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

Blog Search

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Giganews Is an FBI Operation

Giganews Is an FBI Operation

18 September 2014. A sends Giganews Critique:

17 September 2014

Subject: Message 0001
Sent: Wed Sep 17 2014 03:27:20 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time)

I noticed that you removed the two lists of Giganews employees at the request of several employees. The original ZIP file containing the two lists has been uploaded to the Internet Archive. Link provided below:

Keep fighting the good fight.

16 September 2014. Two lists of Giganews employees removed from Zip file at request of several employees.

Related: Giganews Denial Campaign:

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:01:19 -0500
Subject: Thank you for your defense
From: Nick Caputo <>
To: Cryptome1 <>


Thank you sincerely for what you wrote on I can tell you are experienced dealing with these spooks by knowing their methods. I will swear under oath and to God that what I wrote is true if it becomes necessary.

What angers me about the whole thing is the fed refused to delete the child porn when he had access to do so. One of the reasons the feds said I didn't cooperate at the second meeting was because I demanded a position upon my return to Giganews that would have enabled me to remove the junk off the service. The next question people need to ask is why is the FBI knowingly hosting child pornography?

16 September 2014


15 September 2014

Giganews Is an FBI operation


Let me explain my history at Giganews in Austin, Texas and how I learned about the FBI connection. I used to be a huge fan of Usenet and a customer of different newsgroup providers for several years, and I started working at Giganews in 2009. I rose through the company, being promoted to a system technician after 6 months, and became a Giganews system engineer less than two years after that.

A huge pirate at the time, I loved the idea of helping people download all the "rich multimedia content" they could. The porn content is not safe on Usenet, and the groups with children being abused I find abhorrent. Customers would write in about it all the time, so its no secret to a Usenet employee where it is.

Data Foundry is a data center company which is interconnected to Giganews with the same admins, nocs, etc. Their main office headquarters is at 1044 Liberty Park Dr in Austin. But, they host most of the Usenet content in other data centers around the world. While talking to the CEO of the entire operation, Ron Yokubaitis, I heard what I interpreted as his request to remove the child pornography groups when he asked, "Would you delete child porn?" I honestly loved the thought of removing that junk off of Usenet, and removed three cp newsgroups soon afterwards. This happened December 11th, 2011. I didn't remove anything related to the normal and more socially acceptable content Usenet downloaders know about.

It turned out that that wasn't what the CEO really wanted, who then claimed he forgot what he said. The Giganews/Data Foundry admins Philip Molter and Mike Smith disciplined me for removing the child porn groups and didn't trust me to keep working there afterwards. They made subtle references to jeopardizing criminal investigations IN PROGRESS then threatened me with a bad reference for removing the child abuse junk. No big deal, a bad reference from them after doing that is good, but Philip restored the cp content from a backup I didn't have access to.

Fast forward several months, I turned into a traitor in an effort to remove the abhorrent junk off Usenet - I broke the first and second rules not to talk about it, and told the FBI the truth about the child abuse groups deletion in an email. This probably wont go over well with internet freedom lovers, but sharing what I learned in the experience will, I promise. My seemingly traitorous act exposed the real traitor, the biggest one, to the Usenet network.

The FBI invited me to their unlisted Austin office in a nondescript office building at 12515 Research Blvd, Building 7, Suite 400 in late October 2012. Two agents took notes on what I told them, then something unexpected happened. Special Agent Scott Kibbey told me he personally knew the Giganews / Data Foundry CEO, bragged to me about working there, then invited me back to Giganews! I had also helped them with a separate crime venue in Austin that Data Foundry was going to compete with, so I had earned their trust. In addition, Kibbey offered me a new name and identity, with a new drivers license and everything, if I were to go back to work at Giganews.

It was then that I realized that the fed I was talking to had been my coworker at Giganews since I started in 2009! The other agent was actually an Austin police detective named Charles Riley helping the FBI whom worked alternate shifts to me at the Datafoundry NOC under alias. Riley even bragged about being a detective once at a shift change! The thought of my fellow Usenet systech in crime being a police detective was unthinkable at the time. I've included some of the emails from these feds (with email headers and IP addresses) in the link at end.

Special Agent Scott Kibbey is central to the whole Giganews operation, including Data Foundry, but with different names. This agent is a top exec for Data Foundry, a top admin for Giganews, the Golden Frog front company run from the same Usenet servers for VyprVPN, and the other Usenet fronts, Supernews, Rhino Newsgroups, and Powerusenet. Another business front name they used when I was there is Powerhouse Management. Kibbey rolled out the OS images, kernels, patches, setup the entire VyprVPN service including the detailed logging which is easily accessible to him and the other government agents working there.

There were also rumors agents from other governments worked thereƂ The Hong Kong Giganews servers were brought down in early June 2009 by a Chinese employee, the day of the Tiananmen Square anniversary when the Chinese government was blocking everything online. This means the VyprVPN connecting IP addresses are accessible to the Chinese government indirectly through this employee. Anyone using the VyprVPN service that governments are targeting is in danger, honestly.

This is my warning - that all of the content being downloaded and shared on the Usenet network is going through the authorities! Giganews customers are being logged! The log file is called the "gigauth" on their "cruncher" servers which logs every connection by every customer, which are then archived. This means Usenet uploaders are helping the feds monitor the distribution of Usenet content if their newsgroup provider peers with Giganews!

I swear to you that Giganews is an operation that employs federal agents who run most of the operation. I suggest demanding from your newsgroup provider that they stop the peering of binary groups to FBI's Giganews. Please understand how risky this is for me to explain as Agent Kibbey subtly threatened my family on behalf of Data Foundry the second time I met both agents at the Austin FBI office. The traitors saw me as a threat and said I did not cooperate. Even with this threat, please warn Giganews customers and other Usenet users, and use the evidence I've linked. If the google drive link dies, email me for a new one. Agents Kibbey and Riley did not let me photograph them, but I did include a scan of their business cards. Riley didn't have an FBI badge or card, but he had an email address, ip, and Austin Police Department badge.

I've linked pictures of my Giganews badge and the shirts with their red armor logo I was forced to wear when working there. I've also linked to the Giganews/Data Foundry employee list with in-office mug shots, phone numbers and emails they gave me. I did not agree to return this on their employee paperwork, so it is not illegal to share. They thought I did, though. I doubt the names and phone numbers they used internally are all real, as many are likely aliases and fed-routed voip proxies. Most of the emails changed to before I left from the ones listed in the 2011 employee pdf. Some of the mugshots are photoshopped by them, as the pictures did not match the physical appearance of some, likely to hide in case of someone like me exposing these traitors.

Feel free to upload this to any newsgroup that Giganews carries - Their customers need to know.

-Nick Caputo


This file and files below: (18.4MB) (3.9MB)






GN-2009-Employees.PDF [Removed at request of several employees]


GN-2011-Employees.PDF [Removed at request of several employees]





Monday, October 27, 2014

Ethical Issues concerning Child-Pornography Dr Peter J. King

Ethical Issues concerning Child-Pornography Dr Peter J. King

Why the Copyright Monopoly Is Damaging Your Artistic Career

Why the Copyright Monopoly Is Damaging Your Artistic Career…
byZacqary Adam Green
The following comes from Zacqary Adam Green, founder of free culture arts collective Plankhead and activist in the New York Pirate Party.

So you’re an artist, author, or creative person, and you’ve heard the arguments against the copyright monopoly. That it locks away knowledge from the public. That it hurts free speech. That it’s declaring a monopoly on an idea. Okay, but what about your paycheck?

As it turns out, the copyright monopoly is a raw deal that helps corporations steal your profits and barely helps you at all.

Copyright is more like a monopoly than property, but it’s treated a lot like title deeds in the Monopoly board game. That means the right to control your work — to say who can distribute it, reproduce it, remix it, build off of it, etc. — is a thing that can be bought and sold. Big entertainment companies love this situation,because that means it is legally possible for them to take your control over your work away from you.

The publisher who options a book, changes their mind, and then doesn’t allow the author to go to another publisher. The screenplay wrestled from its visionary creator, maimed by a team of hack studio writers, and released as an unrecognizable crappy comedy that flops at the box office. The album kept unreleased, in legal limbo for years after its been recorded because of a business deal gone bad.

All of these incredibly common situations are made possible by the copyright monopoly — and the ability to sign it away to a big company, forever, with no going back.
This is how the copyright industry — which is what I like to call these entertainment companies — makes its money. Not by creating anything of its own, but by silencing its competitors (and you). They need the ability to buy, sell, and trade away a monopoly right on ideas, words, and other intangible things, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to dominate. They wouldn’t be able to siphon off all your profits, to maim and mutilate your work, and to use accounting tricks to keep themselves from paying you, because you would have a way out. But with this institution of tradeable monopolies on your work, massive corporate titans are able to pummel anything in their way, get away with screwing over creative people, and then lobby for draconian Internet censorship laws in your name.

And what do you get out of the deal? Well, if you somehow manage to retain control of your copyright monopoly, you can use it to stop other people from downloading your work, remixing it, using it in something else, or doing pretty much anything unless they pay you. Or so goes the story.

You probably can’t, though.
The legal costs of enforcing your copyright monopoly are astronomical, and only the big corporations are usually able to take advantage of it. And there are some things that are so widespread — like downloading your work without paying for it — that not even big corporations with all their resources can stop.
The big lie of the copyright monopoly is that it can make any dent whatsoever in social mores. 

Some people may download your work for free — but they’ll also pay you if they like you.  Some people may plagiarize your work — but the Internet makes it easier than ever to expose them and laugh them out of the room.  Some people may take your work, and remix it into something that expresses a political opinion you disagree with — but sometimes we can’t control how people interpret our work anyway.
Nobody really thinks about who the rightsholder is on anything in these situations. They just worry about who the author is, and they act accordingly.

You do have a choice aside from signing your work away to the copyright industry.

Think about how workers around the world have struggled against exploitative corporations for over a century. They united. Band together with your fellow artists, help each other create and promote your work, and use Creative Commons Zero to completely obliterate your monopoly so that nobody can take it away from you.

(note: don’t use other CC licenses; these still use copyright, so you can still have your work signed away)

If you’re upset with the way people are using or obtaining your work, then instead of using a byzantine legal system, you’d have a much better time trying to change cultural norms and social mores. After all, you’re an artist. You’ve got a natural talent for communicating and moving people.

Nobody needs the copyright monopoly except for giant corporations. The “protections” it offers creative people are thin and unreliable at best, at a cost of propping up a system of exploitation.

Health And Human Services Ex-Cybersecurity Director Convicted Of Kiddy Porn

Health And Human Services Ex-Cybersecurity Director Convicted Of Kiddy Porn by Timothy Geigner
from the guarding-the-chicken-coop dept
There seems to be someone asleep at the wheel in the federal government's HR department, given how many questionable people have been put in high profile/high responsibility security positions. Kieth Alexander, uber-Patriot, locked his cyber-security expertise up with a patent. The White House's cyber-security guy can't wait to tell you how little he knows about his job. Homeland Security's former Inspector General was accused of a ridiculously long list of questionable behavior (in addition to having no qualifications for the job). And now, ex-director of cybersecurity for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been convicted on kiddy porn charges.

Timothy DeFoggi, 56, formerly of Germantown, Md., is the sixth individual to be convicted as part of an ongoing investigation targeting three child pornography websites, the Justice Department said. He faces sentencing on Nov. 7 based on the findings Tuesday that he engaged in a child-exploitation enterprise, conspired to advertise and distribute child pornography, and accessed a computer with intent to view child pornography in connection with his membership in a child-pornography website.

Oh, well that's just great. The head cyber-security guy for a government organization that includes divisions for preventing child abuse and child support enforcement was a pedophile at best. Let's be clear: according to the evidence presented by prosecutors, DeFoggi is simply as bad as it gets.

"Through the website, DeFoggi accessed child pornography, solicited child pornography from other members, and exchanged private messages with other members where he expressed an interest in the violent rape and murder of children," prosecutors added. "DeFoggi even suggested meeting one member in person to fulfill their mutual fantasies to violently rape and murder children."

I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone reading this that the United States federal government has engaged in widespread surveillance on its own people. They're watching what you do, particularly online. They're intruding on our lives in ways Orwell couldn't have dreamed of. And they're doing it all under the notion that it's for our protection. If we must live with that kind of intrusion for the time being, is it too much to ask that the government manage to weed out violent child-rapists from their own ranks as some kind of accommodation?

Prosecutors In 'Sexting' Case Apparently Obtained Search Warrant To Photograph Teen's Penis

Prosecutors In 'Sexting' Case Apparently Obtained Search Warrant To Photograph Teen's Penis
Prosecutors In 'Sexting' Case Apparently Obtained Search Warrant To Photograph Teen's Penis

SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router

SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router by Mike Masnick
from the wrong-lessons-learned dept

This is just ridiculous. Apparently a SWAT team raided the home of an innocent guy, accusing him of downloading child porn:

Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents. 

That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought. 

"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum." 

"No, I didn't," he insisted. "Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that." 

"You're a creep ... just admit it," they said.

It seems that law enforcement folks now admit that they screwed up, but the "lesson" they're getting out of it seems completely backwards. They're saying the lesson is that you should protect your WiFi router. That may be a good idea for some people, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons for offering an open WiFi connection. Furthermore, as noted, some people don't know how to set up their WiFi security. 

But the bigger questions are:

1) Why is law enforcement sending in a SWAT team for child porn downloads? You could potentially see it in cases of production, but with downloads, can't they just do a standard arrest?

2) Why didn't they do a simple check beforehand to see if the router was open before bursting into the home with assault weapons and unproven assertions?

3)How come none of the "cautionary lessons" involve law enforcement folks realizing that they overreacted?What's really disturbing is that the thrust of the original article is all about how this is a cautionary tale for wireless router owners, rather than a cautionary tale about overaggressive law enforcement.

Lamar Smith Tries To Defend SOPA (The Stop Online Piracy Act); Suggests That Infringement Is The Equivalent Of Child Porn

Lamar Smith Tries To Defend SOPA (The Stop Online Piracy Act); Suggests That Infringement Is The Equivalent Of Child Porn
by Mike Masnick
from the taking-the-high-road? dept
Rep. Lamar Smith, who introduced SOPA in the House, has now taken to the pages of the National Review to defend the bill... and yet he does so in a way that makes almost no sense at all. Frankly, some of it makes me wonder if he even recognizes what's in his own bill... and what existing law is. Let's dig in to some of it:

Claims that the Stop Online Piracy Act will censor legal activity on the Internet are blatantly false. Enforcing the law against criminals is not censorship.

Sigh. Not this again. Look: no one is saying enforcing the law against criminals is the problem. The concern is enforcing it against protected speech (i.e., not infringing speech). And even SOPA supporters' lawyer of choice, Floyd Abrams, has admitted that SOPA would block protected speech (just not enough to concern him). But, more to the point, it undoubtedly is censorship. Law professor Derek Bambauer has pointed out that any blocking of speech is censorship -- and that our society agrees that some forms of censorship are actually okay. The question is whether or not we agree that this form of censorship is okay.

The Stop Online Piracy Act specifically targets websites dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. Often based overseas, these websites are called 'rogue sites' because they flout U.S. law and face zero legal consequences for their criminal activity. Rogue sites not only steal America's products and profits; they steal jobs that rightly belong here at home. This bill cuts off the flow of revenue to rogue sites by preventing criminals from selling and distributing counterfeit products to U.S. consumers.

Fluff and rhetoric with almost no basis, for the most part. First, the problem many of us have is that the definitions are super broad and do not "specifically target websites dedicated to illegal and infringing activity." The definitions allow for much broader attacks. As for the so-called "rogue sites," many of them do face legal consequences at home (witness Swedish prosecution against the Pirate Bay, lawsuits against RapidShare, MegaUpload and others -- all three of which have been called rogue sites by supporters of this bill). Claiming they face no legal consequences is blatantly false. Furthermore, they all face significant business consequences. If they're consistently bad actors, that limits their ability to build a significant business. The final sentence reverts to "counterfeit products." Of course, just yesterday we went through SOPA supporters' own numbers on this and showed that the issue of counterfeit products is miniscule. The problem is when they lump in dealing with the narrow problem of counterfeit products with a very different issue: copyright infringement. Let's deal with the two problems separately. (Also, how do you "steal profits" and "steal jobs"? That's meaningless political rhetoric.)

The bill defines rogue sites as websites that are dedicated to the facilitation of the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit or pirated goods. Websites like Facebook and YouTube that host user content are not 'dedicated to' illegal activity and they certainly do not make a business out of 'facilitating' the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit or pirated goods. But if a user posts illegal content on a website like Facebook or YouTube, current law allows rights holders to notify the website to remove the illegal content.

I'm sure Smith wants to believe this is true. But, it's not. It's proven false by the fact that Viacom is already suing YouTube for a billion dollars. If SOPA had been in place in 2007, you can bet that Viacom would have used the provisions in SOPA to kill off all YouTube revenue first, rather than filing DMCAs and then suing. Viacom clearly believes that YouTube is (or at least was) "dedicated to illegal activity." And since Smith's own bill allows for this private right of action, it doesn't matter whether he really believes it will be used this way or not... all we need to know is how companies will use it, and we've got a long history under the DMCA to see that tools like this will absolutely be abused to shut down competitors and innovative threats.

The Stop Online Piracy Act is a constitutional bill that protects free speech and America's intellectual property. The First Amendment is not an excuse for illegal activity. Simply because the illegal activity occurs online does not mean that it is protected speech. Like online piracy, child pornography is a billion-dollar business operated online. It is also illegal. That's why law enforcement officials are authorized to block access to child-porn sites.And this paragraph is the most problematic of all. First of all, we won't know if it's really "constitutional" until a court determines that. Many constitutional scholars have their doubts. Second, no one claimed that the First Amendment is an excuse for illegal activity. As we explained above, the issue is the collateral damage. Put forth a bill that narrowly focuses on actually infringing works, and this isn't a problem. Here, however, it's much broader. And, again, even the one constitutional lawyer defending SOPA (as part of his work for the MPAA), has admitted that, contrary to Smith's own claims, SOPA "may result in the blockage of some protected speech." Pretending this is an impossibility even when your most ardent supporter admits it... is weak. 

But the bigger problem is bringing child porn into this. Smith claims that "law enforcement officials are authorized to block access to child-porn sites." That struck me as an odd statement, because the lawsuit I remember concerning that issue actually said that such a clause in a bill violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce clause. This left me scratching my head, so I emailed a bunch of internet lawyers... and no one was aware of any laws that said law enforcement could just block access to child porn sites. There could be criminal trials that lead to sites getting taken down, but no one knew of legal process that allowed requiring others to block access. 

Is there a secret law? Is Lamar Smith making things up? 

More to the point, copyright infringement and child porn are very differentcrimes. Child porn is a felony. Copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil offense. Yes, in some cases it can be criminal, but SOPA doesn't just apply to criminal infringement. Punishment for the two should be quite different.

Similarly, this bill authorizes the attorney general to seek an injunction against a foreign website that is dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. The attorney general must go to a federal judge and lay out the case against the site. If the judge agrees, a court order will be issued that authorizes the Justice Department to request that the site be blocked.Notice what Smith conveniently leaves out: in many cases under the bill (not all), they will go before a judge without the other side appearing.
According to estimates, IP theft costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs.And according to analysis by the US Government Accountability Office, those estimates are complete bunk.

Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while some of America's most profitable and productive industries are under attack.The industries aren't under attack. The business models of a few legacy players are under attack. Let's be clear: there is more content (music, movies, books, video games, etc.) being produced today than ever before. There is more money flowing into these industries as a whole. People continue to spend and purchase these goods all the time. The attack is merely on a gatekeeper business model that focuses on trying to set up artificial scarcity.

Unfortunately, there are some critics of this legislation who are not serious about helping to protect America's intellectual property. That's because they've made large profits by working with and promoting rogue sites to U.S. consumers.

That claim keeps coming up without any evidence at all. It's hard to believe Google profits much at all from infringement. Almost no one is clicking on Google ads on these websites, and Google only makes money if people click. 

Google recently paid a half billion dollars to settle a criminal case because of the search-engine giant's active promotion of rogue foreign pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients.Totally misleading and irrelevant. That was a case of sites directly advertising via Google. No one has claimed that any of the rogue sites targeted by SOPA are buying ads on Google. This is nothing more the mud-flinging against one company (of many) that are against this bill.

How Copyright Lobbyists Are Making The Child Porn Problem Worse

How Copyright Lobbyists Are Making The Child Porn Problem Worse....... by Mike Masnick

from the sweeping-things-under-the-rug dept
Over the years, we've noted that the entertainment industry has gleefully tried to link "child porn" to internet filters, in an attempt to make it easier to force censorship around the globe on the woefully stupid theory that this will somehow reduce infringement. At times they're completely upfront about this, admitting that "child pornography is great!" because it gets politicians to do what they want. Rick Falkvinge has another such story of an industry exec enthusiastically embracing child porn on the belief that hyping up child porn will help get their filtering/censorship plans through. The article does a nice job highlighting similar stories around the globe. 

But the key point is all the way at the end of the article. All of these attempts to link filtering to child porn doesn't help stop the problem of child porn. In fact, it makes it worse. Falkvinge quotes a group that helps victims of child porn:
But more emotionally, we turn to a German group named Mogis. It is a support group for adult people who were abused as children, and is the only one of its kind. They are very outspoken and adamant on the issue of censoring child pornography.

Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don't close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can't be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is, 'Crimes should be punished and not hidden'.

This puts the copyright industry's efforts in perspective. In this context theydon't care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels. If you ever thought you knew cynical, this takes it to a whole new level.

The conclusion is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children, but because the resulting censorship mechanism can be a benefit to their business if they manage to broaden the censorship in the next stage. All this in defense of their lucrative monopoly that starves the public of culture. We've made this point before about those who try to censor based on child porn claims. Like most folks, I find child porn to be a horrific and dangerous issue.  But the way to deal with it isn't through censorship and filters. It's to go after those who are actually responsible for the stuff.  It's to track down and prosecute those who are creating and distributing the stuff. Putting up filters for censorship doesn't stop those who are creating and distributing. It just drives them further underground. If anything, it actually makes it more difficult for law enforcement to track them down and stop them. 

But, thanks to copyright industry efforts, that's what we're getting. And for what? So that they can get ISPs to start putting in filters in a weak and unworkable attempt to stop infringement. It's really quite sickening that some in the copyright industry would go this far, but when you see just how often copyright lobbyists bring up child porn, and advocate for filters, it's hard not to be disgusted at the lows to which they'll stoop in their quixotic battle, where the end result is actually to make life worse for the victims of child pornography.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Forty four United States Attorneys General voiced their support on Wednesday for a Congressional proposal that is aimed at getting financial support for victims of child pornography.

Forty four United States Attorneys General voiced their support on Wednesday for a Congressional proposal that is aimed at getting financial support for victims of child pornography.
What's causing the harm? How does Amy and Vicky know people are looking at their images? Every time someone downloads an image intentionally or not of Amy or Vicky and they are caught with one of those images on their computer the government sends a letter to the girls and their attorneys(why do they have an attorney in the first place; follow the money) that someone has been caught with Amy and Vicky images and they need VICTIMS for a crime. Essentially the government is perpetuating a self fulling prophecy because the all knowing government never gives the poor girls a chance to recover by playing with their angst and antipathy reminding them daily that someone is looking at images of abuse caused by one of their OWN FAMILY members that made it onto the internet. The viewer is looking at a crime scene image that they were not complicit in producing; crime scene images of a crime that has occurred in the past. With consistent notifications the government enables them to stay sick and if anything should happen to the girls the government should be held accountable for driving these poor girls INSANE. Do you really think, deep down these politicians care that much for the plight of Vicky or Amy? They feel badly for them, but not as much as they would like you to believe. What this does is just gives the politicians another platform to pass more laws and say that they are "tough on crime" by ridding the internet of all those "perverts, pedophiles, and predators" on the internet. Politicians never pass up a chance to look good to the general public as it gets them re-elected. So Vicky or Amy gets paid, their lawyers get PAID, the DAs win a conviction, and the politicians keep getting re-elected.

Also There is NO market for child porn(CP) period. If you can find CP so can the police. If you paid for CP on the net it would most likely be in the form of credit card, bitcoin etc. and the police will find that also. My research has discovered from reading the myriad of arrests everyday for CP that 99% is downloaded via person to person (P2P) software which the police can also detect. There is NO charge for downloading it other than your internet access fee. There is NO money to be made from CP, period and as I stated above the only way an alleged victim finds out their photo, video or both was viewed is when the government tells them so creating essentially a self filled prophecy enabling the victims to stay sick. Only the creators should be punished and go to jail but today CP VIEWERS are getting more time in jail and paying more in restitution than the original offender.

A person that GIVES images power to influence or control the behavior of people is called VooDoo; Witchcraft. Unknowingly many use their authority for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure but they are practicing VOO-DOO nevertheless. I can appreciate that the actual creation of CP victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting CP actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, than looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. If the simple act of viewing a crime scene image (CP) is harmful perhaps an appropriate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator n jail, then set him free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they he was in jail; same LOGIC. Legislators have drawn upon pre internet pseudo research without any empirical evidence when people actively had to exert effort and seek out the contraband; However with the INTERNET the contraband is but a click away. Today CSA crime scene photos can be found for FREE on the INTERNET using P2P software and Journalist have posited nothing but what they are told by Law Enforcement who create Gothic Melodramas and monster stories of child molesting. I do not see how anyone can justify this punishment with the so called crime; its insanity in an insane nation when you can go to jail because the law practices voodoo.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000

Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000
Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000

Research papers

Friday, October 10, 2014

Debate regarding child pornography laws

Debate regarding child pornography laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While laws criminalizing child sexual abuse now exist in all countries of the world,12 more diversity of views exists on questions like exactly how young those depicted in pornography should be allowed to be, whether the mere possession of child pornography should be a crime, or whether sentences for such possession should be modified.

Specific laws

In 1999, in the case of R. v. Sharpe, British Columbia's highest court struck down a law against possessing child pornography as unconstitutional.3 That opinion, issued by Justice Duncan Shaw, held, "There is no evidence that demonstrates a significant increase in the danger to children caused by pornography," and "A person who is prone to act on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the availability of pornography." 4 The Opposition in the Canadian Parliament considered invoking the notwithstanding clause to override the court's ruling.5However, it was not necessary because the Canadian Supreme Court overturned the decision with several findings including that viewing such material makes it more likely that the viewer will abuse, that the existence of such materials further hurts the victims as they know of its existence and that the demand for such images encourages the abuse.6
In the United States, some federal judges have argued that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' recommended penalties for possessors of child pornography are too harsh.7 Judge Jack B. Weinstein criticizes that the mandatory sentence for possession of child pornography is often higher than the penalty for actually committing the act of child abuse. Furthermore, child pornography prosecution has led to dozens of suicides, some of them among the innocently accused.8 The requirement that people convicted of possessing child pornography pay restitution has been criticized by some judges and law professors. This has been particularly controversial in cases involving millions of dollars of restitution, as in those pertaining to the Misty Series.9 But in 2010, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that restitution directly to depicted minors was an appropriate penalty for possession of child pornography.10
During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention,anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.11 Shane Cory, on behalf of the minarchist United States Libertarian Party in his role as executive director, issued a response saying, "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children."12 Cory resigned after the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws.13


  1. Jump up ^ Levesque, Roger J. R. (1999). Sexual Abuse of Children: A Human Rights Perspective. Indiana University Press. pp. 1,5–6,176–180. "The world community recently has recognized every child's fundamental human right to protection from sexual maltreatment. This right has been expressed in recent declarations, conventions, and programs of action. Indeed, the right to protection from sexual maltreatment is now entrenched so strongly in international human rights law that no country can relinquish its obligation."
  2. Jump up ^ "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1989. "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse... States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; (c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials."
  3. Jump up ^ Canada Court Quashes Child-Porn Law, AP Online, 06-30-1999
  4. Jump up ^ Top B.C. court strikes down child-porn law, The National Post, January 16, 1999
  5. Jump up ^ Judicial Activism in R. v. Sharpe: An Administration or Perversion of Justice?, Rev. Current L. & L. Reform, 2000, pp. 14
  6. Jump up ^ R. v. Sharpe (26 January 2001). 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2. Retrieved February 20, 2006.
  7. Jump up ^ Federal judges argue for reduced sentences for child-porn convicts, The Denver Post, November 29, 2009
  8. Jump up ^ Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)
  9. Jump up ^ John Schwartz (February 2, 2010), Child Pornography, and an Issue of Restitution, New York Times
  10. Jump up ^ U.S. v. BAXTER
  11. Jump up ^ Nathan Thornburgh (May 21, 2008), Can the Libertarians Go Mainstream?, Time
  12. Jump up ^ Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography
  13. Jump up ^ McCain, Robert Stacy (May 23, 2008), Fear and Loathing in Denver, The American Spectator

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Myths and Facts #child pornography myths

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Myths and Facts #child pornography myths
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Myths and Facts #child pornography myths

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Are You Liable If Someone Does Something Illegal On Your WiFi? | Techdirt

You ARE NOT responsible for what others do with your connection. You may be investigated for it -- but the use of your network does not automatically make you guilty, and there's a very reasonable defense against it.

“The Trauma Myth”: The child betrayed by Susan Clancy

“The Trauma Myth”: The child betrayed by Susan clancy

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Sexual Attraction Among Humans by Diana Fernandez

 Humans are animals that do not think they are; we are part of nature, not apart from it. Humans are far more intelligent than most other animals but truth is we really don't know, so why make the assumption? We reproduce, eat, sleep, work, and we do our things; However being intelligent does not have anything to do with not being an animal. The definition of an, "animal" is an multicellular and eukaryotic organic organism that feeds on organic material. Just because humans have a more advanced thought process from other mammals does not mean we don't have our basic primal instincts. Some humans are capable of overcoming those instincts; However many do not. Humans furtively try to control those instincts to no avail so they posit laws and create legislation against that which they themselves cannot control; they volitional prey upon other humans angst and antipathy to get what they want to accede to even higher position.

a piece by Diana Fernandez
Sexual Attraction Among Humans

Being a heterosexual female, in the twenty first century, I pride myself on the fact that I take people at more than face value, that I appreciate human beings for their character rather than for their looks. I scoff at women who proclaim that they will not date a guy unless he has substantial material assets, a broad back, and good breeding. Yet why do I find myself making conversation with physically attractive males while blowing the off more unattractive ones? Why does my head whip around when I see a man in a Porsche? Why do my male friends all have the same prerequisites for the perfect female despite race and ethnicity: perky breasts, slim waist, and full lips? Despite most people's lofty notions of equality, and beauty being in the eye of the beholder, we are all susceptible to certain physical, and material traits that make some humans more desirable than others. Perhaps we cannot punish ourselves for our weakness when we see beautiful and successful people, part of the answer lies in the biology and evolution of humans. Males and females have different standards for a desirable mate, and we share many of these characteristics with other animals in the animal kingdom, yet these instincts are inherent for a reason: reproduction.

"As unromantic and pragmatic as it may seem, nature's programming of our brains to select out and respond to stimuli as sexually compelling or repelling simply makes good reproductive sense"(1) . Recent studies have indicated that certain physical characteristics stimulate a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, which is followed by sensations such as elevated heart rate, perspiration, and a general feeling of sexual arousal. So what visual queues instigate these feelings of sexual arousal in men? How does it differ from what women find attractive? "A preference for youth, however, is merely the most obviously of men's preferences linked to a woman's reproductive capacity"(2). The younger the female the better the capacity for reproduction, hence attributes that males find attractive and contingent on signs of youthfulness. "Our ancestors had access to two types of observable evidence of a woman's health and youth: features of physical appearance, such as full lips, clear skin, smooth skin, clear eyes, lustrous hair, and good muscle tone, and features of behavior, such as a bouncy, youthful gait, and animated facial expressions"(2) . Cross-cultural studies have found that men, despite coming from different countries find similar traits attractive in females. Men's preferences are biologically and evolutionarily hardwired to find signs of youth and health attractive in women in order to determine which females are best suited to carry on their gene, and legacy. Healthier and more youthful women are more likely to reproduce, and be able to take care of the children after birth, hence ensuring a perpetuation of the male's gene.

Scientist's have also been establishing that scent plays an important role in deeming females attractive. At certain points during their menstrual cycle women produce more or less estrogen accordingly. During certain times thought the menstrual cycle their sent can be more or less appealing to males. "A research team reports in the Aug. 30 NEURON that the brains of men and women respond differently to two putative pheromones, compounds related to the hormones testosterone and estrogen. When smelled, an estrogen like compound triggers blood flow to the hypothalamus in men's brains but not women's, reports Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm"(3) .

Men are not the only ones subject to biological predispositions in deeming attraction. "Women are judicious, prudent, and discerning about the men they consent to mate with because they have so many valuable reproductive resources to offer"(2) . Men produce sperm by the thousands, yet women produce about 400 eggs in their lifetime, and the trials of pregnancy and child rearing are long and arduous, hence their preferences and what they find sexually attractive in a male are based more on security and longevity of relationships. Athletic prowess is an important attribute to most women that hearkens back to the beginning of man. An athletic and well-muscled male is more likely to be a good hunter hence provide for a family. Large and athletic male can also provide physical protection from other males.

I was speaking to one of my male friends the other day when he mentioned that when he was in a bar speaking to an attractive girl, he always lied about his profession, telling them he was either a lawyer, doctor, or investment banker. What do all of these professions have in common? Money. Women are attracted to a successful male because this is indicative of his ability to provide for a family. This is a desirable trait that is shared by females thought the animal kingdom. "When biologist Reuven Yosef arbitrarily removed portions of some males' (Gray shrike, a bird that lives in the desert of Israel) caches and added edible objects to others, females shifted to the males with the larger bounties"(2). Yet a man has had more than just the resources to attract a female, he also has to be willing to share them. Women tend to be attracted to more generous men because this is indicative of how they will treat them in the future, a man cannot withhold his resources from a female and their offspring.

Sexual attraction does have biological and evolutionary traits. Yet humans do have the ability to transgress the standardization of what is attractive. The topics that I touched upon can vary from person to person, yet are all inherently a part of the human species. We are not fully beyond the basic drives of our biological and evolutionary makeup, yet not all of our desires for a sexual mate are purely physical and material, there is always the mysterious capacity to fall in love and maintain a lasting relationship with one other person.

1. The evolutionary Theory of Sexual Attraction, a site posted by the university of Missouri, Kansas city.

2. Buss. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.
3. Brain Scans Reveal Human Pheromones, a news source found by encyclopedia brittanica when entered the search key word, "sexual attraction"

Continuing conversation
(to contribute your own observations/thoughts, post a comment below)08/11/2005, from a Reader on the Web

awesome paper with a lot of great information! thank you, its a wonderful resource, i'm doing a speech on body chemistry and its a great help!

Additional comments made prior to 2007
kind of funny with the whole evolutionay thing. while everyone has seemingly been programmed through evolution to desire the most wonderful traits, so few of us are born with them all relative to those born unattractive. are the unattractive expected to remain chaste? how about sexual socialism to create a neutral appearance for everyone ... Jeff, 7 March 2006
Hi, informative and logical paper I am in my hunt for convincing a friend of mine about the natural requirement of procreation. Can you help me in the same, getting a good lot of resources to support the same. 


Any support is appreciated Diana ... Teji, 6 April 2006

I find this stuff fascinating. If attraction is somewhat based on an instinctual desire to reproduce, I'm a little curios about why it seems homosexuals are not affected by this "inherent biological trait", It seems odd. Is/are there any known reasons or explanations for this? ... Lachlan, 22 September 2007 

I dont agree with your views. I think human beings are above animals and tend to fall in love with one other person than just the physical characteristics and ability to provide ... Tobby, 29 September 2007 

some of the people i know agree with the fact that men should behave as if they "don't give a damn" or "don't care" when they are with women.... because this would make them probably more misterious or independent (the men) ...and you know what? ...this really works!!! ....why is this? there are women who find this behaviour attractive ....if not all of them ...please explain this to me really does happen in real life ... Mirel, 29 December 2007