It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US government accidentally shuts down 84,000 websites during child porn raid

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

US government accidentally shuts down 84,000 websites during child porn raid


www.rawstory.com

Approximately 84,000 websites were shut down and wrongfully accused of having links to child pornography as part of "Operation Protect Our Children," a new joint operation between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

The domain name mooo.com, which belongs to the DNS provider FreeDNS, hosted 84,000 subdomains, all of which were seized and replaced with a Homeland Security Investigations banner
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
At least the problem was corrected. You wont hear me saying that the government is overstepping the line here, especially because the specific sites that were targetted were accused of dissemination of child pornography. What you will hear me say is that it is pretty sloppy work to not notice that 84,000 sites were seized that had no business being seized.

I am glad that the problem was corrected though.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I trust the word of the DHS about as much as I trust Obama Bin Biden. The child porn thing could have been no more than a cover story. Having said that though, if it really was a child porn ring, then good riddance to them. One more piece of trash we don't have to worry about our kids stumbling upon. S&F.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
it is pretty sloppy work to not notice that 84,000 sites were seized that had no business being seized.
Yes especially since they only had ten warrants.

Apparently some of the 84,000 falsely accused aren't too happy about it.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


the new flavor of banning things.

from banned books in the sheeple era (1930's-1960's) to banned websites.. not long and ATS will be gone. too much counter culture info here.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
You wont hear me saying that the government is overstepping the line here, especially because the specific sites that were targetted were accused of dissemination of child pornography.


Your response is precisely what the government expects. Allege reports of child porn and it's OK for them to do whatever the hell they want.

I don't condone child porn but find it interesting how such an allegation makes it OK for government to run roughshod.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
You wont hear me saying that the government is overstepping the line here, especially because the specific sites that were targetted were accused of dissemination of child pornography.


Your response is precisely what the government expects. Allege reports of child porn and it's OK for them to do whatever the hell they want.

I don't condone child porn but find it interesting how such an allegation makes it OK for government to run roughshod.


Running roughshod would be to seize the sites and then keep them, not turn them back over with a shrug and a 'my bad', although your point is well taken.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Child porn, why object to anything about the prosecusion, if you object, why?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
As incredibly bad our government agencies are at doing a good job at nearly anything, I have to argue that shutting down these child porn sites will only endanger your children more.

Someone can't access their porn? Then they are going to go out and find their own.

Banning anything always solves nothing.
edit on 16-2-2011 by Scarcer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhateverHappens
Child porn, why object to anything about the prosecusion, if you object, why?
I don't object for the 10 websites that actually had warrants, but I do object to the 84,000 websites they didn't have warrants for, posted a notice on their site saying it was seized for child porn, sort of falsely accusing the 84000 sites of something they didn't do, and then they don't get their websites back for 3 days while this nasty child porn banner shows up to visitors.

I wouldn't want my website to display a "seized for child porn" banner for 3 days if I didn't do anything, would you?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The pictures of child porn aren't the problem. The people taking the pictures are the problem. Tens of thousands of websites being shut down is inappropriate. This reminds me of when a torrent site got shut down by ICE, being accused of a selling counterfeit goods.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That certainly is the sin of this situation. 84000 site owners will now have the stigma attached to their business, because of someone else's mistake. At least the story is out there, so there is some sort of defense should someone actually believe that momandpopscandystore.com and wholesomeoldmansblog.com were not involved in a child porn ring, but too often the accusation, or the perceived accusation resonates much too long.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Kill them All!
and let God soret it out.

so if there is 10 kiddy fidler in a gruop of 84,000 people
it would be ok to kill every one in the
group to make shoure you get the one?

let them get away with this and they know they can stake the next step.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Now when will they put in jail the 5,000 Pentagon employees found downloading child porn a couple of weeka ago? Oh yeah, right, government employees are immune. Where has this scandal gone? Oh yeah, we had the Gibbs shooting the day after...classic!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Perhaps it will cut the profits of some of these billion dollar child porn outfits enough to make them go elsewhere or shut down.

I still wonder if the Supreme Court ever decided what constitutes "pornography." Seems like the adult entertainment industry can do anything they want.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott

I still wonder if the Supreme Court ever decided what constitutes "pornography." Seems like the adult entertainment industry can do anything they want.


I remember reading an article a few years back, dont remember where, but it was about some of the owners of child porn sites and their recruiting. They would actively recruit 'legal' age women, who just happened to look a few years younger than they actually are. They would peddle the images as underage girls, but in actuality the images were of perfectly legal women.

When the site was shut down, the wonership did not face any of the repercussions that they would have had they used actual underage models, but their customer base was in fact looking for, and were of the understanding that they had obtained the illegal pornography.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


At least the problem was corrected?!

You wouldn't be saying that if the police "accidentally" kicked you out of your own home for 48 hours, ransacked the place, and then handed you back the key with an half-assed apology explaining they while they only ten search warrants in place for ten specific homes, they "accidentally" decided to shut down and search the entire city. Hell, why not just do away with warrants entirely? I mean, its not like we citizens really need[\i] privacy, and I'm sure G could get a lot more done if there weren't all these pesky rules in place to follow.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Resolution1441
 


You are absolutely right here. No one would be saying that and I am sure the website owners are not saying it either, but since we cant take back the damage caused, the best thing to do is to restore the sites to their previous state. I am sure that there will be a well deserved civil suit brought here, but that probably will not go too far.

--offtopic--
I checked out your intro too and commented there, nice to have you.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


problem is, you can't undo the damage they caused -- G already had a nice long look at 84,000 innocent webmasters' sensitive files, which I'm sure contained a plethora of personal/private information that they didn't want shared with every staff member at ICE. Plus, lets assume a few had something not-quite-legal in the mix, anything from pirated mp3s to maybe their own illegal pr0n -- you know G isn't going to walk away and say oh, we weren't supposed to see that, they're going to hound these people and bring charges against them when they had no right being there in the first place. So yeah, I think it's a little more than just "hey, sorry guys, no harm no foul." G don't work that way.

I'm guessing you don't maintain your own website, because if you did, I think you'd feel a lot differently about this situation



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
The problem is these agencies have no incentive to be careful - after all nothing is going to happen to THEM if they smear and destroy 80,000 businesses. Say my bad and they are off the hook.

In fact, their agency actually benefits from sloppy work. Who know they may have seen some stuff - maybe tax - and wink, wink - dropped a few hints with the IRS.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join