I really hope none of you guys had accounts here, cause you be FUCKED

I really hope none of you guys had accounts here, cause you be FUCKED

vg.no/spesial/2017/undercover-darkweb/?lang=en

nice try FBI

Actually, it was the Aussie police. They took over and fucking RAN the website for several months, even posting CP images to keep up the pretence

Wtf, is that true?

Yup. Apparently it's legal under Oz law as long as it's part of a criminal investigation. Any other country would have the police locked up as well

Yeah, standard procedure. Props to law enforcement for this shrewd move. Users of such services are absolute scum

That's actually not true. Several other nations operate in this manner, and even those who don't, some security services operate beyond such boundaries regularly.

I see where they would get such ideas. Seems like a valid way to catch them, how else you're gonna do it except when they openly post it on facebook or Sup Forums?

>standard procedure
No it fucking isn't. This move is completely unprecedented. In the US & UK ANY distribution of child abuse images is illegal for ANY reason, that's why the US gave it to australia

Fuck being the cops that had to do that shit. Hope they've got good shrinks

>Apparently it's legal under Oz law as long as it's part of a criminal investigation.
Lol, in America any half-rate lawyer'd get it thrown out in seconds if cops did that.

Not sure how legit the source is, but if its true I'm not surprised it went there.

I know a couple guys in cybercrime units that say its very easy to pick someone up for child porn and shit, but if they got a decent lawyer then actually doing anything about it is a bitch unless you catch them with their dick in a kid.

The entire legal purpose of getting rid of CP is that it "harms children" if it simply exists. The Australian police actually posting and spreading CP shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of the law. I'm surprised Australians are fine with this happening.

Nah... if it was freeweb with banners and shit, maybe it could be called entrapment. You'd have to specifically look for this site, meaning you wouldn't go looking unless you intended to view kiddie porn.

It'd be traumatic as fuck if you found after a year that the cops knew your kids were getting diddled, but cops could put it under the heading of 'evidence gathering' and it'd all be fine and dandy.

Yep, completely
In the UK, one of the charges that CP hoarders always gets charged with is 'making indecent images of a child'. To the layman, that sounds like they've made the video/pictures themselves, but it's actually just looking at CP on the internet. But because you have a temp copy of that media on your PC, you've 'made' a copy of the media, so they throw that one in as well.

The ends justify the means I guess but it's still pretty fuckin creepy that they keep cp saved and look at it

We aren't particularly. But...

Were the cops actively posting shit or leaving it to the members to do it? Cos yeah, just running the site and not posting is basically just setting a trap. Actually putting their own shit up is not cool

Technically any of the children posted in any of the photos on the site could sue the Australian police force for millions and millions of dollars.

>Were the cops actively posting shit
Yes. Apparently they "tripled" the number of images being posted on the site.

>But because you have a temp copy of that media on your PC, you've 'made' a copy of the media, so they throw that one in as well.
Yeah good luck proving they didn't accidentally click some link on Sup Forums or something.

>Were the cops actively posting shit

Yes. One of the principals of the site was a guy called Warhead. (This is in the link above). Once he was arrested a cop started posting as him, but Warhead's posts (one a month) always finished with a CP image. If they didn;t, the members would know something was up. So the cop learned Warhead's writing style & nuaances, and yes, actively posted childporn images

Fucking right. There is a provable link bewttn posting images of abuse as others' desire for more of the same. Every time they posted an extreme image someone would want to one-up them. In at least onme case a member was creating CP with their own child and sending it directly to warhead. The cops' actions directly led to a child being abused. That's unconcionable

oh, absolutely. But these additional charges are usually tacked onto the discovery of a cache of media. If it's just shit in a temp folder then you've probably got a good case for getting off with a warning not to fuck around in dark places

Its a bitch of a tangle with Duty of Care and Mandatory Reporting laws. Fucked if I know how that stuff relates to international law.

I guess they could say they couldn't positively ID the kid or the abuser without further evidence or something, but that's pretty flimsy. I dunno. Must be some kinda angle protecting it or its pretty unlikely it would have gone forward.

I know I sure as fuck wouldn't have touched it with a 40ft pole unless I could be guaranteed safety.

Reading the comments on news articles about this
>wonderful job
>it had to be done
>I'm uncomfortable that the police posted this stuff but at least they caught lots of people

Apparently they posted thousands of images and only arrested 90 guys lol

>discovery of a cache of media
That's why you ever download anything from the internet ever.

never*

>Fucked if I know how that stuff relates to international law.
You see that's the real interesting thing here. These officers have opened themselves to international lawsuits from agencies around the world.

Its a fucking weird situation, that's for sure.

No, no... Childsplay was not where the absolute scum went. I have a feeling you don't know just how fucked up the real world can get.

doesnt matter if you had a luring account there you inbred

at last count, Child's play had upwards of 1 million users all over the planet

Read the article. When the norweigan news group tracked them down they knew they'd fucked up somewhere. It even fucking names them

fukken quads.

Absolutely. And i'm sure agencies all over the world are wondering if they could do it as well, if only it wasn;t for those meddling morally-minded lawmakers.

luring?

wouldn't it be entrapment?

Unless it was sanctioned by international agencies. They can put shit in place so that no one gets fucked up by inconvenient lawsuits and shit.

We've also got some weirdass agreements with different countries that let our law enforcement do weird shit without fear of reprisal.

>at last count, Child's play had upwards of 1 million users all over the planet
And only 90 were dumb enough not to use vpns

they didn't send/invite people there
people went to the site on their own
entrapment would be:
>click here, we have the pics!

I actually had a account here but eh whatever.

>Read the article. When the norweigan news group tracked them down they knew they'd fucked up somewhere. It even fucking names them
I saw that. They were getting ready to call out the police force for running a pedo ring but contacted them first about it.

lurking

that's true i guess.

>click here, we have the pics!
Them actually posting pictures themselves is what is going to screw them. If the had just run the site for a few months and not posted anything, that'd be normal. Posting CP for a over a year on the site is just weird. They said they had to do it to "keep up appearances" but tell that to the children in the pictures.

or were outside the juristictions. and...

>lurking
agsin from the article, those that wanted to make a name for themselves were the easiest ones to find, because they posted so much they eventually gave themselves away.

If they'd tried that shit with the US police, they would probably be in jail themselves for interfering with a federal investigation

this is a weird one. You're correct in that they didn;t explicitly invite people to join the site, but it could be construed that the very act of posting the images was self-promotion, thereby increasing the image and profile of the site.

it kinda is entrapment since the cops are the ones who posted the illegal images.

>n criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.

>If they'd tried that shit with the US police, they would probably be in jail themselves for interfering with a federal investigation
In the US, posting CP is a crime itself and police are not exempt from that law. I can see maybe the FBI getting away with it(there's another weird thing, this was local PD not some Australian government agency?) under some bullshit excuse if it was planned months in advance but your average police officer would be as fucked as the other people posting on the site.

That's hard to answer and it depends on the countries involved, for example Mr Big investigations are legal in Canada but not in the USA. However, an American court, Washington state allowed the Mr Big evidence into an American courtroom for a murder trial because the investigation took place in Canada where it was legal. So as long as the police were obeying their laws another country may allow it in their courtroom, depends on the country I guess

>If the had just run the site for a few months and not posted anything
unfortunately, that would have meant the game would have been up sooner. Warhead had a few deputies and they'd pre-arranged safety protocols, namely if he was seen as an active user (it's based on a generic message board template where you can see who's online at any given time) but didn't actually post anything or respond to PMs, they would have pulled the plug

I'm in total agreement with you, but it would seem this doesn;t apply in Oz. However, they can claim that they were posting an image to keep up the charade, rather than promoting further postings, but those familiar with the site/case would know that's exactly what would happen, so there is credence to what you say.

>In the US, posting CP is a crime itself and police are not exempt from that law
same in the UK, and most other civilised nations, I'm sure

People wouldn't find that site unless they were looking. They already have the intention.

So long as the cops weren't going onto random, non-kiddie related forums and advertising it or offering free toasters for signing up, there's no entrapment

>So as long as the police were obeying their laws
Is it legal to run a to post and run a cp site in Australia?

if the intention was to catcch those responsible, it would seem so

Isn't that a paradox?

true but how come people who join gangs do not automatically get arrested unless they actually get caught doing something illegal.

we all know that street gangs are not formed to give out community services

More an oxymoron, but yeah. Commiting crimes to catch criminals. You can bet your arse there's gonna be a movie in here somewhere

I would assume and this is an assumption but they would usually have to get a legal opinion to run an operation of this size, it is not unusual for a lawyer, usually a prosecutor or in this case a Crown Counsel to advise what they could use in court, otherwise why bother if you can't get convictions

>like distributing drugs to later catch those who use your drug
not sure i like that method

>Commiting crimes to catch criminals.
They're treating CP like weed or some other shit. It's kinda ridiculous.

They should so do a movie on Mr Big, this stuff is really interesting

Its also not illegal to be affiliated with gangs.

Except in parts of Australia where openly belonging to certain gangs is actually illegal and will get you locked up.

The thing is, the guys they've arrested haven;t been arrested for running the website. They've been arrested because they both abused children (and then posted the images). That's what this investigation was about - not just identifying those who used the site, but identifying those who were actually creating their own content to put on the site, so to speak. The website was just the conduit to catch actual child abusers.

hivemind, but yeah. I suppose the cops can fall back on that the images they posted were older ones, where the victims/perps had been identified so they were out of the loop, but that doesn;t make it any less fucked up

>Its also not illegal to be affiliated with gangs.
It is where I live lol. Being in a gang automatically gets your sentence tripled.

In the UK they have something called Joint Enterprise, where if you're known to be in a gang, and one of the gang members commits a crime, ALL the gang members get arrested foir the same crime.

It hasn't gone down well

In my opinion, this law is an excuse for pedophiles in the government to fearlessly stage, capture, distribute, watch, and / or even be the ones creating the content, for their own pleasure.
I mean what would be the best cover than this ?

>I suppose the cops can fall back on that the images they posted were older ones, where the victims/perps had been identified so they were out of the loop
that totally invalidates the "every time a picture/video is viewed, the child is raped again"

>the guys they've arrested haven;t been arrested for running the website
They got those charges removed for giving them the admin usernames and passwords.

But first you have to commit a crime, yeah? You aren't just arrested for being in the gang?

>that totally invalidates the "every time a picture/video is viewed, the child is raped again"
That was my point up here It is simply baffling.

I imagine 90% of Sup Forums has an account registered there

Yup. Ask Kylie Freeman how she feels knowing people are still fapping to her videos

Chucking under the bus, classy. Still doing 27 years or so, so didn't really make a difference

depends on the country/state. In the UK (sorry to bang on about this, but It's my home country) you're not allowed to congregate in groups of 20 or more

That's pretty close to how things started here. But then gang members learnt that it is really fucking hard to prove in a court that they are actually in the gang and not just associated without being a member.

Really made a mess of the soft approach, so they toughened up the laws. Hasn't been popular, but hasn't been a problem either

exactly.
so checking out a website, i would assume, is not illegal either right?

If you have gang tattoos or are wearing certain colors/gang related clothing you can be arrested. They normally only use the law when a gang member commits a crime in the vicinity of other gang members though.

>we all know that street gangs are not formed to give out community services

You say thats because you haven't seen mine. Haha!

You'd be wrong. I'd personally estimate about 20%. which is still a lot.

Those are 2017 levels.

Looking at a website isn't illegal, but saving illegal content from said website is. (I think, it probably depends on the website)

Gentlemen, OP here. I have to depart as my bed is calling and I have work in the morning. I just wanted to say thank you all for a fascinating conversation and exchange of thoughts, all without resortiung to puerile innuendo or posting shit that would get the thread closed.

It's not often I get involved in a thread that's so well-mannered and coherent, especially one I've created myself, so thank you all.

See? you can behave yourrselves when you want to

Oh... yeah, you're right.

Must be poopy pants time for that 20%

Love you too, OP.

I wouldn't go that high. There are lots of children, pussy anime fags, and literal fags that browse Sup Forums.

it is 2017

I see Sup Forums is still mostly retarded.

for knowing the year?

well hats off to you then if your gang is actually making positive contribution to society

> you're not allowed to congregate in groups of 20 or more

Same here. Some places its 8 or more, time was it was 3 or more. Only applies to publicly accessible land though, on private property you could have thousands of people meeting.

Its kinda weird.

found newfag

Whats the current year?

october

They literally facilitated it
They would have had to pay for the server space
Australian police were one of the biggest distributors of cp worldwide for almost a year
the absolute STATE of this fucking earth

le funni

Depends solely on intent.

Quick comparison.
> Sup Forums
Very occasional legally questionable porn. If cops came to my door and discovered 1 image in my temp folder from Sup Forums, it could be assumed I wasn't expressly here to view child porn.
Same could be said of gangs. You didn't explicitly join to commit crimes, but it might happen. You also have a legally protected freedom of association in most countries (at least in theory) so you can hang out with whoever you want.

> Dedicated cp site
Made for the sole purpose of viewing cp. You aren't there to read the articles. If you go there, you are going to view cp... there is no other reason therefore your intention for visiting is explicitly to view cp.

i don't think anyone has ever been convicted from viewing cp.
distributing is the chargeable offense i think?