Anonymous shuts down hidden child abuse hub, Tor pedos torpedoed, names outed

Anonymous may be a thorn in the governments side but they sure seem to be doing what the government should be doing in the first place as many others have intoned here. Why hasn't the government been able to shut down these sites or better still, why hasn't the government had the motivation to shut down child porn sites? Could it be that people in government and the upper echelon of corporations use these sites? User lists can contain all fake names and locations, and IP's can be spoofed or bounced through a series of anon servers and proxies. It would not surprise me if in the end, many fake IP's/users are eventually traced back to real people in positions of power.

Some things need to be shut down, go Anon!

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by Fractured.Facade

Many anon lovers are pedophiles

You, again ?


Holly Molly, you never give up arent you ?

well , care to show us somes of your pedo Anon lovers ?

care to elaborate ?

Sorry but Anon is nothing more than a bunch of kids sitting around swapping dumb pictures on chan boards; they rarely have the wits to do anything cohesive. If this was true, don't you think law enforcement would be all over this? This is nothing but punk kids propaganda so they can have a laugh on their boards....

I think a few recurring points here should be addressed.

1) Anon should not have done what they did because, well, this time they might have done something good, but what next? Will they attack the sites with opinions that differ from their own? Will they try to make sure that theirs is the only view available on the Internet? This time, those whom they attacked were 100% in the wrong, but what about when it's only an issue of opinion?

-This is a common logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope." I understand the spirit of the argument and it is definitely something to watch out for, but really, I think it's safe to accept that they've done something good [if you believe it's good (I do)]. If, eventually, they DO try to suppress opinions that are different from theirs or if they attack "good" websites, we'll have reason to be concerned and upset.

Think of it this way. Can we really argue that our law enforcement agents should not punish murders because if they do, they might someday also think that they have the right to punish those who disagree with the government's international policy? Sure, this is an extreme example, but the idea is the same. Be glad that they've done something good--that they're punishing the figurative murders. Wait until they actually try to take our rights to our opinions before getting upset about that.

2) Anon should not have done this. It will give the federal government an excuse to make use of the various Internet controls that they have at their disposal.

-Anon has done something good by going after Internet pornography. If the government/Obama/whoever actually uses this or something like this as an excuse to censor the Internet, well, that falls squarely on the government/Obama/whomever. Should we/should Anon really focus on appeasing those in power, even if that means avoiding opportunities to do good? Should we submit to the threat of oppression based on the belief that it could bring about actual oppression? Basically, should we do exactly what those in charge want, thereby saving them the trouble of actually flexing their muscles to suppress us? I say that we should not.

3) Anon has attacked or taken a stance against freedom in general/freedom to host content on the Internet by making this attack.

-This falls in with my first point, I think. Though this is the objection I'd be most likely to agree with, I just can't. No, oppression isn't good. But is absolute freedom? Is freedom acceptable when it is exerted in a way that harms or limits the freedom of others? In this case, Anon attacked a group of people who support a trade that overtly exploits children. These children are being used and abused for the sexual pleasure of those with more power. One might argue: "well, they're just pictures and videos." Yes...they're pictures and videos of children getting sexually abused. For such images and videos to exist, well, children actually need to get abused. The rest is simple economics. Is there a demand for such content? Clearly. Therefore, more of it will be made. More children will be abused. And, laws aside, I *really* don't trust that children are able to make informed decisions about engaging in such acts.

4) Taking access to such images and sites away might provoke potentially dangerous people--who clearly have a sexual interest in children--to consider doing something drastic and horrible.

-As with the second argument, look at who does what. Anon attempts to fight a trade that relies on child abuse--that, in many cases, probably relies on acts that are nothing short of rape. Removing access to sites/images/videos/whatever leads someone to actually attempt to abuse, harm, or take advantage of a child. Is this horrible? Yes. Is it anon's fault? No. Is it even a reason to stop trying to fight against child pornography? No. Remember, this is a trade that relies on child abuse. It is wrong and should be ended. The same can be said of anyone who would actually go so far as to take sexual advantage of a child in any way (not that they should be "ended," but that they should be stopped). I understand that people have drives that they cannot readily direct. People who are interested in child pornography are not, in many cases, "like that" by choice. It's a perversion, and it's ingrained into their psyches. I don't think that these people are "evil" or "twisted" or anything. Possessing a given drive is not wrong in and if itself. Acting on it in a way that directly or indirectly harms others, on the other hand, is. Anon took a step to be sure that people do not do that. Someone who acts out in a negative way as a result is completely responsible for his own actions. Don't try to lay that on Anon.

I'd be interested to hear revised arguments against Anon, with these points in mind. I'm really not trying to say that they're Internet superheroes or anything, but I don't think that the aforementioned arguments are particularly rational.

reply to post by Ha`la`tha


They haven't released any ip's, I don't see why you want ips and addreress anyway I ask again WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THAT INFO? I guess you haven't heard of people using the same usernames across multiple sites maybe on sites they aren't proxied up to the nuts.

I know you guys like posting with the blinders on and don't take in info that's posted so i will post it again

news.cnet.com...

www.zdnet.com...

Ahh so you think that it's good they will be hounded for doing something... I thought there was something fishy about your post.

Right on... Sounds like you have something to hide?

What are you on about, something fishy about my post what are you trying to say?

Let me expalin so you understand. I think it's GOOD they are doing somethng, I DON'T think releasing the info on PASTEBIN is, instead they should of gone to the AUTHORITES with the info.

Will just put this here as well thehackernews.com...

Also this is low hanging fruit.

So Ha`la`tha what are you doing to stop this kind of crap? are you putting your freedom on the line to gather info to help shut these people down?

reply to post by AnonymousVan



Come on dude the chans were filled with people posting pedo crap

Lots of edits

All of you applauding this are easily fooled and manipulated. An illegal organization exposes something illegal this brings it to the attention of our public "officials" (not servants mind you) which then initiates more regulation on the web, which will lead to the cracking down of anything they can demonize. Soon all your file sharing will fall under criminal activity that will be shut down, your freedom to express your thoughts and discontent will also be shutdown, being anonymous to an extent on the web will be removed, they don't just want you tagged in real life they want you tagged in the web. Why? for control

so keep cheering you twits.

now let's hope that all the names come to light and they bury everyone involved in that pedo ring, not just the small fry but the big fishes you know there is bound to be some.

Originally posted by BillyBoBBizWorth
So its only legit evidence if the authorities have seen it? is that what your saying?
Just curious.

No, but an unknown source is never as good as a known source that keeps records of how and when the evidence was gathered.

Because i don't think evidence should be dismissed just because the authorities haven't been informed,what if the authorities are in on it,they might want to tamper with the evidence.

What if the ones presenting the evidence are in on it? We do not even know who they are.

The "justice system" is a joke anyways,so how can we take what a court thinks seriously..?

The fact (?) that the justice system is a joke in your country (or at least your perception of it) doesn't mean it's the same thing in all countries.

Originally posted by noonebutme
I wouldn't say what anon did was useless - far from it, in fact. The showed how easy it is to expose people of this filth and their supposed "hidden" networks and so on.

They only exposed user names, not very useful.

Now, sure, the usre list may not contain real names, but there's a chance some of them may have reused those user names in other sites/places on the net which can be xref'd and then backtracked.

Imagine that there was a user on that site that had "noonebutme" as his/her user name. Would that mean that you were the same person?

Also, by shedding a light on these vermin, it might panic them into trying to reorganise and restructure very quickly - which means there's a good chance someone will make a mistake and allowed either the law or someone like Anon, to act again and get more real-world info.

Or maybe they become more careful and harder to find...

And no doubt, the newbie pedos will come flooding down on those exposed onion sites and bring even more exposure.

And how do you know who are the real paedophiles and who are the morbidly curious?

reply to post by ArMaP


Good point on the usernames, you would have to be kinda dense to use the same username you use on that site elsewhere, could go by unique passwords, lots of databases out there to compare against.

And how do you know who are the real paedophiles and who are the morbidly curious?

Does it matter?

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I'm 100% behind vigilante justice.

I hope you never get on the wrong end of vigilante "justice"...

Originally posted by aivlas
Does it matter?

It does, I was thinking about those curious about the site now that they know of its existence and go there to try to see what happened, to try to do the same thing or something similar.

Originally posted by yaluk
All of you applauding this are easily fooled and manipulated. An illegal organization exposes something illegal this brings it to the attention of our public "officials" (not servants mind you) which then initiates more regulation on the web, which will lead to the cracking down of anything they can demonize. Soon all your file sharing will fall under criminal activity that will be shut down, your freedom to express your thoughts and discontent will also be shutdown, being anonymous to an extent on the web will be removed, they don't just want you tagged in real life they want you tagged in the web. Why? for control

so keep cheering you twits.

So here you rage against those cheering on Anon, and then you post this:

Originally posted by yaluk
now let's hope that all the names come to light and they bury everyone involved in that pedo ring, not just the small fry but the big fishes you know there is bound to be some.

edit on 25-10-2011 by yaluk because: (no reason given)

Then you cheer them on yourself? Hypocrite much?

Originally posted by backwardluminary
1) Anon should not have done what they did because, well, this time they might have done something good, but what next?

My problem is with the "might", because nobody knows the results of their actions. Good intentions are not enough.

4) Taking access to such images and sites away might provoke potentially dangerous people--who clearly have a sexual interest in children--to consider doing something drastic and horrible.

-As with the second argument, look at who does what. Anon attempts to fight a trade that relies on child abuse--that, in many cases, probably relies on acts that are nothing short of rape. Removing access to sites/images/videos/whatever leads someone to actually attempt to abuse, harm, or take advantage of a child. Is this horrible? Yes. Is it anon's fault? No.

I disagree, if that happened/happens, it's really Anon's fault. If they were trying to end it they should have thought first of what to do with the information they could gather and in the consequences. Presented as it was, it looks like they didn't thought or cared about the consequences to potential victims. Paedophiles are known to follow their intentions any way they can find, so this only made them think that they should find another way.

Is it even a reason to stop trying to fight against child pornography? No. Remember, this is a trade that relies on child abuse. It is wrong and should be ended.

No, it's not a reason to stop fighting against child pornography, but it should be fought with planning and thinking about the victims, present and future, if the plan doesn't work as expected.

Many people dislike the authorities, but I would always prefer an organisation that does this type of work everyday than a group of unknown people that we do not know who they are. From what we know they can even be a competing group that has a server available for the paedophiles that were "smoked out" from that site.

Anon took a step to be sure that people do not do that.

Stopping a server for some time doesn't assure anyone of anything.

Originally posted by AnonymousVan
Wehave the user names, real names, IP adress + real adress (irl) , we also own the download logs ( meaning we have the proof they actualy downloaded child porn)

Then why was it published that Anonymous only got the user names?

And how could you get the real names?

No, but an unknown source is never as good as a known source that keeps records of how and when the evidence was gathered.

I agree,we don't know where this information came from,or whether its true or not.

What if the ones presenting the evidence are in on it? We do not even know who they are.

I meant it just as an example.Your right,we don't know who they are.

The fact (?) that the justice system is a joke in your country (or at least your perception of it) doesn't mean it's the same thing in all countries.

Yes,they may not be the exactly same,but i bet they are very similar.It would explain why people all around the world get away with major crimes,not just in certain countries.

Like pedophiles in Portugal..

I know several people are saying the info should have been given to the authorities...
but aren't there task forces already trying to bring these sort of sites down anyway in most western countries?

If anonymous did something authoriites haven't done yet, I still say good for them.
And at least just their statement and the story coming out should have alerted any task forces working against kiddie porn.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
I know several people are saying the info should have been given to the authorities...
but aren't there task forces already trying to bring these sort of sites down anyway in most western countries?

As far as I know, yes, but as things are still developing we don't know what they know and what they are doing, so the authorities could have need of some of that illegally obtained information or they may have some of their work lost because of this action.

If anonymous did something authoriites haven't done yet, I still say good for them.

Unless that makes it harder for the authorities to get to the paedophiles. Doing something that the authorities haven't done yet doesn't mean it was something that could or should be done at this moment.

And at least just their statement and the story coming out should have alerted any task forces working against kiddie porn.

And the paedophiles...

reply to post by Chamberf=6


So far all we know is that anon is claiming to have taken down a bunch of servers etc, I have seen no proof of it. They released some list of supposed login names they harvested from it. Useless info really, I doubt many were stupid enough to use their real name as a login.I have been to freedomhosting main site, posted a quote from them on page 3 I think it was, the only thing they did was cause a minor irritation to that server. It's still up and improving their security now.... Sounds like all they did was annoy a few people, not save any kids or something.

Like I said before, I hope anon did not screw up an investigation that might have locked up some producers....

reply to post by TKDRL


Who the hell said they went and saved the kids??

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Sorry, I just meant the way many people are cheering as if they are some heroes, as if they saved some kids or something. When in fact it may be they put more kids lives in danger, if they screwed up any investigations focused on people that are making the crap.