The NY Times reports today on a leering virus which searches the Web for machines which might contain porno material, real or imagined as the virus decides, and then the little shit fingers the machine to one of various law enforcement agencies in its database. (Excerpt below) Anybody had this leerer rat their cave or know of a victim? ----- http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/11/technology/11VIRU.html June 11, 2001 Virus Searches for Pornography By Roy Furchgott A new rogue computer program, possibly intended to perform a public service, has raised thorny legal questions and seems sure to fuel the debate over computer privacy. The new virus, which is called VBS.Noped.a, searches the target's machine for what it suspects may be child pornography and reports the names of files to the police. There are no reports of police officials acting on such results, and antivirus software companies say it has not yet been distributed widely and is at relatively low risk of damaging computers. Technically a worm, the virus is of unknown origin and was spotted by computer security companies on May 22. It arrives as an attachment to an e-mail message titled, "FWD: Help us ALL to END ILLEGAL child porn NOW." When a recipient opens the attachment, child pornography statutes appear on screen. The program then searches the user's hard drive for picture files that have pornographic-sounding names and then sends an e-mail message and a list of suspect files to a law enforcement agency picked at random from the program's database. "Hi," the message sent to the police says: "This is Antipedo2001. I have found a PC with known child pornography files on the hard drive. I have included a listing below and included a sample for your convenience." The virus also sends out copies of itself to addresses in the victim's e-mail address book. Apart from the program's invasive nature, virus experts question the results the program sends out. Its search software is apt to falsely identify files as containing child pornography, said Stephen Trilling, director of research at the Symantec Anti-Virus Research Center in Santa Monica, Calif., which suggests that the results could cause irreparable harm to run-of-the-mill computer owners if the results are acted upon. While law enforcement agencies cannot search an individual's computer without a warrant, they can act on a tip. The F.B.I., one of the agencies on the Noped list, would not say if it had received tips from this virus program. A Justice Department lawyer said that law enforcement officials could legally conduct a search based on the tip, but added, "That's a very different question from `would law enforcement ever open an investigation based on that information?' " Perhaps most troubling, legal experts say, is the havoc that the virus could wreak on the reputation of people with no involvement in child pornography. "There is no telling how far this information might spread," said Stephen J. Davidson, a lawyer and spokesman for the Computer Law Association. Local news organizations could report that a parent was under investigation as a pedophile, he said, "all resulting from an unwarranted and illegal entry to your private computer." ...
At 12:00 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote: Much deleted.
Technically a worm, the virus is of unknown origin and was spotted by computer security companies on May 22. It arrives as an attachment to an e-mail message titled, "FWD: Help us ALL to END ILLEGAL child porn NOW." When a recipient opens the attachment, child pornography statutes appear on screen. The program then searches the user's hard drive for picture files that have pornographic-sounding names and then sends an e-mail message and a list of suspect files to a law enforcement agency picked at random from the program's database.
"Hi," the message sent to the police says: "This is Antipedo2001. I have found a PC with known child pornography files on the hard drive. I have included a listing below and included a sample for your convenience."
The virus also sends out copies of itself to addresses in the victim's e-mail address book.
Apart from the program's invasive nature, virus experts question the results the program sends out.
Its search software is apt to falsely identify files as containing child pornography, said Stephen Trilling, director of research at the Symantec Anti-Virus Research Center in Santa Monica, Calif., which suggests that the results could cause irreparable harm to run-of-the-mill computer owners if the results are acted upon.
While law enforcement agencies cannot search an individual's computer without a warrant, they can act on a tip. The F.B.I., one of the agencies on the Noped list, would not say if it had received tips from this virus program. A Justice Department lawyer said that law enforcement officials could legally conduct a search based on the tip, but added, "That's a very different question from `would law enforcement ever open an investigation based on that information?' "
Perhaps most troubling, legal experts say, is the havoc that the virus could wreak on the reputation of people with no involvement in child pornography.
"There is no telling how far this information might spread," said Stephen J. Davidson, a lawyer and spokesman for the Computer Law Association. Local news organizations could report that a parent was under investigation as a pedophile, he said, "all resulting from an unwarranted and illegal entry to your private computer."
It appears that one effective way to combat such a virus is with disinformation. Approach 1: Merge one of those "50 million Internet address lists" and random listing of possibly pedo file names which the virus might have flagged and generate email. Generate forged emails from these addresses and mail notifications to random addresses from the virus' LE address list. Approach 2: Release another virus which generates false reports from any of the users it infects. steve
A tactic used by the anti-pedo vigilantes and narcs is to covertly bury pedo porno amongst adult porno and then finger the adult downloaders as pedophiles knowing the evidence will be found without the downloaders knowing it is there until discovered during a raid. A federal case here in Manhattan got a conviction this way. Or so I am told by the convict, who got a ten year sentence. Cleanse your files, kiddie sluts. And who saw the arousing report in Saturday's New York Times about the practice of bestiality, yes, sex with animals, that is now coming out of the closet. The last taboo is getting its day. One gent goes on talk shows with his dog to tell what it's like. Debate rages on whether it's rape if the animal does not explicitly give consent. Some animal protection advocates say that the lovemaking is okay with them, better to go all the way with animals rather than raise for killing and eating. (No comparison of Swift's advocacy of raising Irish children for food.) Really, in the New York Times, descriptions of French kissing your dog, and why not, since that is far more sanitary than doing it with a human. Someone suggested the article is just part of Hollywood's promo of "Animal."
And who saw the arousing report in Saturday's New York Times about the practice of bestiality, yes, sex with animals, that is now coming out of the closet. The last taboo is getting its day. One gent goes on talk shows
Necrophillia is the last taboo.
Really, in the New York Times, descriptions of French kissing your dog, and why not, since that is far more sanitary than doing it with a human.
Better that french kissing Stalin. -- -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
"Hi," the message sent to the police says: "This is Antipedo2001. I have found a PC with known child pornography files on the hard drive. I have included a listing below and included a sample for your convenience."
...
While law enforcement agencies cannot search an individual's computer without a warrant, they can act on a tip. The F.B.I., one of the agencies on the Noped list, would not say if it had received tips from this virus program. A Justice Department lawyer said that law enforcement officials could legally conduct a search based on the tip, but added, "That's a very different question from `would law enforcement ever open an investigation based on that information?' "
Perhaps most troubling, legal experts say, is the havoc that the virus could wreak on the reputation of people with no involvement in child pornography.
I realize I'm somewhat naive in that I expect things to make sense, but isn't this just utterly nuts? I mean, imagine an LEO gets an anonymous tip saying. "I broke into this guy's house and found child porn there". Check out the house and, sure enough, the window has been broken into, and right by the broken window is a pile of child porn. Wouldn't ANY sensible person conclude that more likely than not it was planted there? By the way, has this JD lawyer ever READ the constitution? The 4th clearly states and I quote "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION". (emphasis mine). Clearly computer generated spam doesn't meet this criterion. George BTW,
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
Check out the house and, sure enough, the window has been broken into, and right by the broken window is a pile of child porn. Wouldn't ANY sensible person conclude that more likely than not it was planted there?
Except if the virus code is well known, and deemed trustworthy.
By the way, has this JD lawyer ever READ the constitution? The 4th clearly states and I quote "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION". (emphasis mine). Clearly computer generated spam doesn't meet this criterion.
Admissibility also comes to mind. But those kinds of legal standards are a US specialty. The rest of us will be in trouble with the false reports. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
participants (5)
-
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
John Young -
petro -
Sampo Syreeni -
Steve Schear