

"Anonymous" Hackers Take Down Child Porn Websites, Leak Users' Names - bengoism
http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/anonymous-hackers-child-porn-sites-1260/

======
bri3d
So Anonymous:

\- Downloaded a bunch of child porn.

\- Released a useless list of psudonyms extracted from the forum's DB.

\- Claim to have used a timing attack against Tor to find the physical
location of the machine hosting the CP, without providing any details. Tor
_is_ vulnerable to timing attacks but I don't think any are trivial enough for
any "Anonymous members" to handle.

\- Also, if they had the level of access to Freedom Hosting's server which
they claim to, they should have reverse-connected across the non-Tor Internet
and located the machine (and presumably the machine's hosting provider and
datacenter) that way. Given the amateur-looking setup illustrated in the
Anonymous press-releases, I highly doubt the Freedom Hosting machine was
firewalled from connecting back across the normal Internet.

\- Then Anonymous removed the machine from service so it can't possibly be
located by real law enforcement and the real owners can't be found.

It sounds like this is a net loss in any kind of real battle against CP - I'm
all for removing obvious distribution points for CP when they're found, but
doing so in this manner makes it much harder to track down and prosecute the
actual producers and consumers of child porn.

Also, the linked article is poorly researched and written - The Examiner
doesn't report anything; it's a pay-per-pageview CMS that anyone can write
for, with limited-to-no editorial oversight. The original author should be
cited instead.

~~~
sophacles
This isn't a comic book. Whether or not you think Anonymous are mostly good or
mostly bad, there is a simple fact about them: they are humans. You are aware
that people are not strictly good or evil right? Most hardened criminals still
love their kids, and most regular Joe's have asshole moments or have even
committed crimes! (think, half the people in the us are guilty of using
illegal drugs at some point, half have driven drunk, and so on).

I'm sure if anonymous tracked down the stuff and told the police they would
all have been arrested for child porn themselves, as this seems to be well on
the side of "going to jail", based on precedent previously set by prosecutors
all over the US. Further, (because details are lacking) if the server and/or
the viewers are not in the same country, full prosecution becomes quite
difficult.

But whatev, they did a bad because they are anonymous. No credit to them for
stopping something that proper authorities were apparently ignoring or
completely ignorant of -- either way those authorities were being completely
ineffective.

------
lambada
For anyone who hasn't used Tor before, I'm going to clarify some of the
inaccuracies/FUD in the article.

\- A darknet did not 'grow out' of the Tor software. The ability for anyone to
host websites on their computer anonymously is a standard feature of the Tor
network.

\- Tor is not strictly a set of browser plugins. Tor is routing software that
routes over TCP/IP. Any program can use it assuming they have set the proxy
settings on their computer/program correctly. There is a plugin for Firefox,
but the functionality of that is limited to one-click setup of the correct
settings, and changing some default Firefox settings to increase anonymity and
security.

\- The site the article mentioned called 'Hard Candy' is a standard wiki page
hosted on the Hidden Wiki. The purpose of the Hidden Wiki is to be a huge
directory of all the sites on the Tor network, as search bots are impractical.
As distasteful as it is, it would be impossible to enforce those links to be
removed.

\- As far as I'm aware Freedom Hosting never had a normally accessible domain
name, so the article claiming things about WHOIS data is almsot certainly
irrelevant.

EDIT: These are my own views, and not those of any other person/organisation.
I have experience with the Tor network due to my pet interest in Anonymous
networks, and how they function.

------
codezero
While I support the vigilante destruction of child porn sites, I do want to
point out that in doing so, they may have interrupted an ongoing
investigation. Outing the names may embarras the users, but it may also make
it harder for authorities to prosecute them or to move up the food chain.

~~~
ryandickherber
This is just free market law enforcement. No reason to wait some self-
designated "authorities" to deliver justice.

Edit: I'd appreciate it if people who downvote all my comments explain why
they are downvoting. I am writing thoughtful responses to any of your
questions. Downvoting just because you disagree isn't cool.

~~~
codezero
Anonymous isn't putting anyone behind bars, that's the difference. Yes, the
"authorities" will take more time, but that's because they have to build a
case that will convince a jury and hopefully 1) lock the guys up, or at the
very least 2) get them into a sex offender registry.

The list of names released by Anonymous won't be considered authoritative.

~~~
ryandickherber
Anonymous isn't putting them behind bars, but by releasing names, communities
can ostracize these people and keep them away from children.

~~~
shalmanese
Anonymous didn't release a list of names, it released a list of pseudonyms
which is virtually useless (<http://pastebin.com/88Lzs1XR>). I presume these
people are smart enough not to use the same pseudonym on other services so
this list is pretty eminently useless.

~~~
cullenking
Actually, I just did a cursory google search on a few of the more unique
looking names, and they come up all over the internet. One of them is
definitely not too worried, their pseudonym is also registered on a
bestiality/zoophilia forum as well as some overclocking forums. I think this
is definitely enough information to nail some of these people, with the right
investigation.

~~~
maurits
No guarantees though, choosing an existing handle/username with a tarnished
reputation seems like a pretty good strategy to me for online shenanigans.

------
asdf1234qwer
Since they've hacked numerous police departments and government agencies of
those pursuing them, how do we know they haven't inserted some of the names of
those people into the list?

~~~
codezero
That would be hilariously ironic, since that's exactly the kind of thing the
Church of Scientology does to discredit its detractors.

~~~
dextorious
Yes, because Anonymous is such a moral entity, that they would never use the
bad tactics of their enemies...

~~~
pyre
The irony comes from Anonymous being vaulted into the MSM spotlight via their
campaign against the Church of Scientology, and then later adopting their
tactics.

------
bengoism
Timeline and details of the Hack: <http://pastebin.com/T1LHnzEW>

------
smashing
Mob rule, 21st Century Style.

------
crizCraig
POLL: Does this improve your impression of Anonymous?
[http://www.wepolls.com/p/4088470/Now-that-Anonymous-has-
take...](http://www.wepolls.com/p/4088470/Now-that-Anonymous-has-taken-down-a-
huge-child-porn-ring%2C-are-you-more-supportive-of-what-they-do)

~~~
0x12
Could you please stop spamming HN with webpolls? That would certainly increase
my impression of you.

Thank you.

------
S4M
What I find really scary in this article is the existence of the "darknet"
that contains pedophile website and also apparently an assassination service.
This creates many questions: how many people get access to this hidden
network? who created it? Had the authorities knowledge of its existence? While
this could give topic for science fiction books, I also makes me feel
insecure.

~~~
lambada
The ability to securely and anonymously host websites is a standard feature of
the freely available, open source Tor software.

Tor was originally funded by the EFF and the US Navy. So yes, the authorities
most definitely know of its existence.

~~~
S4M
Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look at Tor software. But I find it scary
the existence of a website offering highly illegal services where only a
selected few can access.

~~~
LancerSykera
What's so scary about it? It's no different than meeting someone in a park, or
the basement of a bar, to do the exact same things. Places where "highly
illegal" services are offered where only a select few can access have been
around for ages. It's just much more convenient to do it on the internet.

