Re unidentified video sites; For a Dawn FBI Raid On Your Home, Click Here. CNET and DSLreports.com

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

This is an odd one for me.

For a time I avoided this thread as it causes painful memories to come back to me.

I have daughters who were abused by a pedifile....May he burn for ever in Hell...and yes I have peed on his grave.



In my mind there is a huge difference between men who abduct, molest and exploit children and those sick SOB's who read about or look at images of them destroying those children's lives.

I understand the concept that the viewers of this filth are injuring the child by providing a market for the crap, but in many instances that child is long dead or grown before the "crime" of looking at their image is committed.

The end does not always justify the means....as in bombing abortion clinics.

I have a problem with the method, and not with putting perverts away.

I hope the Feds are working harder to find those who are out theremaking this crap than they are in looking for those who are buying or viewing it.

The ones that are making this stuffare the ones who are actively destroying the lives of children and when you stop them, you may still be able to save some of those kids.

In my mind the Feds putting those images out there...grainey they may be...is still wrong. There has to be a better way.

I hate child abuse and itsofspring... pornography in all its forms and not a day goes by but what I deal with its aftermath, in the lives of my family members.

Child abuse, in all its forms and manifestations,is like a great tree and it seems that to many spend to much time trying to kill that tree by plucking off its leaves, when they need to attack its trunk with an ax to make it fall.



End of Rant

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree entirely with that rant. It sickens me that LE will sooner go after the easy prosecutions of those who view child porn rather than do the difficult work of tracking down those who produce it. What sickens me even more is when I see another case of a prosecution of someone for "child porn" for having 2 or 3 images on his computer and other storage devices, even after the FBI does all its nifty stuff with computer forensics. Either these guys are really good and can disguise their collections from a thorough examination of their hard drives... or they aren't quite as guilty as Big Brother paints them to be. Find the guys (and girls) with 500 images of child porn, and I think it's safe to say that they have a problem.


There's also the grey area no one has brought up of what constitutes "child porn". Many legal sites with participants aged 18 and older advertise as "teen" sites. Yet as we all know, "teen" can refer to those aged 13-17 as well as those 18-19. If there's a link to "young girls", that could refer to porn involving those 7-10 years old, 13-14 years old, 18-20 years old, or 22-25 years old, and the latter two groups are the vast majority. Most people looking for the latter, but accidentally finding the former, will just go "ick" and close the window. And there is also the rule of thumb in locating any porn on the Internet that 99.9% of the time, the file name does not actually describe what is in the file. Quite simply, there's no way to tell the intent of someone clicking on a link to so-called "child" porn, even though the MSM would like us to believe that anyone who ends up with a single image of child porn on their computer is a loner who abducts little girls and tortures them in his basement.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

I pretty much agree entirely with that rant. It sickens me that LE will sooner go after the easy prosecutions of those who view child porn rather than do the difficult work of tracking down those who produce it. What sickens me even more is when I see another case of a prosecution of someone for "child porn" for having 2 or 3 images on his computer and other storage devices, even after the FBI does all its nifty stuff with computer forensics. Either these guys are really good and can disguise their collections from a thorough examination of their hard drives... or they aren't quite as guilty as Big Brother paints them to be. Find the guys (and girls) with 500 images of child porn, and I think it's safe to say that they have a problem.


There's also the grey area no one has brought up of what constitutes "child porn". Many legal sites with participants aged 18 and older advertise as "teen" sites. Yet as we all know, "teen" can refer to those aged 13-17 as well as those 18-19. If there's a link to "young girls", that could refer to porn involving those 7-10 years old, 13-14 years old, 18-20 years old, or 22-25 years old, and the latter two groups are the vast majority. Most people looking for the latter, but accidentally finding the former, will just go "ick" and close the window. And there is also the rule of thumb in locating any porn on the Internet that 99.9% of the time, the file name does not actually describe what is in the file. Quite simply, there's no way to tell the intent of someone clicking on a link to so-called "child" porn, even though the MSM would like us to believe that anyone who ends up with a single image of child porn on their computer is a loner who abducts little girls and tortures them in his basement.

Click to expand...

You have to take the prosecutions you canget. The big fish that make it are not so easy to find. The child porn network is sophisticated and hard to get access to. It is easier said than done.

There is always the chance that while surfing for adult sites they can have a link to send you to a prohibited site. Now going there may raise some suspicions... but they can also tell how many times you have visited and how long you stayed.

They have hundreds of thousands of hits each day. They are not going to worry about one joker that stumbled on the site never to return again. They are going to see who is returning and staying... and go after them.

There are so many people in violation that they have to be very selective and make it worth it. They will go for the sure thing so if you punch in your credit card on your first visit.. your busted!! It shows clear intent that you wanted kiddie porn! :lol:

So do not get too bent out of shape...

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

I leave my wireless connection open on purpose to benefit a neighbor who can't afford it. This is now a very dangerous move.

Click to expand...

By all means use a simple 64 bit WEP key (10 digits) such as a phone number. Unsecure wireless is a open invitation to issues.

back to the OP:
Its one thing to click a link, its another to destroy evidence.... this guy knew what he was doing.

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

Jim675 wrote:

I leave my wireless connection open on purpose to benefit a neighbor who can't afford it. This is now a very dangerous move.

Click to expand...

By all means use a simple 64 bit WEP key (10 digits) such as a phone number. Unsecure wireless is a open invitation to issues.

back to the OP:
Its one thing to click a link, its another to destroy evidence.... this guy knew what he was doing.

Click to expand...

So if he had stuffed the drive in his pants before shredding them it would have been ok. Seems that was the standard for clinton staffers. Oh thats right, he had top security clearence and knew the law, so breaking it was ok.

Point of interest also......
There are databases that catalog all web pages on the net automaticaly.
What if one of them catalogs the sting page? Is the owner of machine (MIT)
responsible, or the writer of the software that downloads it? Or as more likely
since it is an IP6 number the feds let it slide.
this is the same govenment that didn't notice 30 terabytes being downloaded
from pentagon computers. That much traffic should flag the heck out of IT security.
But they probably figured it was just domestic identity thief stealing SSN again.


Anyone know the end result of #2 homeland security chief who picked up underage girl. Physical child molestation, and will probably get less that this poor fellow, because he has an inside to the gov.


More gov logic......
If you download music you are stealing, and causing the auther to loose money.
With this logic wouldn't downloading these pics cause the molester to lose money
also, and that would put him out of buisness? Unless the FBI makes you pay for them.