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

Blog Search

Friday, January 23, 2015

The Stats on the Internet PORNOGRAPHY

Child Pornography Distribution Via Peer-to-Peer Networks; By George D. Murphy, Jr., Attorney at Law

Child Pornography Distribution Via Peer-to-Peer Networks 
  By George D. Murphy, Jr., Attorney at Law
Peer-to-peer networks are commonly used in child pornography investigations. It's important to understand what they are and how they are searched. From a defense standpoint, it is important to understand whether the accused was knowledgeable about the network's settings as that can impact the charges filed.
Law enforcement agencies at the International, Federal and State level are working together to combat child pornography production, distribution and possession. Each of these charges carries a different penalty and it is important to understand the difference, especially between possession and distribution, where the lines can become murky. A charge of child pornography distribution carries a much more severe penalty than one of child pornography possession.

Distribution is typically thought of as the active passing of child pornography from one hand to another. However, the government argues that knowingly allowing access to one's child pornography content, through what is known as a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, constitutes both distribution and delivery of the content. This more passive means of distribution has been accepted by courts in the past, and as a result the investigation of P2P networks has become one of the most common avenues taken by law enforcement agencies.

A P2P network allows specific files or folders to be shared across multiple computers. If these networks are left "open" they may permit individuals to share files anonymously. Most P2P networks come with default settings that permit the sharing of the user's files. Someone in possession of child pornography who stores their data on a P2P network has potentially granted access to the other computers on the network. This constitutes distribution and delivery of the files.

Software used by law enforcement agencies determines the IP addresses of the individuals they believe are sharing child pornography through these P2P networks. Once the IP addresses are determined a subpoena is used to determine the identifying information of the IP address and execute a search warrant. At that point, the P2P network and its settings will be thoroughly investigated. The charge of distribution relies on establishing that the P2P user was aware of the network's settings and knowingly distributed the child pornography.

Because of this, it is important to know whether a P2P user had knowledge of the network’s settings, and whether others were accessing the files. The setting, which authorizes the P2P network to share files, is critical in the defense of a child pornography case.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: George D. Murphy
George D. Murphy is a criminal defense attorney from Houston, TX who specializes in child pornography charges, environmental crime charges, and federal white collar crime charges such as money laundering, trademark infringement, and bank fraud.

Copyright George D. Murphy, Jr., Attorney at Law - Google+

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Could Naked Pictures of Your Kids Be Mistaken For Pornography? by Kathryn DeHoyos

Could Naked Pictures of Your Kids Be Mistaken For Pornography? by Kathryn DeHoyos
Could Naked Pictures of Your Kids Be Mistaken For Pornography? by Kathryn DeHoyos

Homeland Security falsely accuses 84,000 websites of trafficking Child pornography

Homeland Security falsely accuses 84,000 websites of trafficking Child pornography
Homeland Security falsely accuses 84,000 websites of trafficking Child pornography

Freedom House, Freedom on the Internet 2014

Freedom House.pdf

Journalist Barrett Brown Sentenced to 63 Months in Federal Prison; By: Derrick Broze

Journalist Barrett Brown Sentenced to 63 Months in Federal Prison
By: Derrick Broze Jan 22, 2015
After more than two years behind bars, journalist Barrett Brown was given a sentence of 63 months in federal prison.

Brown was also ordered to pay $890,000 in restitution fees to a number of companies that were hacked in 2011. Brown was arrested in September 2012 during an FBI investigation into his role in the hacking of the servers of HB Gary Federal and Stratfor by the decentralized hacker collective Anonymous.

Judge Sam Lindsay also ruled that fifty percent of all gifts or awards will go to Stratfor and Combined Security, two of the companies involved in the hack. Upon release Brown cannot handle credit cards, checks, or bank accounts. He will be on parole for at least 2 years and will only be allowed to use an approved computer which will monitor all of his activity.

All the way until the very end of the hearing prosecutor Candina Heath attempted to persuade the government to enhance the charges. Heath wanted to upgrade the level of offense which would have increased the possible sentence up to 71 months. Judge Lindsay denied this final request from the prosecution.

Much of the mornings proceedings focused, once again, on whether Brown was a journalist performing protected activities or a former journalist who crossed the line into cyber terror. Brown has been an activist, and a journalist. His articles and blogs have been featured in numerous publications including the GuardianVanity Fair, and the Huffington PostJudge Lindsay sided with the government in their argument that “Brown’s role was more than merely reporting on the hacked account.” He considered himself a member of the hacker collective Anonymous, collaborated with them, identified targets, and provided advice, the Judge stated. Barrett Brown himself would admit that he crossed a line from journalist into supporter of Anonymous.

Despite Barrett Brown having no direct connection to the Stratfor hack, he was previously facing a century in prison for sharing a link to the leaked documents with a chat room. Jeremy Hammond would later receive ten years for that leak.

When Brown signed the plea deal in March 2014 the hyperlink charges were dropped. However, the prosecution was able to bring the dismissed charges to the forefront in an attempt to sway the judges ruling towards the maximum sentence. Brown’s own defense noted that this was a perfectly acceptable and legal practice but felt the government had previously been unable to make its case on the hyperlink charge and was now attempting to recharge him.

These accusations lead to a debate on whether or not Brown had trafficked in stolen data by simply reposting a hyperlink to the hacked documents. Heath at one point referenced a case dealing with child pornography and accused Brown of “furthering the accessibility” to the documents. Brown’s defense would argue that reposting a link to the information is not the same as promoting the stolen information. They stated that the prosecution was conflating the issue and argued that telling someone where a website is that offers child pornography is not the same as trafficking in that porn. Ms. Heath then moved to describing Brown as a drug dealer who knowingly gives others a key to a house full of drugs. You don’t have to actually touch information to have trafficked in it, she would claim. Judge Lindsay agreed and allowed the claims to stand on the record.

It is this “relevant conduct” that has many journalists and advocacy groups fearing the ruling. Despite fears that allowing this to stand could “chill journalists to the bone”, Judge Lindsay stated that “the totality of the conduct” must be considered. He attempted to reassure the defense and nervous onlookers from the press that “what took place is not going to chill any 1st amendment expression by journalists”. Judge Sam Lindsay may feel confident from his viewpoint but exactly how courts in the future will interpret this ruling remains to be seen.

The exact charges Barrett Brown plead guilty to include (1) transmitting a threat in interstate commerce (2) accessory after the fact in the unauthorized access to a protected computer and (3) interference with the execution of a search warrant and aid and abet. Brown apologized for the threats he made in a YouTube video, however Judge Lindsay noted that it was this charge that carried the heaviest punishment.

The second charge comes from Brown offering to be a mediator for hacker Jeremy Hammond following the hack of Strafor. During his allocution statement to the judge, Brown offered some background on why he made the decision to mediate for Hammond.

“And with regard to the accessory after the fact charge relating to my efforts to redact sensitive emails after the Stratfor hack, I’ve explained to Your Honor that I do not want to be a hypocrite. If I criticize the government for breaking the law but then break the law myself in an effort to reveal their wrongdoing, I should expect to be punished just as I’ve called for the criminals at government-linked firms, like HBGary and Palantir, to be punished. When we start fighting crime by any means necessary, we become guilty of the same hypocrisy as law enforcement agencies throughout history that break the rules to get the villains, and so become villains themselves.”

Brown also discussed how contributors to his think tank, Project PM, have been declared criminals by the government.

” So now the dozens of people who have given their time and expertise to what has been hailed by journalists and advocacy groups as a crucial journalistic enterprise are now at risk of being indicted under the same sort of spurious charges that I was facing not long ago, when the government exposed me to decades of prison time for copying and pasting a link to a publicly available file that other journalists were also linking to without being prosecuted. “

On his decision to reject an earlier plea deal that included fraud charges:

“ Last year, when the government offered me a plea bargain whereby I would plead to just one of the eleven fraud charges related to the linking, and told me it was final, I turned it down. To have accepted that plea, with a two-year sentence, would have been convenient—Your Honor will note that I actually did eventually plead to an accessory charge carrying potentially more prison time—but it would have been wrong. Even aside from the obvious fact that I did not commit fraud, and thus couldn’t sign to any such thing, to do so would have also constituted a dangerous precedent, and it would have endangered my colleagues, each of whom could now have been depicted as a former associate of a convicted fraudster. And it would have given the government, and particularly the FBI, one more tool by which to persecute journalists and activists whose views they find to be dangerous or undesirable.“

Brown also challenged the governments assertion that he is a member of Anonymous and not a journalist.

“There you have it. Deny being a spokesperson for Anonymous hundreds of times, and you’re still a spokesperson for Anonymous. Deny being a journalist once or twice, and you’re not a journalist. What conclusion can one draw from this sort of reasoning other than that you are whatever the FBI finds it convenient for you to be at any given moment. This is not the rule of law, Your Honor, it is the rule of Law Enforcement, and it is very dangerous.”

Again, the danger of government sanctioning who and what exactly a journalist is was up for debate.

“ The government asserts that I am not a journalist and thus unable to claim the First Amendment protections guaranteed to those engaged in information-gathering activities. Your Honor, I’ve been employed as a journalist for much of my adult life, I’ve written for dozens of magazines and newspapers, and I’m the author of two published and critically-acclaimed books of expository non-fiction. Your Honor has received letters from editors who have published my journalistic work, as well as from award-winning journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, who note that they have used that work in their own articles. If I am not a journalist, then there are many, many people out there who are also not journalists, without being aware of it, and who are thus as much at risk as I am.”

Before the judge handed down the verdict, prosecutor Heath argued that Barrett was still displaying a lack of respect for the rule of law. She claimed Brown had little respect for the law, or abiding by the law. She said he believed in retaliation against corporations who commit crimes and was a “vigilante” attempting to find justice outside the law. She argued that the sentence must show “that an individual must respect the law”.

We have to ask ourselves if “following the law”, or “just following orders” automatically makes an action moral or just. Throughout history individuals who have recognized the failures and corruption of government have done what they could to call attention to these crimes. Time and time again the state demonizes and imprisons those who dare question the authenticity and relevance of laws that allow criminals in the corporate world and governments to continue to walk free while journalists working to expose the crimes lose days, months, and years from their lives. What will it take for the people of the world to actively stand against injustice?

Following the sentencing Brown released the following statement full of his usual panache.

“Good news! — The U.S. government decided today that because I did such a good job investigating the cyber-industrial complex, they’re now going to send me to investigate the prison-industrial complex. For the next 35 months, I’ll be provided with free food, clothes, and housing as I seek to expose wrondgoing by Bureau of Prisons officials and staff and otherwise report on news and culture in the world’s greatest prison system. I want to thank the Department of Justice for having put so much time and energy into advocating on my behalf; rather than holding a grudge against me for the two years of work I put into in bringing attention to a DOJ-linked campaign to harass and discredit journalists like Glenn Greenwald, the agency instead labored tirelessly to ensure that I received this very prestigious assignment. — Wish me luck!”

For a full rundown of the proceedings leading up to today please check here.
The following two tabs change content below. 

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist, community activist, gardener and promoter from Houston, Texas. He is the founder of The Houston Free Thinkers, and The Conscious Resistance Network. Broze also hosts a weekly podcast under the name the Conscious Resistance Live. His writing can be found on , The Liberty Beat, the Anti-Media, Activist Post, and Ben

We Said Vague Laws Against “Terror” Would Be Used To Silence Journalism On The Path To Totalitarianism. This Was The Last Warning Bell; by Rick Falkvinge

We Said Vague Laws Against “Terror” Would Be Used To Silence Journalism On The Path To Totalitarianism. This Was The Last Warning Bell.

With Glenn Greenwald’s partner being harassed by security forces at Heathrow, the last warning bell for totalitarianism has chimed. For upwards of a decade, activists of the Pirate Party have been warning that laws that are marketed to the public as being “against terror” or “against child pornography” are so vague and so full of exceptions to due process that they don’t make sense if they’re not actually targeted at creating a totalitarian society. With family members of reporters taken away for detention and harassment, the last warning bell has gone off – there will not be another bell before they come for me and you.

David Miranda, the partner of the journalist who has been publishing and revealing the extent of the NSA’s and GCHQ’s pervasive surveillance, was detained yesterday at Heathrow for pure harassment reasons. This is the last warning bell of encroaching totalitarianism. Meanwhile, the same security forces demanded that the newspaper in question ceased reporting on the surveillance, even to the point of destroying their laptops.

The Prime Chancellor of Britain, David Sutler Cameron, was informed of this detention and harassment before it happened. That simple fact says way too much of what’s going on, right here, right now.

When societies turn fascist and totalitarian, things happen in a certain order. The first is that pervasive, sweeping, and vague powers are given to police and security forces using some bullshit excuse. Here in the West, those excuses have been child abuse imagery and terrorism. Reporters have been doing a terrible job at showing how those laws actually promote child abuse and are ridiculously badly prioritized (more than 100 times as many people die from falling down staircases than from terrorism).

But those laws did something else, and if history is a guide, did so on purpose. They eliminated the right, indeed the theoretical possibility, of reporters to protect their sources. With the advent of the Data Retention Directive in the EU, freedom of the press was essentially abolished – all leaks would be traceable after that point. And yet, practically no reporters spoke up about it. So effective was the government fear campaign using the bogeymen du jour. (In the 1950s, it would not have been child porn and terror, but communism.)

The laws allowed for sources to be harassed, and for reporters to be harassed. Looking at the many examples of history, that is the next thing that happens as a society goes totalitarian.

The last visible thing that happens as a society goes fascist totalitarian is that the reporters with an ability to report on the developments are harassed and detained. After that, reports go silent. This was the canary in the coal mine, this was the last warning bell. There will be no more warnings after this, only silence, before the same forces one day come for you. And then, it is too late.

Meanwhile, it seems people do not understand the ramifications of all their internet traffic being wiretapped. It’s as close to hostile mind reading as you can get. Consider the fact that the first one to know if you’re diagnosed with a strange disease, it used to be that the first in the world to know (before your friends and family) was Google. Now it’s not Google, but the security agents. That is not theory, that is the state of current affairs. These security forces don’t just wiretap your phone calls – they know what newspapers you read, what articles you read in them, for how long, in what order. They know every piece of information you are looking for. Why don’t people see that this is a recipe for totalitarianism?

As Consumer Watchdog sounded a false alarm about GMail the other week and its users’ expectation of privacy, it turned out that Consumer Watchdog didn’t understand that a mail server must necessarily process e-mail in order to display it to the users. This is a disastrously low understanding of the most basic information security: who can see your private information? Do they understand that when you enter your ATM PIN, you are giving your PIN to the creator of the ATM’s program code? I’ll have to conclude, “probably not”.

And the people who don’t understand that every machine that sees their private information has an owner that also sees their private information, they are going to be robbed naked of their most intimate details without even knowing it. This would not be a problem if they weren’t the overwhelming majority, and as a result, alarm bells from people who do understand basic information security have not been taken seriously.

This is not new, just depressing.

Meanwhile, in the Berlin winter of 1932, families were still going skating in the park on weekends. Their lovely country, having the most progressive capital in the West with its charming cabarets, could not conceivably go down the dark path some eccentrics were doomglooming about.

I cannot begin to describe my frustration as I was reading a proposed law aloud to people in the streets of Stockholm. The proposed law would abolish any right to secrecy of correspondence and allow – no, mandate – the government to wiretap everybody, always, in bulk and without warrant. They looked at me like I was an idiot. Some said what the others were apparently thinking: “Such a law can’t pass here. You’re making that up.” And so, the FRA law enabling bulk warrantless wiretapping passed in Sweden.

The developments that are happening – right here, right now – are too shocking for most people to comprehend. Many don’t want to absorb what is happening, because the consequences are horrifying. And I understand them completely.

There is exactly one thing that can reverse this trend. There is one thing, and only one. If politicians aren’t losing their jobs en masse over this, and fast, then we will pass a point of no return. Democracy still works, but its fundaments are becoming increasingly eroded, and one day it will fall. All of the current parties have sold out to surveillance and wiretapping. They must be kicked out, or we will have Orwell on steroids within a decade.

After all, with all that has been revealed as reality now, if the politicians responsible for this are re-elected in denial or in a shrug of the shoulders, totalitarianism beyond your nightmares is just around the corner. Re-election will send a signal that further consolidation of absolute power is a boost to their careers, and act accordingly.

Yes, that means I am advocating voting for somebody that has privacy as their number one priority. I started one such party that has spread to 70 countries. There may be others, take your pick. That is the only thing left you can do within the current crumbling framework of a democratic society, and doing so is much more important than jobs, than money, than healthcare, than schooling, than any of the usual political billboard issues.

The one remaining option after that is not a place any of us want to go.

I wish I could ask how many more warning bells people need to see what’s happening, but the question is pointless, because there won’t be another one. This was the final bell.

America has begun to censor the Internet, ORWELL’S ARMCHAIR by Derek E. Bambauer

America has begun to censor the Internet, ORWELL’S ARMCHAIR by Derek E. Bambauer

DAVID ICKE We Live in a World Full of Crazy Sheeple

DAVID ICKE We Live in a World Full of Crazy   Sheeple

Psychology - Social Influence

Psychology - Social Influence


The Psychology of Power - Social conformity literally causes your brain to rewrite reality

The Psychology of Power - Social conformity literally causes your brain to rewrite reality