'Anonymous' Hacking Group Takes Down 40 Child Porn Sites, 'Darknet,' Exposes Over 1500 Users

reply to post by TrueBrit


we know we're infiltrated

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

the sources made a mistake, we talking about hosts, not sites

Globably you can count around 235 sites involved, shared around hosts

it use graphic interface, but not user friendly, its more like a directory manager with subfolder , with ramifications with every sub domains

reply to post by OzTruth

That makes no sense, is it a typo or you just being cryptic. Its not a story. you sound like a fraud, all talk no substance.

prove me it make no sense

reply to post by Xcathdra


Don't see how that's likely.

If the police were posing as 'Anonymous' to get the intel then yes, the case would be prejudiced, but since the investigation would come as a result of 'publicly obtained' information, then the case is not tainted.

Investigations would ensue, and any prosecution would be based on evidence obtained after Anonymous had done it's part, so prosecutions would be based on subsequently obtained evidence.

All Anonymous have done, in respect of potentially tainting evidence, is to give the authorities a head start and a place to shine it's light.

reply to post by AnonymousVan


Kind of like the old file servers people connected to backdoors with a la cdc's back orifice, netbus, etc a decade ago?

Originally posted by AnonymousVan
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

we know we're infiltrated

So does everyone else. What I want to know, is does the entity Anon have plans to have that cancer removed? Thing is , I am growing to appreciate the HELL out of Anonymous as a movement, simply because they think big, and aim high, and are there for freedom of the people from the state. These are all ideals which I live and breathe for, and anyone who vocaly supports those I consider a friend at least. But its difficult to allow myself to think of Anon that way, precisely because of the pedo link.
Seriously though... if you have any methods to share such information, know that in terms of the political actions taken by Anonymous over the last year or so, I am utterly amazed, and think the world may very well be in Anons debt. But I just want to know, does Anon have the will to remove the child molestors from its ranks?

reply to post by projectvxn


Good to hear but I hope anon didn't just name and shame them and rather brought law enforcement into the picture early..

If not then the ringleaders will be free as birds to set up again having fled the state/country..

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


yes, its kinda like the old cultofthedeadcowhish file browser

reply to post by TrueBrit


I would think that cancer would remove itself. If anonymous began to gather intense scrutiny would you want to be the anon guy with massive amounts of illegal content (not only illegal but what is considered the most morally repugnant in the civilized world)?

The bigger anon gets, the further away they will go. Off to their own island. Cancer excised.

reply to post by TrueBrit


we dont plan to remove the cancer from our ranks, simply because they are actualy helpful, because they dont take us seriously and most of the time think we're just harmless idiots,so they relatively pose no danger

reply to post by AnonymousVan


Yeah. That's what I meant cdc back orifice. That's the one I thought I remembered looking like a file server. I wasn't sure if netbus was more of a file sharing interface or more of a client interface like sub7.

reply to post by AnonymousVan


Well ,sure, they pose no danger to you individualy , but surely Anonymous understands that it can screw with governments (very effectively!), mess with the big players on the markets, and generaly make life difficult for the power elite all it likes, but people arent going to be comfortable with it if every now and again it is linked to child exploitation?

Seriously, politicaly speaking keeping those scumbags around will wind up screwing with you long term, so why take the risk?

reply to post by TrueBrit

Seriously, politicaly speaking keeping those scumbags around will wind up screwing with you long term, so why take the risk?

'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer' springs to mind.

I'd see value in Anonymous' policy, if for arguments sake the scumbag in question has access to a central server or can provide access to sensitive areas to the group as a whole.

They then become valuable scumbags.

It's a bit like the feds giving immunity to individuals up to their necks in crap, if those individuals lead them to the bigger fish. The lesser of two evils really.

Anonymous had started as a pariah, and that was / is fine with them. Frankly i don't think they particularly care onje way or the other what the media, the elites or anyone else thinks of them...they have their job to do and they are going to be getting on with it, loved or hated the work will go on.

And more power to them in my view.

reply to post by spikey


The term you need to understand is fruit of the poisonous tree. Breaking the law in order to report someone else breaking the law places any evidence obtained in jeoprady of being supressed due to the manner the evidence was obtained. Not to mention the ability to screen out information that might be compromised or possibly created for other motives, in addition to innocent until proven guilty (my opinion on this applies to the US only).

When law enforcement does there thing with cyberspace there are criteria that must be followed in order to preserve any evidence / information obtained. Even if we go down the road of providing tips courts will require the tipster be certified somewhow that they are reliable, requiring an established history of providing reliable information about criminal organizaions / elements / actions.

Im just saying that while I dont care much for anyonmous, at least in this case they are trying to do something proactive and decent. Taking sites down is one part of the problem, and getting people charged tried and convicted is the other. Take down one site and 2 more will pop up somewhere else, where as the people who go to those sites dont replicate as easily.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Would that really matter here though?
If a cop does it I know it isn't allowed, but if say a civilian opens another persons front door, peeks in, and sees a pile of child pornography and reports it do you think they would throw it out?
I'm asking seriously.. not being a smartass as per usual.

Either way getting their names out there gives the police a long list of people that they can henceforth keep their eye on that they likely wouldn't have come close to before.

I would say the risk is justified when anonymous was the only ones doing anything about it.

a word of caution (just a small one)
When my son was about 11 or 12 he came to me with a confession.
The CIA were going to arrest him and he was horrified.
I asked why.
He told me jhe had looked at child porn.
I was horrified and said WHY?

He said, because I don't want to look at old women, I want to see people my own age.
I was gobsmacked.
It made me realise that some of the ' consumers' may be kids with the same idea.

reply to post by OzTruth


Sorry, but perhaps it is you who needs to "learn" more. These disgusting sites are for people who enjoy hurting children. They do horrible things and post it so others can watch....including hurting their own children. I read that some people just want to hear children cry....the louder the better..... So age of consent means NOTHING here. These sites are for sick a** people who enjoy seeing children in pain and being abused.....doing the vilest things you could imagine. Can BABIES consent? They even abuse infants. Read up on these cockroaches, and then come talk about age of consent!

Great to see Anonymous, putting these pathetic people out in the open. F#cking Creeps. good post S&F

Originally posted by StealthyKat
reply to post by OzTruth

 

Sorry, but perhaps it is you who needs to "learn" more. These disgusting sites are for people who enjoy hurting children. They do horrible things and post it so others can watch....including hurting their own children. I read that some people just want to hear children cry....the louder the better..... So age of consent means NOTHING here. These sites are for sick a** people who enjoy seeing children in pain and being abused.....doing the vilest things you could imagine. Can BABIES consent? They even abuse infants. Read up on these cockroaches, and then come talk about age of consent!

Maybe you should go back and read all my posts. No where have I supported the rape and molestation of toddlers, preteens or babies. But nice of you to make it sound like I did. You must have missed the post, anyway, You realize US laws in the 1880s age of consent was 7-12 depending on which state you live in. Great bunch of founding fathers you had there.

reply to post by Aim64C


Learn to stop slandering liberals with your bull# and you'll get more respect.

I'm sick and tired of your judgmental lot.