How do police gain evidence for child porn?

Tefal · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:20

Rainmaker said:
BTW I saw the docu too, great stuff. Those guys do a great job and certainly follow through. Anyone remember the recent Interpol case where the perp had altered (swirled/de-pixelated) his face and they managed to restore the image and set up a man hunt? They caught him in Thailand eventually iirc.

what i found weird about that was it apparently took them a few years to do that, when as soon as the story hit the news, people on forums etc where able to do the exact same thing (with other photos, and the preswirled, but censored ones from the news) in under a week :confused:

Rainmaker · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:21

Tefal said:
what i found weird about that was it apparently took them a few years to do that, when as soon as the story hit the news, people on forums etc where able to do the exact same thing (with other photos, and the preswirled, but censored ones from the news) in under a week

That IS weird, I didn't know that. Unless there were other circumstances not reported to/by the press?

Moredhel · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:21

BillytheImpaler said:
Indeed. Setting up "The Crack Store" on high street as a sting operation would not be entrapment unless you, the officers, were actively encouraging people to purchase your wares.

That would be -slightly- different. Setting up a shop indicates an invitation to treat, so an argument for entrapment could be made.

The FBI hunny pots in the news were links randomly posted to dodgy sites apparently. And people who clicked on them found a nice armed raid headed their way. That said, I read about it on el Reg and we all know what a paradigm of good journalism that is. :rolleyes:

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:22

Tefal said:
but censored ones from the news) in under a week

That's because the one in the news used a common paintshop plug-in so was easy to reverse. Not all are so easy.

Tefal · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:23

Rainmaker said:
That IS weird, I didn't know that. Unless there were other circumstances not reported to/by the press?

I dunno but the police had said they had swirled pictures of him for years.

Seams like they just never thought they could unswirl them and so never tried.

Rainmaker · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:23

But US law is different to UK law anyway. Under UK law entrapment isn't a defence at all, although judges can decide to stay the prosecution in the interests of the 'integrity of the criminal justice system' at their discretion.

Tefal · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:24

AcidHell2 said:
That's because the one in the news used a common paintshop plug-in so was easy to reverse. Not all are so easy.

But they where the ones the police used, and released for the identity shots??

They gave out the before and afters, so they where the sames ones the police used.

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:25

Tefal said:
But they where the ones the police used, and released for the identity shots??

They gave out the before and afters, so they where the sames ones the police used.

in that case no idea.

Psyk · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:34

Dist said:
Also i quickly checked wikipedia, and see that a md5 hash is 128 bit, so there are only 2^128 possible hashes, so wouldnt it mean there is also a possibilty of some random file just happening to have the same hash as some CP? In which case MD5 hash checks fail, as it would require checking all the images by hand anyway.

Yes that could happen with a probability of 1/(2^128). A number so ridiculously small it would probably never, ever happen, except maybe for trivially small files, which pretty much counts out images.

Vengance · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:59

I was paid to do a data backup on a system a long time ago, while the files were being transfered i noticed the names of some of the larger avi files and sequential jpg files. The police came to collect the system after i reported what i found, they system was taken away, the police who came to collect the system said that it would be sent away and checked to see if the files actually contained what the names suggested.
My guess from what they said, some poor person is gonna have to check a few of the images atleast to see if thats whats really in them.

TheVoice · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:05

AcidHell2 said:
every single image will be looked at.
There is no other way you can do it.

It's just something you put at the back of your mind and don't think about. Eventurally you will get used to looking at such images.

I highly doubt anyone gets used to looking at that sort of thing.

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:06

TheVoice said:
I highly doubt anyone gets used to looking at that sort of thing.

of course people do. How many people on this web can know look at hangings and people getting beheaded.

SexyGreyFox · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:11

We have a member on here who does this kind of work for the police - can't remember who it is.

TheVoice · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:12

Violence is one thing, child abuse is quite different.

I'm not saying people wouldn't become desensitised to it to a certain extent, but they aren't just going to get used to it.

Dunks · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:13

TheVoice said:
Violence is one thing, child abuse is quite different.

I'm not saying people wouldn't become desensitised to it to a certain extent, but they aren't just going to get used to it.

Yes, they are differen't both they're both pretty awful.

Sp!ke · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:19

Nymins said:
Have the FBI not set up websites to catch people? Like lure them in thinking it is a child pornography site and then grab them?

Nymins said:
Yea similar. I thought i read somewhere about it. Seems like a good idea.

Actually if you use prefetch utilities it's an horrific idea. (Which is why I don't use them)

Rainmaker · 24 Apr 2008 at 23:45

Sp!ke said:
Actually if you use prefetch utilities it's an horrific idea. (Which is why I don't use them)

There was some discussion about that in el Reg's comments section after their article on the subject. Pretty much, people were asking what stopped malicious persons from sending the honey pot link out to others under false pretences.

They could even hide it behind a tiny url or similar, so the victim wouldn't know what they were clicking until it was too late, and then the FBI put their door off its hinges. Not to mention of someone was piggy-backing their wifi connection :eek:

Cr0fty · 24 Apr 2008 at 23:57

Why don't you just change the thread title to

"How to evade..."

Azagoth · 25 Apr 2008 at 00:02

The thing I don't get about this is, when you see news footage of the suspected paedo's driveway with loads of coppers taking away all the computer equipment, why do they take the monitors too? :confused:

Tefal · 25 Apr 2008 at 00:03

Azagoth said:
The thing I don't get about this is, when you see news footage of the suspected paedo's driveway with loads of coppers taking away all the computer equipment, why do they take the monitors too?

To search inside them for hidden things?

They probbably take all sorts as well a the pc's