Framed for child inappropriate content — by a PC virus

[waves]

Of all the sinister things that Internet viruses do, this might be the worst: They can make you an unsuspecting collector of child inappropriate contentography.

Framed for child inappropriate content — by a PC virus

 

[St_Worm2]

Framed for child inappropriate content — by a PC virus

I was about to say, "WOW, now there's a PC virus that did some good for society", until I read the article, that is

Good grief, along with being a horrible occurrence for this particular laptop's owner, of course, what a frightening scenario it is for all of us in general

 

[Sammy-San]

Framed for child inappropriate content — by a PC virus

Why didn't the bosses and technicians assume it could've been a virus instead of assuming the obvious? Also, do you think the people who reported them could be sued for taking a risk in judgement, or that is not legal?

With the custody case, he can't even get back child support payments?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

---SE---

That's actually not true...

It's a myth that the sort of things you refer to are only found on the "deep web".

I didn't specialize in InfoSec or data forensics when I got my Computer Science degree (I was in the software/programming realm), however, we did have to take classes on the subject and in those classes, we'd often have guest speakers. Once of which was a retired FBI data forensics investigator who discussed the topic at length.

While it's true that the lion's share of the illegal drug trade that happens online is on the "deep web", he said roughly 30% of the illegal inappropriate contentography sites that they took down in his time were found on the surface web and not the deep web.


As far as the story in question goes, it looks like this article was from 2009 that was picked up from the associated press (which sometimes puts the "government screws everything up" spin on many of their articles.

Other articles on that particular case aren't saying that "it was for sure a virus", they're just suggesting that the state couldn't meet their burden of proof in proving that it was definitely him, and that since a virus could "technically" accomplish what was claimed, they have to error on the side of letting him go free.

Which is actually how most of those cases go down...it's very very hard to prove intent in many of those cases. If you look at the stats law enforcement publishes on those huge busts they do of massive rings that they take down, they'll say "the site had 11,000 unique visitors over the course of the 3 months we were monitoring it"...and yet, they only walk away with a couple hundred warrants, and only a couple dozen convictions. ...and those are from people giving personally identifying info (like credit card numbers, mailing addresses, etc...)

When the former FBI employee was speaking to our class, he was very candid about the fact that the arrest and conviction rate is extremely poor due to the fact that there are so many factors that can create reasonable doubt.
-living in an apartment complex instead of a house (meaning your neighbors could easily access your internet)
-IP address came from an internet cafe or public wi-fi hotspot
-A house with multiple residents
-redirected to it from a, seemingly, benign site
the list goes on...

Each of those things casts doubt as to who was physically sitting at the computer, and what exactly their intent was.

That's why IP address alone doesn't hold up anymore for a warrant like it may have 5-10 years ago.

In order to get a conviction on these guys "all of the stars have to align" so to speak.
They need to have a hit from the IP address on the target site
There needs to be some sort of "log in", essentially an acknowledgement that the person wants to be there and went through the time and effort to join.
The person had to provide some form of self-identification (credit card, email, mailing address, real name, etc...)
And IF they can get the warrant, the files still need to be present on the computer, which many people run software on their computer that not only deletes internet histories, but also overwrites it with random data so that any file traces are unrecoverable. (for that matter, people use that kind of erasing software for legitimate purposes too, so merely the presence of software like Recuva or CCleaner can't be an implication of guilt)

...and then (and it's only a maybe) can they get an actual conviction on those guys. The sad reality is most of those guys are probably walking away unscathed even though authorities probably have a pretty good idea of what they're up to.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Actually child inappropriate content and other terrible things are on the regular web. Just not easy to find. Just as "snuff" and death videos are on the regular web. However unless your looking for them, you probably won't find them. Which is why I laugh at those who are like "I wasn't looking at the child inappropriate content!", you wouldn't have accidentally stumbled upon it. Well maybe, but those odds are VERY tiny.

But yes the deep web has child inappropriate content all over but its near impossible to access either and thankfully most stuff on the deep web if your new just gives you malware, ransom ware, viruses. So it sort of is really like a deep karma web. lol.

Being a computer tech often people come to me and usually they have a slow computer. Most have viruses, adware, malware...etc. While alot of them were looking at inappropriate content (which can sometimes give you viruses and what not too), some of them were looking for child inappropriate content itself. Going through their search history it was obvious that what they had was no "mistake". Again, in rarer cases it really was a virus (or at least they covered their tracks).

In one sad case it was a pastor. He felt guilty enough that I seen he looked at softcore inappropriate content. But when I looked at his download history, he was download child inappropriate content pics from various "upload" sites where you upload/download files from. He claimed it wasn't him. It was his PC only. He had a wife and a little girl. I don't think the wife was doing it because she had a laptop. I did contact the FBI locally but never heard anything about it back. About a year later though his wife left him when she found child inappropriate content on the computer when she went to use it because her laptop wasn't working. He got kicked out of the church too. Not sure if he went to jail/prison or not.

I know when I was a teen I was at a gaming site where they had mods (its something you download for your game that changes it). The one thing I clicked suddenly took over my PC. There was LOUD sex sounds playing and millions of image of old gay men...well I won't say what... popped up one after another on my screen. I had to hold the power button to turn off my PC. But when I got back into windows everything was messed up. Had to reformat and reinstall everything. Ugh.

When I was 14 I was also pretending to be a little girl in chat rooms (this was like AOL messenger days) and old guys would pretend to be someone else. I would act innocent and what not and play into their perv requests (well by typing obviously). Then they would send pics of their junk. I would then copy the chat log and the pics and submit it to the FBI locally. I actually had someone call me back from the "computer crimes division" or something along those lines. They said when I was 18 I should look into getting a career there. Never did go because I ended up with a TBI. But man I would have loved to busted pervy men looking at child inappropriate content.

On a side note I did turn in a 20 year old guy whos a son of a friend of my moms who was chatting with underage girls and exchanging pics with them. Noticed it when fixing their computer for viruses. He also was dating a 40 year old women who had a 6 year old daughter (which something seems very off about it). I didn't think the FBI would do much but last year he got arrested at a library for trying to talk to a VERY young girl into meeting him for sex. It was a sting operation. And turns out they must have listened because they seized his computer too and found more evidence. Hes currently labeled a pedophile and is spending a few years in prision.

Ok sorry to rant on. I have strong feelings about this subject.

 

[Cearbhall]

---SE---

That's actually the "dark web." The deep web is anything that doesn't pop up in generalized search engines. It's mostly boring stuff like academic journals and scientific data that doesn't necessarily require any special software. The dark web is only a small part of the deep web.

 

[DaisyDay]

With the custody case, he can't even get back child support payments?

From who?

 

[Sammy-San]

From who?

It says he lost custody.

This is kinda off topic, but regarding child support, it's confusing how suddenly kids become more expensive and need for money because you don't live with them.

 

[Paidiske]

With the custody case, he can't even get back child support payments?

Because his child doesn't need to eat any more? Or be clothed, or housed? Or have medical needs? Or school needs? Or electricity, water, and I could go on...?

Children don't become more expensive when you don't live with them. But often the expense is felt more because the two adults now have to maintain two households (so the overall expenses for the adults are more).

Most commonly, the non-custodial parent's payments don't go anywhere close to covering half the real costs of providing for the child, which is part of why it's more common for custodial parents to experience ongoing poverty (as well as the custodial parent having more difficulty with work).

Child support is part of being a decent parent if your marriage or relationship breaks down. It's not something you should only have to pay if you feel like it or everything is going your way.

 

[Sammy-San]

Because his child doesn't need to eat any more? Or be clothed, or housed? Or have medical needs? Or school needs? Or electricity, water, and I could go on...?

Children don't become more expensive when you don't live with them. But often the expense is felt more because the two adults now have to maintain two households (so the overall expenses for the adults are more).

Most commonly, the non-custodial parent's payments don't go anywhere close to covering half the real costs of providing for the child, which is part of why it's more common for custodial parents to experience ongoing poverty (as well as the custodial parent having more difficulty with work).

Child support is part of being a decent parent if your marriage or relationship breaks down. It's not something you should only have to pay if you feel like it or everything is going your way.

School needs are payed for by property taxes.

So the idea of child support is that the parent is responsible for both households? It's not like we live in the 1930s and women can't work and need money.

 

[Paidiske]

School needs are payed for by property taxes.

So the idea of child support is that the parent is responsible for both households? It's not like we live in the 1930s and women can't work and need money.

I don't know what it's like in America, but here there's still plenty of costs associated with school; uniforms, books, excursions, sports gear, "extras" of all kinds, and so on. Just my daughter's school uniform this year cost me what felt like a small fortune (for a government school).

The idea of child support is that both parents are equally responsible for the costs of raising a child. (As I noted, the reality is far from this, but that's the idea). All of the costs of raising a child; and a household with a child is more expensive than a household without!

Women can work. And most single mothers do. But that doesn't mean a child doesn't have the right to also be supported by his/her father.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Being a computer tech often people come to me and usually they have a slow computer. Most have viruses, adware, malware...etc. While alot of them were looking at inappropriate content (which can sometimes give you viruses and what not too), some of them were looking for child inappropriate content itself. Going through their search history it was obvious that what they had was no "mistake". Again, in rarer cases it really was a virus (or at least they covered their tracks).

Yeah, I get the "can you take a look my computer" think all the time from friends and family
(I do software development for my job...but I know to do basic hardware swap-outs and the basic stuff like cleaning up after viruses)

Luckily, I've never encountered anything illegal while doing that, just some awkward uncomfortable conversations to be had with certain relatives after I've "seen what they've seen" sort of thing.

99% of the viruses come from inappropriate content sites...specifically, when people use IE to look at inappropriate content sites. My usual advice to them is "if you feel like you have to look at that stuff, at least stick with the mainstream sites and when you do, use Chrome/Opera/Firefox and not IE or Edge".

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Yeah, I get the "can you take a look my computer" think all the time from friends and family
(I do software development for my job...but I know to do basic hardware swap-outs and the basic stuff like cleaning up after viruses)

Luckily, I've never encountered anything illegal while doing that, just some awkward uncomfortable conversations to be had with certain relatives after I've "seen what they've seen" sort of thing.

99% of the viruses come from inappropriate content sites...specifically, when people use IE to look at inappropriate content sites. My usual advice to them is "if you feel like you have to look at that stuff, at least stick with the mainstream sites and when you do, use Chrome/Opera/Firefox and not IE or Edge".

Yeah. Most peoples computers I work on are older and just use IE and no virus protection. When I get a computer from someone with kids I already know its going to be a mess and explaining to the parents how whatever happened... well happened will either make them think I am lying and wrong or they will think I'm from outspace.

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't know what it's like in America, but here there's still plenty of costs associated with school; uniforms, books, excursions, sports gear, "extras" of all kinds, and so on. Just my daughter's school uniform this year cost me what felt like a small fortune (for a government school).

The idea of child support is that both parents are equally responsible for the costs of raising a child. (As I noted, the reality is far from this, but that's the idea). All of the costs of raising a child; and a household with a child is more expensive than a household without!

Women can work. And most single mothers do. But that doesn't mean a child doesn't have the right to also be supported by his/her father.

a lot of people live modest lives without buying clothes and expensive stuff and entertainment every week. Regarding school, a lot of people just go without all that extra stuff.

What about the fact as kids get older, their needs go down?

 

[Sammy-San]

Yeah. Most peoples computers I work on are older and just use IE and no virus protection. When I get a computer from someone with kids I already know its going to be a mess and explaining to the parents how whatever happened... well happened will either make them think I am lying and wrong or they will think I'm from outspace.

Do you think the person should've sued the people who checked it out-not out of "punishment", but for legal charges.

It wasn't like there were chats-they just assumed it wasn't a virus.

 

[Paidiske]

What about the fact as kids get older, their needs go down?

Not necessarily. Two years ago I wasn't paying for speech therapy for my daughter, now I am (and that ain't cheap, but she needs it, so we do it).

I think their needs change. That's not the same as going down, at least until they're old enough to get a casual job and start paying for some things themselves.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not necessarily. Two years ago I wasn't paying for speech therapy for my daughter, now I am (and that ain't cheap, but she needs it, so we do it).

I think their needs change. That's not the same as going down, at least until they're old enough to get a casual job and start paying for some things themselves.

Would you agree there are some cases where people use it as a buisness?

 

[Paidiske]

Use what as a business? Child support?

No, I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. A child will cost a parent far more than they will ever recover in child support payments.

 

[DaisyDay]

a lot of people live modest lives without buying clothes and expensive stuff and entertainment every week. Regarding school, a lot of people just go without all that extra stuff.

You can't send your kids to school naked in most communities. Kids also grow so what fit last year won't fit this year. Kids need school supplies (pencils, notebooks, manila folders, backpacks), even if you get them at the Dollar Store (and don't think they aren't teased mercilessly about that). Some schools supply computers and some do not.

What about the fact as kids get older, their needs go down?

No, their clothes and food cost more, not less; active adolescent boys need to eat a lot. Hygiene costs go up. They need more books and more expensive books.

So the idea of child support is that the parent is responsible for both households?

No, don't confuse child support with alimony

It's not like we live in the 1930s and women can't work and need money.

Women worked in the 30s and still got fired, legally, for getting married in the 70s. When one parent curtails their career to take a leave of unpaid absence and then works shorter hours to be able to take care of family needs, that permanently affects their lifetime earnings, retirement and social security benefits; this is something that ought to be worked out ahead of time by couples, but almost never is.

 

[Joshua_5]

a lot of people live modest lives without buying clothes and expensive stuff and entertainment every week. Regarding school, a lot of people just go without all that extra stuff.

What about the fact as kids get older, their needs go down?

That's the problem with involving a government in a marriage. It becomes the defacto daddy. And will always choose the more expensive options, all of the time.

Better in the more biblical days - "till death do us part" - man and wife living in the same household, working together for the benefit of the family. Anything else, and Satan will twist as much as he can.