European police say KidFlix, "one of the largest pedophile platforms in the world," busted in joint operation.
-
That’s unfortunately (not really sure) probably the fault of Germanys approach to that.
It is usually not taking these websites down but try to find the guys behind it and seize them. The argument is: they will just use a backup and start a “KidFlix 2” or sth like that.
Some investigations show, that this is not the case and deleting is very effective. Also the German approach completely ignores the victim side. They have to deal with old men masturbating to them getting raped online. Very disturbing…wrote 6 days ago last edited byHonestly, if the existing victims have to deal with a few more people masturbating to the existing video material and in exchange it leads to fewer future victims it might be worth the trade-off but it is certainly not an easy choice to make.
-
That’s unfortunately (not really sure) probably the fault of Germanys approach to that.
It is usually not taking these websites down but try to find the guys behind it and seize them. The argument is: they will just use a backup and start a “KidFlix 2” or sth like that.
Some investigations show, that this is not the case and deleting is very effective. Also the German approach completely ignores the victim side. They have to deal with old men masturbating to them getting raped online. Very disturbing…wrote 6 days ago last edited byI think you are mixing here two different aspects of this and of similar past cases. I the past there was often a problem with takedowns of such sites, because german prosecutors did not regard themselves as being in charge of takedowns, if the servers were somewhere overseas. Their main focus was to get the admins and users of those sites and to get them into jail.
In this specific case they were observing this platform (together with prosecutors from other countries in an orchestrated operation) to gather as much data as possible about the structure, the payment flows, the admins and the users of this before moving into action and getting them arrested. The site was taken down meanwhile.
If you blow up and delete)such a darknet service immediately immediately upon discovery, you may get rid of it (temporarily) but you might not catch many of the people behind it.
-
That’s unfortunately (not really sure) probably the fault of Germanys approach to that.
It is usually not taking these websites down but try to find the guys behind it and seize them. The argument is: they will just use a backup and start a “KidFlix 2” or sth like that.
Some investigations show, that this is not the case and deleting is very effective. Also the German approach completely ignores the victim side. They have to deal with old men masturbating to them getting raped online. Very disturbing…wrote 6 days ago last edited byThis feels like one of those things where couch critics aren't qualified. There's a pretty strong history of three letter agencies using this strategy successfully in other organized crime industries.
-
It's a side effect of privacy and security. The one side effect they're trying to use to undermine all of the privacy and security.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byThis has nothing to do with privacy! Criminals have their techniques and methods to protect themselves and their "businesses" from discovery, both in the real world and in the online world. Even in a complete absence of privacy they would find a way to hide their stuff from the police - at least for a while.
In the real world, criminals (e.g. drug dealers) also use cars, so you could argue, that druck trafficking is a side effect of people having cars...
-
Does it feel odd to anyone else that a platform for something this universally condemned in any jurisdiction can operate for 4 years, with a catchy name clearly thought up by a marketing person, its own payment system and nearly six figure number of videos? I mean even if we assume that some of those 4 years were intentional to allow law enforcement to catch as many perpetrators as possible this feels too similar to fully legal operations in scope.
wrote 6 days ago last edited bywith a catchy name clearly thought up by a marketing person
A marketing person? They took "Netflix" and changed the first three letters lol
-
This has nothing to do with privacy! Criminals have their techniques and methods to protect themselves and their "businesses" from discovery, both in the real world and in the online world. Even in a complete absence of privacy they would find a way to hide their stuff from the police - at least for a while.
In the real world, criminals (e.g. drug dealers) also use cars, so you could argue, that druck trafficking is a side effect of people having cars...
wrote 6 days ago last edited byWell, it does have to do with privacy and security, it just doesn't matter if it's legal or not for them. These people (in the US) always make a point that criminals will buy guns whether it's legal or not, but then they'll argue they need to destroy privacy because criminals are using it. It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't need to because honesty or consistency aren't important.
-
with a catchy name clearly thought up by a marketing person
A marketing person? They took "Netflix" and changed the first three letters lol
wrote 6 days ago last edited bySo you are saying it is too creative for the average person in marketing?
-
Gonna ruin me, but seconding. Brick in the window video?
wrote 6 days ago last edited byThey're probably referencing the video where a woman was killed after a brick flew through the windshield. I haven't watched it, but it is on YouTube and I've heard that the husband's cries are not so nice.
I don't remember if it was kids throwing bricks off of a bridge or if it was something else.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 6 days ago last edited by
1.8 million users and they only caught 1000?
-
It's not an overpass. A loose brick falls off a truck going in the opposite direction, bounces off the pavement once, then goes through the windshield.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byWell, I know what other video I'm never watching.
And people wonder why I don't like being around any vehicle that carries things...
-
Which countries do you have in mind where videos of sexual child abuse are legal?
wrote 5 days ago last edited byContext is important I guess. So two things.
Is something illegal if it's not prosecuted?
Is it CSA if the kid is 9 but that's marrying age in that country?
If you answer yes, then no, then we'll not agree on this topic.
-
Does it feel odd to anyone else that a platform for something this universally condemned in any jurisdiction can operate for 4 years, with a catchy name clearly thought up by a marketing person, its own payment system and nearly six figure number of videos? I mean even if we assume that some of those 4 years were intentional to allow law enforcement to catch as many perpetrators as possible this feels too similar to fully legal operations in scope.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byWith the amount of sites that are easily accessed on the dark net though the hidden wiki and other sites. This might as well be a honeypot from the start. And it's doesn't only apply to cp but to drugs, fake ids and other shit.
-
This has nothing to do with privacy! Criminals have their techniques and methods to protect themselves and their "businesses" from discovery, both in the real world and in the online world. Even in a complete absence of privacy they would find a way to hide their stuff from the police - at least for a while.
In the real world, criminals (e.g. drug dealers) also use cars, so you could argue, that druck trafficking is a side effect of people having cars...
wrote 5 days ago last edited byThis platform used Tor. And because we want to protect privacy, they can make use of it.
-
Context is important I guess. So two things.
Is something illegal if it's not prosecuted?
Is it CSA if the kid is 9 but that's marrying age in that country?
If you answer yes, then no, then we'll not agree on this topic.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byI am not talking about CSA, I am talking about video material of CSA. Most countries with marriage ages that low have much more wide-spread bans on videos including sex of any kind.
As for prosecution, yes, it is still illegal if it is not prosecuted. There are many reasons not to prosecute something ranging all the way from resource and other means related concerns to intentionally turning a blind eye and only a small minority of them would lead that country to actively sabotage a major international investigation, especially after the trade-offs are considered (such as loss of international reputation by refusing to cooperate).
-
This platform used Tor. And because we want to protect privacy, they can make use of it.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byThis particular platform used tor. It doesn't mean all platforms are using privacy centric anonymous networks. There are incidents with people using kik, Snapchat, Facebook and other clear net services to perform criminal actions such as drugs or cp.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 5 days ago last edited by
Every now and again I am reminded of my sentiment that the introduction of "media" onto the Internet is a net harm. Maybe 256 dithered color photos like you'd see in Encarta 95 and that's the maximum extent of what should be allowed. There's just so much abuse from this kind of shit... despicable.
-
On average, around 3.5 new videos were uploaded to the platform every hour, many of which were previously unknown to law enforcement.
Absolutely sick and vile. I hope they honey potted the site and that the arrests keep coming.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byI just got ill
-
Every now and again I am reminded of my sentiment that the introduction of "media" onto the Internet is a net harm. Maybe 256 dithered color photos like you'd see in Encarta 95 and that's the maximum extent of what should be allowed. There's just so much abuse from this kind of shit... despicable.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byI think it just shows all the hideousness of humanity and all it's glory in a way that we have never confronted before. It's shatters the illusion the humanity has grown from its barbaric ways.
-
Every now and again I am reminded of my sentiment that the introduction of "media" onto the Internet is a net harm. Maybe 256 dithered color photos like you'd see in Encarta 95 and that's the maximum extent of what should be allowed. There's just so much abuse from this kind of shit... despicable.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byLet’s get rid of the printing press because it can be used for smut. /s
-
Every now and again I am reminded of my sentiment that the introduction of "media" onto the Internet is a net harm. Maybe 256 dithered color photos like you'd see in Encarta 95 and that's the maximum extent of what should be allowed. There's just so much abuse from this kind of shit... despicable.
wrote 5 days ago last edited byRaping kids has unfortunately been a thing since long before the internet. You could legally bang a 13 year old right up to the 1800s and in some places you still can.
As recently as the 1980s people would openly advocate for it to be legal, and remove the age of consent altogether. They'd get it in magazines from countries where it was still legal.
I suspect it's far less prevalent now than it's ever been. It's now pretty much universally seen as unacceptable, which is a good start.