[SoxNation]

Quote

A link between terrorism plots and hardcore child pornography is becoming clear after a string of police raids in Britain and across Europe, an investigation by The Times has discovered. Images of child abuse have been found during Scotland Yard antiterrorism swoops and in big inquiries in Italy and Spain.

Secret coded messages are being embedded into child pornographic images, and pedophile Web sites are being exploited as a secure way of passing information between terrorists...

...It is not clear whether the terrorists were more interested in the material for personal gratification or were drawn to child porn networks as a secure means of sending messages. In one case fewer than a dozen images were found; in another, 40,000.

http://www.foxnews.c...,439641,00.html

[Renolds]

a better source please?

[Lord Sharpe]

Source is Times of London. Seems legit, and disturbing.

[Fredginator]

Quote

Terrorist A: "Hey, I think we need to pass around information from one group to another, so that we wouldn't be caught."
Terrorist B: "yeah, I know, should be something inconspicuous though. Got any ideas?"
Terrorist A: "howabout childporn, we'd never get caught for that!"

I think I'm missing the logic here O.o

[SoxNation]

Renolds, on Oct 24 2008, 10:09 AM, said:

a better source please?

omg, foxnews is fine as as source, its their political commentary you don't like.


jesus, it's not like the big stations even do their own research anyways, there is usually a background source as noted above.

[Lord GVChamp]

Ahahahahaha, stupid terrorists

[Renolds]

SoxNation, on Oct 24 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

omg, foxnews is fine as as source, its their political commentary you don't like.


jesus, it's not like the big stations even do their own research anyways, there is usually a background source as noted above.

no its just that some biased new networks will beef up stories to make them more cheek slapping. Fox is right up there with the worst offenders.

[Republic of Scotland]

It just seems too much like a propaganda story to me. It just doesn't seem like something a group of diehard fundamentalists who abhore sex would do.

[Kzin]

Fredginator, on Oct 24 2008, 07:15 AM, said:

I think I'm missing the logic here O.o

That is baffling .... "Hey let's put our messages on the servers of the second highest law enforcement priority, after catching us that is ..."

GENIUS!

[Kenadian_2006]

Wow.

[ClockworkOrange]

Is the "logic" not that if terrorists hide themselves in child porn rings it's not like the peadophiles are gonna rat them out to the police so they get to organise they evil schemes on the back of someone elses server

Kinda shows that these terrorists aren't that bothered about their religious fundamentalism if they're willing to associate with scum like that.

This post has been edited by ClockworkOrange: 24 October 2008 - 10:52 AM

[Delta1212]

I guess technically any child porn sites that remain in existence would be pretty damn secure since they're such a high priority for shut down. It saves time trying to set up their own secure sites, even if you have the added risk of it being shut down for non-terrorist reasons. Plus, it'd discourage most looky loos from taking a hard look at their site and anyone who did isn't going to be jumping up and down shouting for the police if they find anything.

[Kzin]

I guess the question is whether as a communications method they're using whatever image-hosting servers they can find, and these porn servers just happen to be a few among a much larger group of image servers they're using. Possibly they're not choosing porn servers because they're porn servers, but because they're image servers.

For all we know 10x as much communication is happening through Flickr pictures of Yellowstone.

[VIdiot the Great]

VI: "What is the dumbest possible way to sort of use technology to transfer information insecurely in a world where we have secure cell phones, encrypted e-mails, super secure servers, ciphers, you tube, and a host of other technological advances so that you can run the risk of getting caught visiting a public website that is probably on the radar of every single law enforcement agency known to man?"

Alex Trebek: "Correct."

VI: "Thanks Alex, I'll take 'Why does Fox News suck on such a continual basis for 200."

Alex Trebek: "That's not a category."

VI: "It should be."

[Kzin]

VIdiot the Great, on Oct 24 2008, 10:05 AM, said:

VI: "What is the dumbest possible way to sort of use technology to transfer information insecurely in a world where we have secure cell phones, encrypted e-mails, super secure servers, ciphers, you tube, and a host of other technological advances so that you can run the risk of getting caught visiting a public website that is probably on the radar of every single law enforcement agency known to man?"

Nobody who thinks they're on the radar of the NSA or NRO should be trusting any commercial encryption technology on something as high-profile as phones or e-mail, they *must* try to hide the traffic to keep it from being decrypted.

[VIdiot the Great]

Kzin, on Oct 24 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

Nobody who thinks they're on the radar of the NSA or NRO should be trusting any commercial encryption technology on something as high-profile as phones or e-mail, they *must* try to hide the traffic to keep it from being decrypted.

Where did I say they should use commercially available encryption? I don't care how you slice it, using child porn sites to transfer messages is quite possibly the dumbest thing you could do if you're actually interested in, let's say, NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

This article smacks of that whole idiotic 'If you buy drugs you're supporting terrorists' campaign that was shoved down our throats a few years ago. And no, I'm not criticizing the OP for posting it, but stepping back from what is written there it sets off all the buzzers on my BS detector.

[Kzin]

VIdiot the Great, on Oct 24 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

Where did I say they should use commercially available encryption? I don't care how you slice it, using child porn sites to transfer messages is quite possibly the dumbest thing you could do if you're actually interested in, let's say, NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

This article smacks of that whole idiotic 'If you buy drugs you're supporting terrorists' campaign that was shoved down our throats a few years ago. And no, I'm not criticizing the OP for posting it, but stepping back from what is written there it sets off all the buzzers on my BS detector.

I don't disagree with that, the whole thing smells a little like 'aluminum tubes from Africa' at first blush, but it's marginally plausible that porn servers are among the thousands of servers they could be using for text encrypted within .jpg files.

[VIdiot the Great]

Kzin, on Oct 24 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

I don't disagree with that, the whole thing smells a little like 'aluminum tubes from Africa' at first blush, but it's marginally plausible that porn servers are among the thousands of servers they could be using for text encrypted within .jpg files.

Oh, I agree with you, but I think it would be far safer just to set up a similarly formatted server for their own use than to use one that is going to have law enforcement actively looking for it. And as we saw in 9/11, there are terrorists that can set up very intricate plans without being detected, so yeah, maybe there are really dumb terrorists out there, but what makes today's terrorists so scary is they are often versed in cutting edge technology and communication.

It just really seems to be such a risky way to do it compared to other methods.

[Kzin]

VIdiot the Great, on Oct 24 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

Oh, I agree with you, but I think it would be far safer just to set up a similarly formatted server for their own use than to use one that is going to have law enforcement actively looking for it. And as we saw in 9/11, there are terrorists that can set up very intricate plans without being detected, so yeah, maybe there are really dumb terrorists out there, but what makes today's terrorists so scary is they are often versed in cutting edge technology and communication.

It just really seems to be such a risky way to do it compared to other methods.

Using your own server gives you a physical location vulnerable to law enforcement personnel ... hacking/infiltrating someone else's server is vastly preferable for distribution of clandestine information. You can put 1,000 fake messages out there to create white noise disinformation for your enemies to sift through, while your operatives know which server or message is 'genuine'.

[Sunake]

Kzin, on Oct 24 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

Using your own server gives you a physical location vulnerable to law enforcement personnel ... hacking/infiltrating someone else's server is vastly preferable for distribution of clandestine information. You can put 1,000 fake messages out there to create white noise disinformation for your enemies to sift through, while your operatives know which server or message is 'genuine'.

But still, kiddie porn? Those servers will be found and will be shut down eventually. Not to mention anyone who's IP address went there will be arrested and questioned.

"What were you doing looking at child pornography?"
"I was waiting for the secret message from my Hezbollah... I mean, just wanted something to jerk off to?"