FBI Raids Radio Show Studio after Report of Illegal Child Porn

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: whyamIhere

You must be looking at some questionable sites if that happens.


Not at all, unless you physically download it...viewing is not downloading.

Any site that allows members or anonymous uploads has the potential to occasionally host an illegal file or two.


Viewing an image or video file "downloads" the data to your computer so that you can view it. Copies end up cached on your system. There is no real difference between viewing and saving(which is what people are really referring to when using the word "download") other than how clear the intent is; but no, happening across a file on a website that is otherwise only out to host legal files won't get you thrown in jail.




And for the record - There was a case of a man being prosecuted for having videos/images of professional actress Melissa Ashley/Anne Howe who, while very petite, was over 18 in all of her films. The man was only exonerated after his lawyer was able to contact her and she testified to her age in court - for the life of me though, I can't find a link to the article.

www.news.com.au...
Not the one I was looking for but a similar story.

a reply to: centarix

The radio show complained the FBI was running online child porn websites and nine days later they are raided for child porn.

And how exactly did they come to this conclusion, because unless you search for it...kid porn isn't readily available to those surfing the net?

Obviously that is a conflict of interest where even if there was no porn on the website the known child pornographers at the FBI could have simply put some of their pictures on a Free Talk Live computer.

You do understand that computers can show you what's been downloaded to your computer and when...so if that were the case it should be easy to prove.

WHat are you considering a conflict of interest?

And who exactly at the FBI are these known child pornographers?

So, I can rule that out unless there is a 3rd party backup to show otherwise.

You can't rule anything out, as your only getting one side of the story.

Is the timing there suspicious?

Not at all, as they must have had enough evidence to get a warrant...if they get enough evidence in one day they could get a warrant and execute it the same day.

a reply to: eNumbra

Any site that allows members or anonymous uploads has the potential to occasionally host an illegal file or two.

Been to many of the sites we are talking about ( regular not Kid ) and not once have I seen anything that would be considered child porn on any site...and there are many.

I am not saying it could happen...but those times are few and far between, because site owners know what happens if they show anything that could be construed as child porn and they surely don't want to lose what they worked hard to build...They do their best to make sure that never happens.

There is no real difference between viewing and saving(which is what people are really referring to when using the word "download") other than how clear the intent is;

Except just viewing it won't put it physically to your computer, and can be removed by clearing your cache...saving, or downloading will still be there until you physically remove it.

So viewing it on a random site doesn't provide the intent that downloading it does. And that is what gets those who delve into this sickness caught. They have to download it for their perverted pleasure later.

www.news.com.au...

That happens more times than what we are told.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Except just viewing it won't put it physically to your computer, and can be removed by clearing your cache...saving, or downloading will still be there until you physically remove it.

Yes, it can be removed by clearing the cache, but yes, it does put it physically on the computer.

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes, it can be removed by clearing the cache, but yes, it does put it physically on the computer.

I guess when I said physically I meant that after you clear the cache it will be gone, and if you download it after clearing the cache it's still there.

I should have been a bit more clear on what I was saying.

Its not unusual for sites to get hacked to use for nefarious deeds, these people need somewhere to trade their filth and poorly secured servers are the greatest gift around..i remember in the late 90's searching for stupidly setup ftp servers so to be able to use for warez and that took some effort, these days with the automated scripts etc you can probably find a million sites with lax security and use them to transmit your filth for a few days and the thing is not to bother who uploaded it but who has used it and find them and slap em in irons.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Clear is good, I like clear.

Most people that may get some unwanted image accidentally, from my experience, do not clear the cache (or even know that such a thing exists).

In any case, I don't think it's something any investigator can confuse with images downloaded on purpose.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I love this naivete of yours... It's reminiscent of the attitude, you should let cops stop you and search you on the street or TSA to molest you at airports, if you've nothing to hide, nothing will happen... that is one of the stupidest attitudes I've ever seen...lol

Jaden

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Actually using open WIFI gives you plausible deniability and makes it harder for the Government to pin stuff on you.

Pretty sure it doesn't work like that, there are many other fingerprints of what you do on the internet, that is why people use Tor.

I am not saying it isn't possible that the FBI would set someone up, just this immediately skipping the possibility that some one actually did this and going straight to "THE FBI SET THEM UP!" gets old. Also highly doubt they are enemies of the state.

Yes, trust the Government I am sure they only are here to help.

You can be so naive sometimes. I wouldn't trust anything where the Feds were involved. They have a long and documented history of screwing over not only the world, but their own citizens.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Wasn't what I was saying at all, I don't like that attitude. But if they have a warrant then you are beyond that and at that point if you don't have anything to hide you are fine.

a reply to: Metallicus

So your distrust for the gov makes you automatically assume the person is innocent?? Ya, I am the naive one...

Can't help but feel like it is only because the people in question are libertarians.

a reply to: centarix

Your claim of suspicious timing is quite interesting.

At my place of work I had a discussion about the awfullness of child pornography with a co-worker. He was as I very much against it, but a few weeks later he was arrested for actively seeking out, downloading and sharing child pornography.

So. Based on that I believe that some child pornography interested parties sometimes actively speak against it simply to give themselves an alibi and avert suspicion away from themselves.
In other words. Some guy on the radio station invented the story to boost himself as being against child pornography.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Clear is good, I like clear.

Most people that may get some unwanted image accidentally, from my experience, do not clear the cache (or even know that such a thing exists).

In any case, I don't think it's something any investigator can confuse with images downloaded on purpose.

Also, real kiddie porn cannot be mistaken for anything else.

What I am speaking of is...That girl looks sixteen or seventeen.

Who is checking ID's...

I think they got enough real pervs that they don't have to entrap anyone.

I was always curious...

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2
a reply to: centarix

Some guy on the radio station invented the story to boost himself as being against child pornography.

Did all the other media outlets that covered the story like USA today also invent the story (about the FBI's child porn site) to boost ratings?

I dunno....

Logic tells me this....

They did an expose on the FBI running child porn sites... how did they verify that???

Did they visit some of those sites to confirm their theory?

Seems to me that would be the most logical answer.... while investigating the claim, they visited a honeypot or two the FBI had set up and their IP and Mac addresses were logged, hence leading to a raid for child porn.

Doesn't seem far fetched to me.

a reply to: RickinVa

Well if they downloaded anything it is a different story, you don't need to download anything to 'investigate'.

And it wasn't a raid, it was a search.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: RickinVa

Well if they downloaded anything it is a different story, you don't need to download anything to 'investigate'.

And it wasn't a raid, it was a search.

I wouldn't take my chances with the "you have to download" something scenario. I have seen cases in the past where thumbnail images from a browser cache were used as evidence... every site you visit, if you can see them on the webpage, they are in your browser cache.

For instance, if you went to a website that featured sex between minors and those images are on the main page, you have downloaded to your browser cache whether with or without knowledge. You do not have to knowingly click a link to be guilty. Just visiting some websites can set you up for arrest.

In the cases of FBI honey pots, all visitors to that site are logged, regardless of activity.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I have a question...

If you are looking at adult porn site and some of it pops up.

Can you be arrested if you just viewed it ?

A couple times I wanted to throw my PC into the shower.

So, is accidentally viewing considered downloading ?

I think they look at intent in these cases. Browsing history, download history, and so on. They try to show a pattern and that obtaining the material was deliberate so you can't use the defense that it was unintentional.

a reply to: Aazadan

I was under the impression that every jpeg/gif etc that your computer shows is recorded in a temp file of some sort. The alphabet agencies can then use those thumbnails or whatever the technical terms are to show you did download them as they are in effect still on your comp.

So 1 page of pop up with multiple images would imply you had looked at multiple images and off to jail you would go.

Not sure though.

originally posted by: centarix
Did all the other media outlets that covered the story like USA today also invent the story (about the FBI's child porn site) to boost ratings?

The story about the FBI keeping a server running, serving child porn and a small program that would identify the user's computers was not invented, as you said many news sites/companies published the story, and, also as far as I know, none of those sites/companies had their computers searched by the FBI, which makes me think that the "the FBI did it for revenge" is the invented part of the whole story.