It happened in my city recently like this: A guy working in a skate shop spent time with boys showing them how to skate. The guy downloaded porno [some adult, some child] from the web & showed it to the guys. The guys ratted on him. Guy gets jail.
Lets say that I’m a kid who thinks ahead. When I’m 12 or so, I take some pictures of myself jerkin off, stickin things up my ass, giving head to myself, whatnot. I keep these pictures hidden for 6 years. When I turn 18, I post them on a pedophile website. Could I be prosecuted? The only person being exploited is myself, who is over the legal age. I was the one who took the pictures, I developed them myself, no one knew of them or took any part in them whatsoever other than myself. When they were taken it was with full intention of waiting until I was 18, and posting them on my own perverted website. Would there be a case against me?
–Tim
I’m not trying to imply anything about myself, really!
We are the children of the Eighties. We are not the first “lost generation” nor today’s lost generation; in fact, we think we know just where we stand - or are discovering it as we speak.
Does “format C:” still work?
Yes and no. Yes, you can’t get to those files anymore, but, no, those files are still on your hard drive and the only way to completely erase them is to overwrite it with other files.
There are some programs that can read a hard drive file even after it has been deleted.
How about placing a speaker magnet on your hard drive when you see the cops running up your driveway? I bet THAT would work. Lol!
At my old job contracting at the government (I’m at a new job contracting at a different part, but still) I was given a copy of Norton Disk Clean (or something like that) that we called Norton Toilet Paper, since it was the only government approved deleter to completely erase hard drives.
Basically, format c: and standard deleting does remove the files, but traces are still on the disk, and the FAT (File Allocation Tables) need to be cleared of the pesky buggers.
I believe the software is not allowed for commercial use. It’s pretty good stuff.
Homer, sure you would be prosecuted, the law covers pictures of anyone, even yourself. US anyway.
Formatting to clean? You’d have to format at least 6 times to get to FBI clean.
Even encrypted files can be opened cause the FBI and such has Cray computers & such & they can open ANY file given the time. Im not sure if they finally succeeded with PGP, though.
It’s not quite that simple, even for the FBI.
Even relatively weak encryption like DES is expensive to break - it’s been done, but it’s definately not a casual task even with a supercomputer.
And stronger encryption is not computationally feasable to break on any current or forseeable computer technology just with a brute force attack. There may be other attacks possible, such as a known plaintext attack. But commonly available encyrption tech is definately quite strong these days - enough to basically be proof against FBI trying to read the encrypted ones directly. But, the real risk lies elsewhere - like unencrypted versions of the file in some temporary directory written by an app and then deleted, remanents in swap partitions, and so on. There’s a good chance that approach would yield results even when a direct attack would not.
–
peas on earth
Isn’t the program Shredder still around to multiply overwrite all unused portions of a hard drive? Isn’t that sufficient, assuming all used parts of it are innocent?
Ray
-
-
- Well now youse got me wondering:
-
- Let’s say you have programs on your disk: Windows 2001 - 1 gig, AOL 2001 - 1 gig, and you download pictures to view. Do they get stored on the disk starting after the AOL program, or somewhere else? If you installed another program that you know takes more disk space than the largest image you downloaded, would it write over them? - MC
MC: The short answer is “yes.” Windows 9x (I’m not entirely sure how NT does it, but I imagine it’s similar) writes data in blocks. All that ballyhoo you heard about FAT32 and Win98 is true – you get more data on disks because the block size in FAT32 is much smaller.
Anyway, the Win98 disk defragmenter – which you should run at least once a month – re-arranges the blocks on your drive in the best order. As you delete, move, rename, edit, etc. files, the blocks fluctuate, and this slows your PC down. As it defragments, it finds all the blocks that go together (be it for a program, document, .mpg of a nine year old boy, etc.) and sticks them in the right order on the physical drive.
The best way to look at is like a CD. Track one on the CD is the one closest to the center of the disk, and likewise, Win98’s defragmenter rearranges the files so the “programs you use most” go there. Hence, your programs load faster. That’s their logic, not mine.
Hope that answers your question. Check out the “Show Details” option next time you run the defragger.
-
-
- I live in the St. Louis area, and a few weeks back a retired police chief from the area got busted for kiddy pix on his computer. - MC
-
The Oct 4 Time Mag has this on Naughton:
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,31486,00.html
I’m wondering: This article says nothing about the guy’s intended activities with the girl beyond "he offered to meet her in Los Angeles to “‘kiss, make out, play and stuff.’” I suppose there exists something more explicit in his conversation, but I wonder. While this is certainly enough, as said by a 34-year-old to a 13-year-old to get him in very hot water, including quickly fired, the language of the federal code subsection he was charged with [18USC2423(b)] is entitled “Travel With Intent To Engage in Sexual Act With a Juvenile”, and reads:
Subsection 8USC2246(2) reads:
[emphasis added]
It would seem that technically he would have had to have said something in the chat room that went further than what Time quoted, or else the FBI found other evidence that supports an intent of his to engage in a “sexual act”, as defined above, with his imagined object of his tryst – to be convicted of the charge. I don’t think “make out” would necessarily imply non-clothing-intervening contact. Probably law enforcement’s main goal is to scare everyone on the Net that would be apt to do anything of this sort, and Naughton, having overcome such charge, probably would be in no position to sue any government for his severe professional damage and costs of litigation.
Ray
regarding this last…what I have a problem with is this: in the case of people busted after having engaged in conversation with ADULTS POSING AS UNDERAGE PERSONS, then arranging to meet the “underage” person, for ANYTHING: they are being busted for something they DID NOT DO. It is the equivalent, to my mind, of busting someone for buying oregano they THOUGHT was pot. You can’t do that. What if I were a real cute babe, 20 years old, but I could easily pass for 15? I tell a guy I’m 15. he fucks me. Can he then be prosecuted for INTENDING to screw a 15-year-old, even though he actually screwed a 20 year old? Isn’t that making THOUGHT a crime??? Isn’t that just NUTS?
This came up as a topic in our house a while back when we heard about some guy getting hassled or busted, can’t remembe rwhich, for videotaping kids in a playground. People saw him doing it, didn’t think anything of it. He never touched or bothered anyone. But when they saw the video, they saw that he focused on little girl’s underpants when their skirts flew up, on their crotches, etc. Obviously he was a pedo and he probably jacked off to the pictures. SO??? Did he HURT anyone???
This just strieks me as insane. If you want to bust some pedo predator, great…but don’t twist our legal system into a pretzel to pull it off. Get a REAL 15 year old to trap the guy, don’t make me sick by pretending to be one and then busting him for “intent”. That is bogus.
This is a non-smoking area. If we see you smoking, we will assume you are on fire and act accordingly.
There’s a local area guy being prosecuted now. He arranged to meet this girl at some local place, and when he got there, he was arrested. He had actualy aranged a meeting with a cop posing as a minor on the internet. The key point is he showed up to meet this fictious girl.
Though I do not like what this guy did, this reaks of entrapment to me.