think things I don't like, let's kill them!!!" argument.

2593
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 15, 2012, 08:36 pm »
Quote from: Gary Oak on June 15, 2012, 08:34 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on June 15, 2012, 08:22 pm
Quote from: Sogok on June 15, 2012, 07:48 pm
Do you people know that the sex offender registries are full of children (something like 35%) ?

Do you know that LEOs have arrested children (BELOW 10 YEARS OLD), in cases such as "playing doctor" ?

Do you know that the FUCKING FBI hosts child porn in LimeWire in order to set traps?

LEO is scum. LEOs are thiefs, terrorists, child rapists. No redeeming qualities.

The pedophilia hysteria is something really horrific. Don't be trollbait.

Pedophilia hysteria is fucking scary, it is hard to believe there are people who want to kill others over how they feel or what they see.

Also one last point, to the people who say omg well it is illegal...in Czech Republic child porn is legal to possess. No images or videos of anything are banned. Personal use possession of all recreational drugs is decriminalized to the point that it is essentially legal, and the age of consent is 15 :D. It is a shame that other countries are not so free :<.

Likewise it's hard to believe there are people who want to fuck little kids in the ass. ???

Also you're the last person I expected to use the argument that "It's legal therefor it's okay". :o

Well if people want to say "it's illegal so it isn't okay", then I think the "it's legal so it is okay" counter argument is okay to use, as it pretty much cancels out their arguments.

2594
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 15, 2012, 08:22 pm »
Quote from: Sogok on June 15, 2012, 07:48 pm
Do you people know that the sex offender registries are full of children (something like 35%) ?

Do you know that LEOs have arrested children (BELOW 10 YEARS OLD), in cases such as "playing doctor" ?

Do you know that the FUCKING FBI hosts child porn in LimeWire in order to set traps?

LEO is scum. LEOs are thiefs, terrorists, child rapists. No redeeming qualities.

The pedophilia hysteria is something really horrific. Don't be trollbait.

Pedophilia hysteria is fucking scary, it is hard to believe there are people who want to kill others over how they feel or what they see.

Also one last point, to the people who say omg well it is illegal...in Czech Republic child porn is legal to possess. No images or videos of anything are banned. Personal use possession of all recreational drugs is decriminalized to the point that it is essentially legal, and the age of consent is 15 :D. It is a shame that other countries are not so free :<.

2595
Off topic / Re: What do you think about CP (kiddie porn) on the Onionland?
« on: June 15, 2012, 12:03 pm »
Quote from: Limetless on June 15, 2012, 10:53 am
Fuck this has become a long thread.

What makes me laugh is that the people advocating the alternative policy regarding CP can't accept that the majority don't agree with them and just throw out the "You have no rational train of thought" lines again and again.

I don't care what people think on this and I am not telling anyone what to think so shut the fuck up before you think I am. I just find it hard to get my head round how hard some people find it when people don't take the pseudo-progressive liberal point of you.

Not everyone has to agree with you like you don't have to agree with everyone else, it's what makes the world an interesting place. Get over it and move on with your life.

first point, who gives a fuck what the majority thinks?
second point, think whatever you want until you start killing people or locking people up because they looked at pictures

Pages: 1 ... 171 172 [173] 174 175 ... 249