Do you folks realize, we're talking about the Darknet here? Not some place the common user stumbles upon, but which uses a special gateway called Thor, which bounces connections from user to user to cover their tracks. It's the place to hire hitmen, to plan heists and to set in motion all kinds of criminal endeavours.

It's in the article on page one. The one, nobody seems to have read. It just so happens I know a little bit more about it, since the paper I work for ran a series of articles on it. We ran a couple of supervised experiments on what you can order there. And it doesn't even stop at nuclear material.

So, this site we are talking of, never was in the public domain, but in a totally remote area of the internet, only accessible if you know someone pointing you there.

(January 22, 2016 at 10:02 am)abaris Wrote: Do you folks realize, we're talking about the Darknet here? Not some place the common user stumbles upon, but which uses a special gateway called Thor, which bounces connections from user to user to cover their tracks. It's the place to hire hitmen, to plan heists and to set in motion all kinds of criminal endeavours.

It's in the article on page one. The one, nobody seems to have read. It just so happens I know a little bit more about it, since the paper I work for ran a series of articles on it. We ran a couple of supervised experiments on what you can order there. And it doesn't even stop at nuclear material.

So, this site we are talking, never was in the public domain, but in a totally remote area of the internet, only accessible if you know someone pointing you there.

1. I know what the so called "Dark Web" is. I probably have more experience with it than anyone else in this thread.
2. It's called Tor, also known as the Onion Router.

Quote: It's the place to hire hitmen, to plan heists and to set in motion all kinds of criminal endeavours.

(January 22, 2016 at 10:02 am)abaris Wrote: Do you folks realize, we're talking about the Darknet here? Not some place the common user stumbles upon, but which uses a special gateway called Thor, which bounces connections from user to user to cover their tracks. It's the place to hire hitmen, to plan heists and to set in motion all kinds of criminal endeavours.

It's in the article on page one. The one, nobody seems to have read. It just so happens I know a little bit more about it, since the paper I work for ran a series of articles on it. We ran a couple of supervised experiments on what you can order there. And it doesn't even stop at nuclear material.

So, this site we are talking of, never was in the public domain, but in a totally remote area of the internet, only accessible if you know someone pointing you there.

"..Thor.."


Well of course nobody knows anything of the Onion Router, and only criminals would care about protecting their privacy . No secret here, you can google-click the download.

(January 22, 2016 at 10:02 am)abaris Wrote: Do you folks realize, we're talking about the Darknet here? Not some place the common user stumbles upon, but which uses a special gateway called Thor, which bounces connections from user to user to cover their tracks. It's the place to hire hitmen, to plan heists and to set in motion all kinds of criminal endeavours.

It's in the article on page one. The one, nobody seems to have read. It just so happens I know a little bit more about it, since the paper I work for ran a series of articles on it. We ran a couple of supervised experiments on what you can order there. And it doesn't even stop at nuclear material.

So, this site we are talking of, never was in the public domain, but in a totally remote area of the internet, only accessible if you know someone pointing you there.

Also, TOR doesn't gain you access to anything which an ordinary browser won't, so LOL, the "Darknet" is a myth! There have been non-web exchanges which pre-dated http://www, but the only thing which stops anyone from accessing anything online is knowing how to use the web, usenet, or whatever, and a password-protected firewall.

(January 21, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 8:43 pm)paulpablo Wrote: If a drug officer did sell cocaine and it resulted in an overdose I'd imagine it would be the responsibility of whichever organization allows a police officer to sell drugs.  It's my understanding that it's usually the undercover police who are buying the drugs and not selling it, and when they are selling it then it's fake drugs or they don't allow the person to leave and take the drugs.

Then why, in this case, are they allowed to purvey real child porn? It is the analog of selling real drugs, insofar as 1) it is disseminating the moment of abuse of a minor, and 2) stoking the lurid desires of the pedophile.

That was the point of my post.

The problem I have with the arguments against the FBI are that most the posts on here that argue against the FBI are loaded with emotionally provocative language like this. The FBI ran a porn website, they stroked the lurid desires or paedophiles.

What they did is took over a child porn website and left it running rather than shutting it down in order to make some arrests. The act of them doing so is ethically questionable to a degree but if you use your common sense it is probably justifiable.

A law is just something that is made up for the safety of people to prevent them doing certain actions and so on, and there's lots of laws against actions that the police are allowe to violate all the time, the police can break the speed limit, imprison someone, if you stop the police doing what they're doing its obstructing the law if they stop you and you don't comply it's obstructing the law.

(January 22, 2016 at 10:49 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Then why, in this case, are they allowed to purvey real child porn? It is the analog of selling real drugs, insofar as 1) it is disseminating the moment of abuse of a minor, and 2) stoking the lurid desires of the pedophile.

That was the point of my post.

The problem I have with the arguments against the FBI are that most the posts on here that argue against the FBI are loaded with emotionally provocative language like this.  The FBI ran a porn website, they stroked the lurid desires or paedophiles.  

What they did is took over a child porn website and left it running rather than shutting it down in order to make some arrests.  The act of them doing so is ethically questionable to a degree but if you use your common sense it is probably justifiable.  

A law is just something that is made up for the safety of people to prevent them doing certain actions and so on, and there's lots of laws against actions that the police are allowe to violate all the time, the police can break the speed limit, imprison someone, if you stop the police doing what they're doing its obstructing the law if they stop you and you don't comply it's obstructing the law.

Is-ought fallacy, firstly.

Secondly I have a serious problem with people who blithely accept that police should be able to break the law. Police can break the speed limit -- but not any time they feel like it. They have to justify such law-breaking with results. With 215,000 members at that site, and 137 arrests, can it be said that their breaking the law has been justified?

From the article:

Quote:The Justice Department said in court filings that agents did not post any child pornography to the site themselves. But it did not dispute that the agents allowed images that were already on the site to remain there, and that it did not block the site’s users from uploading new ones while it was under the government’s control. And the FBI has not said it had any ability to prevent users from circulating the material they downloaded onto other sites.

“At some point, the government investigation becomes indistinguishable from the crime, and we should ask whether that’s OK,” said Elizabeth Joh, a University of California Davis law professor who has studied undercover investigations. “What’s crazy about it is who’s making the cost/benefit analysis on this? Who decides that this is the best method of identifying these people?”

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

(January 22, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 10:49 am)paulpablo Wrote: The problem I have with the arguments against the FBI are that most the posts on here that argue against the FBI are loaded with emotionally provocative language like this.  The FBI ran a porn website, they stroked the lurid desires or paedophiles.  

What they did is took over a child porn website and left it running rather than shutting it down in order to make some arrests.  The act of them doing so is ethically questionable to a degree but if you use your common sense it is probably justifiable.  

A law is just something that is made up for the safety of people to prevent them doing certain actions and so on, and there's lots of laws against actions that the police are allowe to violate all the time, the police can break the speed limit, imprison someone, if you stop the police doing what they're doing its obstructing the law if they stop you and you don't comply it's obstructing the law.

Is-ought fallacy, firstly.

Secondly I have a serious problem with people who blithely accept that police should be able to break the law. Police can break the speed limit -- but not any time they feel like it. They have to justify such law-breaking with results. With 215,000 members at that site, and 137 arrests, can it be said that their breaking the law has been justified?

From the article:

Quote:The Justice Department said in court filings that agents did not post any child pornography to the site themselves. But it did not dispute that the agents allowed images that were already on the site to remain there, and that it did not block the site’s users from uploading new ones while it was under the government’s control. And the FBI has not said it had any ability to prevent users from circulating the material they downloaded onto other sites.

“At some point, the government investigation becomes indistinguishable from the crime, and we should ask whether that’s OK,” said Elizabeth Joh, a University of California Davis law professor who has studied undercover investigations. “What’s crazy about it is who’s making the cost/benefit analysis on this? Who decides that this is the best method of identifying these people?”

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

But then 137 arrests are a lot of results, and it's an Internet crime, there's no way of knowing if the other offenders were in America.

(January 22, 2016 at 1:52 pm)paulpablo Wrote: But then 137 arrests are a lot of results, and it's an Internet crime, there's no way of knowing if the other offenders were in America.

.00014% is a good result? I guess you and I have differing standards.

Well, the results are being shared with Interpol. If your rationale is apt, where are the international arrests? None were mentioned in the article one way or the other.

It was a pragmatic move to trap and catch monsters.
The ends justify the means.

(January 22, 2016 at 3:47 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: It was a pragmatic move to trap and catch monsters.
The ends justify the means.

No it fucking doesn't.