TruthMovement an internet research-guide for students and scholars. Best viewed in Chrome Browser

Blog Search

Thursday, August 14, 2014

The Dangers of File Sharing and Peer to Peer Networks
12 Feb, 2014

File sharing has been a big part of the counter-culture of legal and illegal music and movie downloads in the world. Many file sharing programs that allowed the free flow of copyrighted files like Limewire, Napster, Bearshare, Frostwire, Asus and the like have long been shut down by the U.S. Government or they have switched their business model, However new software springs up all the time. As soon as Limewire was shut down, Frostwire came out and today the most prevalent Peer to Peer software of today is bitTorrent as well as Pirate Bay. As bitTorrent, The Pirate Bay, Demonoid, and others have faced government seizures of their physical servers located in many different countries. Inasmuch as the government effort they are not able to completely shut down all of the file-sharing software as it continues to morph into different models that make it undetectable. Many people praise these programs as means to download and own files for free that they would otherwise have to pay for, but what these people don’t realize is the inherent danger of downloading files from anonymous sources and sharing the same files out to strangers: namely, child pornography because Law Enforcement, The child Abuse Industry public private Industry NCMEC, and The Entertainment Industry are using Crackers to implant Cild Porn HashTags in various media.

Here is a graphic showing the old way file sharing networks worked by each user connecting through a centralized server which is how the government was able to stop them, by legally choking off the central server:

And here is a graphic showing bit Torrent Peer to Peer networks where the user downloads and opens a torrent file which then connects the user to the peers who are seeding the files:

One of the most important issues among the file sharing community in recent years has been the prosecutions relating to the possession and distribution of child pornography. Many of the defendants in these cases said that they were not even aware of the images that were stored on their computers. Images of child porn can be downloaded to your computer through a series of Trojan horses or by blindly downloading an entire directory that is shared with you through one of these peer to peer services. One common method of sharing child porn is the intentional mislabeling of filenames. For example, you may download a video named “Die Hard” thinking that you are getting a movie about Bruce Willis. Upon download, you might open the file and instead of finding a movie you find that it is actually hundreds or thousands of images of child pornography. Images of child porn are sometimes inserted into otherwise normal video files and may even go unnoticed by the person downloading the file. This example proves that you cannot be sure what is actually contained in the files you are downloading, which increases the risk of using any peer to peer file sharing software or methods. Remember, there is no file certification process since most of these files (movies, ebooks, software, etc) are being downloaded and shared illegally.

The most common way people are convicted of possession of child pornography, is by their permanent storage on your hard drive even after deleting it in several locations. With file sharing programs, the downloaded files go automatically into two folders: “Saved” and “Shared”. A third folder is created for “Incomplete or Temp Files” that a lot of people are unaware of. Files are labeled incomplete when they are deleted halfway through. You may not even be able to open these files, but the government can, and will attempt to prosecute and convict you for the possession of illegal images of children regardless of the folder they reside in.

The second charge of distribution of child pornography comes when you allow the program to share your files with other users. You may be doing this unknowingly as most file-sharing programs select this sharing option as a default setting. Even if you are unaware that the files you are sharing contain child porn, this act of sharing constitutes distribution.

So how does law enforcement track the child porn files? The government tracks files and images of child porn by looking at hash values. A hash value is the number of pixels a file contains. The government and law enforcement often knows the hash value of popular or commonly-shared child porn images. Any time that file is shared or downloaded; the government is alerted to the IP address of the user. They thereby obtain a search warrant and go about finding said files on your computer, upon which they arrest the user.

Conspiracy theories that the government uses images of child porn to set people up for conviction are being proven true. Although lawyers say this rumor does not have much traction now, thanks for Edward Snowden, we know more; Much, much more, but it is wise to avoid the possibility altogether by abstaining from P2P file sharing sites and by doing so they have won. This is exactly what,"The Entertainment Industry" using, "The Child Abuse Industry" want.  The entertainment industry get to stop copyright infringement of their media and the child abuse industry keeps families scarred so the donations and grants keep pouring in making it a billion dollar a year public, private Industry.

Every state in the US has laws regarding the possession and distribution of child pornography.  The minimum prison term is 10 years per image, if convicted. If you are facing child pornography charges, it’s a good idea to find yourself a defense attorney who has experience with these types of cases and also works with a good computer forensics expert which will set you back anywhere between $5,000.00 to $20,000.00 and more.

If you have legal questions about Sexual Exploitation of a Minor and Child Pornography possession and distribution, please call a qualified defense attorney if you can afford one.  The fees start at around $5,000.00 up to $20,000.00 and that is before you go to court which will cost you between $2,000 and $10,000.00 per trial day that could last 3 to 14 days or more.

Case could clear names of hundreds of men accused of child pornography, by Afua Hirsch and Louise Shorter

Case could clear names of hundreds of men accused of child pornography, by Afua Hirsch and Louise Shorter
Case could clear names of hundreds of men accused of child pornography, by Afua Hirsch and Louise Shorter

Big win for college coach wrongly accused of child porn

Big win for college coach wrongly accused of child porn
Big win for college coach wrongly accused of child porn

Jesse Friedman, subject of documentary, sues Nassau DA with claims of false accusations BY Dareh Gregorian

Jesse Friedman, subject of documentary, sues Nassau DA with claims of false accusations

Friedman, 45, served 13 years after pleading guilty to child molestation charges in the late 1980s, but he has been fighting to clear his name. His lawsuit says Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice of defamed him as a ‘psychopath’ and falsely accused him of writing porn behind bars.
The subject of the documentary "Capturing the Friedmans" sued the Nassau County District Attorney Thursday, saying she slimed him in an apparent bid to cover up her office's misconduct in having him jailed on child molestation charges.

In papers filed in Nassau County Supreme Court, Jesse Friedman, 45, says Kathleen Rice and two of her press officers falsely accused him of writing "horrific pornography" while behind bars and defamed him by calling him “a psychopath.”

“DA Rice has gotten away with so much misconduct for so long that she's come to believe she can do anything to anyone without any consequences,” said Friedman's lawyer, Ron Kuby. “This time she actually went too far.”

Rice's report, which Friedman had hoped would exonerate him of wrongdoing, was issued last June and "included dozens of false statements" designed to harm Friedman’s reputation, the suit says.

Friedman has long maintained he was railroaded into pleading guilty to charges he molested 13 kids in the late 1980s.

Prosecutors said Friedman, then 19, and his father, Arnold, had been molesting children enrolled in a computer class at their Great Neck, L.I., home.

Facing over 100 counts of sodomy, Jesse Friedman copped a plea in return for a six- to 18-year prison sentence. He was released after serving 13 years.

His fight to clear his name was spurred and aided by the Academy Award-nominated "Capturing the Friedmans," which showed that police had been overly aggressive in interviewing the students, who were 8 to 10 years old, and asking them leading questions.

Marcus Santos for New York daily News Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice is the target of a lawsuit by Friedman. He alleges she and two press officers defamed him and made false accusations about his time in prison.

An appeals court said Rice should review the case, which she ordered to be done in 2010. It didn't go Friedman's way — the three-year probe found Friedman had likely abused more students than he'd been charged with assaulting and noted his own psychiatrist had called him a "psychopathic deviant.”

It also said he’d been convicted of child porn charges while locked up.

“These statements were entirely false and defamatory,” the suit says.

A simple Internet search showed the porn Friedman was alleged to have written — which included tales of bestiality, rape and child incest — was not written by him, and Rice should have known that, since it included an email address and was printed on a high-quality laser printer, amenities Friedman didn’t have access to.

"Despite having had nearly three years to fact-check her report, Rice did not perform this minimal due diligence," the suit says.

And he was never charged with writing and distributing the materials while in prison, the suit notes.

“Friedman was charged with possessing an entirely different piece of unapproved literature, and he was found not guilty at a hearing on these charges,” the suit says.

At a court hearing as part of Friedman’s continuing quest to clear his name in August, a prosecutor from Rice's office acknowledged that Friedman had been found not guilty of the charge. But two weeks later, one of Rice's spokesmen again maintained in a newspaper interview that the porn was Friedman's.

The suit also rips the shrink who labeled Friedman a "psychopath," charging the evaluation he'd given Friedman was a "generic, computer-generated report based on faulty input."

The suit says the DA's office was well aware of the flaws in the psychiatric report, but included it anyway as “a pretext to defame Friedman and to inflict emotional pain and suffering upon him.”

Paul Leonard, a spokesman for Rice's office, said, "We view this lawsuit as meritless and will defend zealously against its allegations."

The suit seeks unspecified money damages for Friedman's “extreme emotional distress, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.”

Friedman is now married and living in Connecticut, where he works as a book dealer.

Kuby said he hopes the suit leads to “some public accountability for Rice's misconduct and some public vindication for Jesse Friedman.”

False Accusations of Child Pornography Are Common BY: Salazar & Kelly

False Accusations of Child Pornography Are Common
BY: Salazar & Kelly
The difficult matter of child pornography, global in scale, yet harbored very secretly on laptops, desktop computers and mobile devices, often involves false accusations.

The case of an Arizona couple losing custody of three young children for a month illustrates the problem. Employees in the photo department of a major retail chain that developed the family’s photos in 2008 interpreted some to be evidence of a sex offense (the children were taking a bath). Fortunately for the family, charges have been cleared, and they are pursuing a lawsuit against the retailer in civil court.

In many situations, people can be falsely accused of trafficking in or subscribing to child pornography, violating laws that prohibit such activity. Those situations include the following:

Sarasota, Florida — From a boat, a perpetrator downloaded millions of images by way of a router from a building on shore that was not password-protected. The building occupant was initially charged, and humiliated, and cleared only when the technological feat was discovered.

Buffalo, New York — A person who was distributing child pornography did so from a neighbor’s router that was not secured. The owner of the router had his home raided by police and was not cleared for three days as his computer and his wife’s, along with their mobile devices, were thoroughly searched.

In other cases, viewing of legal pornography can sometimes involve an inadvertent visit to illegal child exploitation sites. In any case involving child pornography, the accused must find qualified, experienced sex crime defense attorneys who can understand the nature and technologies associated with the charges.

Wrongly accused By Scott DeSmit

Wrongly accused By Scott DeSmit
Wrongly accused By Scott DeSmit