Malware Can Download Child Porn To Your Computer

2muchcoffeeman writes "The Associated Press tells the story of Michael Fiola, a former Massachusetts government employee who was arrested in 2007 after child porn was found on his state-issued laptop computer. He was eventually cleared of all charges after some digging by the defense found that the laptop was infected with malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute — an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half. Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped — 11 months after it was filed.' The article also discusses the technical aspects of how it could happen and about similar cases in the United Kingdom in 2003."

Re:new?

[Brian Gordon]

It's new because the prosecutors are actually being reasonable about it. Remember this story [arstechnica.com] from last year?

CP is disgusting but we shouldn't lose our freedom over it..

Re:A new name for this?

[TheRaven64]

I seem to recall reading that the FBI ran some honeypot sites that were linked to indicating that they contained child porn, but didn't. For this kind of malware you'd want to make sure it hit a few of them, downloaded some real child porn, and then deleted itself. Do it to a Senator, for example, and it wouldn't matter if they were cleared within a few days; the scandal would be enough to ruin their political career for life.

Re:Rources

[thetoadwarrior]

To be fair the police don't really have to do it on their own. The Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk/ [iwf.org.uk] is pretty much dedicated to wiping the stuff off the net.

Perhaps the government can do something similar. In fact, use prosecuted pedos to hunt the stuff down while in prison. If it resides in another country then just get ISPs blocking it. There is still proxies but you'll never get rid it completely but if you make it nearly impossible get then that's a good start.

Re:Flying the false flag

[calmofthestorm]

Because it's easier to assuage the public outcry and win PoliticanPoints by attacking those who possess it than going after those who produce it (since a lot of it isn't in the States, for one thing) and/or saving the kids.

There was a great article in the Economist recently about how there's no motivation for politicians to care at all about the suspect's side (felons don't vote, for one thing), so laws just become more and more unreasonable and the rights of pedophiles get eroded worse and worse.

Ever since that one girl had to Register after having naked pics of herself on her cell phone when underage, then charged as an adult, I've had basically zero respect for these laws, even as the thought of CP makes me sick.

Re:Rources

[antonyb]

You're right - there is an extradition treaty between Italy & the US - but this wasn't extradition, it was kidnap pure & simple. 23 agents from the CIA office in Milan have been convicted in absentia.

See e.g. the BBC [bbc.co.uk].

Hearts & minds.

ant.

Re:new?

[kklein]

How is advocating the arrest of child rapists "sick?"

Re:Shameful, how?

[betterunixthanunix]

Except, of course, that it is difficult to even define who is or is not a predator, pedophile, or criminal. Here is a perfect example for you: in my home state, New York, the law states that it is illegal to have sex with someone who is under the age of 17, and if you do, it is a misdemeanor if they are older than 15 if you are older than 18 but younger than 21, a felony if they are 15 or younger and you are 18 or older, a misdemeanor if they are 13 or older and you are younger than 18, and a felony if they are younger than 11 regardless of your age.

Man, that is complicated. If someone was convicted of felony statutory rape in New York, I would want to know which of the above was the actual crime before I even considered any punishment, let alone the death penalty. I do not even know what happens if the victim was 12 and the perpetrator was under 18; that is defined in a different section of the law. There is also the fantastic reality that if you have a 17 year old lover in New York, that is legal, but you cannot legally produce any erotic photographs or videos of your lover -- that would be a felony, again under a completely separate section of the law (and before you say, "well, people should not have 17 year old lovers," bear in mind that what I said applies to an 18 year old -- or do you think that is a death-penalty deserving crime as well?).

Before you jump to conclusions about sex offenders, perhaps you should first ask, "who is being classified as a sex offender?" In many cases, it is and absurd classification to carry, and worse yet, it is a classification that never gets removed from their record.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Shameful, how?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no reason to take nude pictures of your kids running around or taking a bath. That kind of voyeurism is sick and extreme.

It isnt' done out of voyeurism, you sick fuck. Parents do it because they want pictures of their kids. The fact that kids are sometimes nude is just a natural, normal part of life.

Re:new?

[theaveng]

>>>Sick Fuck

Yes because attraction for beautiful teenaged women (even those who, like Miley Cyrus or Emily Osment, are only 16/17) or beautiful twenty-something women clearly means I'm sick. Sure. Yep. Uh huh. I'm curious to know what the cure might be? Sterilization of everybody who finds young women attractive? Wouldn't that make the human race..... ya know, go extinct from lack of babies?

Sorry but I disagree.
Sexual attraction is not "sick".
On the contrary it's extremely healthy.

Re:new?

[nomadic]

But then I've long thought Puritan americans have a mental aberration where they can see violence on television without concern (think 24), but fear nudity (like Janet Jackson's naked breast). That can't be normal.

I have never understood this weird and insupportable belief on slashdot that this is somehow restricted to Americans. In terms of acceptance of violence vs. acceptance of sex in media, America falls somewhere in the middle--less permissive of sex than England, but more than say India, or several Asian countries, or just about the entire Middle East. Dismissing it as uniquely American is pure eurocentrism.

Re:so what happens when a public pc goes to a link

[breser]

Has nothing to do with the iPod. Here's the story:
http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/macbook/is_apples_mac_u_pic_worth_a_thousand_words.html [eweek.com]

In the UK

[mad zambian]

this defence would not work. In the UK the law is such that the authorities do not care where the porn came from. The fact that it is on your machine means that you are in possession of it, and therefore guilty.
End of story. No excuses. No counter arguments allowed.
Go directly to Jail, do not pass go.
Justice? Pfft. Missing, presumed dead, and has been for a while now.