Re: They're LEA no doubt (alt.binaries.pictures.vladmodels)

extremeusenet.nl

2015/09/10 11:05

Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Duke <Duke@Earl.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.vladmodels
Message-ID: <2015091019050622204-Duke@Earlcom>
References: <8ece19f046b84d35c0d30400400f7e69@remailer.paranoici.org> <2015090916312570919-Duke@Earlcom> <50f4f4509b92686849fe4c9a85b660f3@remailer.paranoici.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--------------11869919161749207826
Subject: Re: They're LEA no doubt
User-Agent: Unison/2.1.10
Lines: 273
X-Complaints-To: abuse@extremeusenet.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:05:29 UTC
Organization: extremeusenet.nl
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:05:06 +0200
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2486942536
X-Received-Bytes: 22829
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.vladmodels:2394

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

----------------11869919161749207826
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2015-09-10 05:00:02 +0000, Anonymous said:

> What fucking court order, you stupid euro Holland cunt? In which
> country, under which jurisdiction and for what transgression, you
> stupid euro Holland cunt? I'm pissed off now and I recall that
> when you were posting as ma, you did post some illegal images even
> though they were zipped. It's on the record and fuckwits like you
> ALWAYS leave a trail.
>
> I'm looking for the Interpol Criminal Intelligence Officer - ah,
> here it is: s.telladogonzalez@interpol.int
>
> Now, for your headers... posting4.xlned.com!fx03.am1.POSTED!not-for-
> mail
> That would be extremeusenet.nl, correct?
> They keep posting logs. Here's your MID <2015090916312570919-Duke@Earlcom>
>
> Here's ma: when he posted illegal content (I've only downloaded the
> headers for a par file):
>
> bcyclone02.am1.xlned.com!posting6.xlned.com!fe41.am1.POSTED!not-for-
> mail
> That would be extremeusenet.nl, correct?
> Here's your MID as ma <2015071211490935373-Doff@Modode>
>
> You're done. Flush your hard drive, but that won't help. You're
> gone, cunt. Report's in.

You are so funny weenie boy. I told you a long time ago to report
whatever you wanted
That post didn't even violate US law muchless Dutch law and I do not
live in the UK
The posts you made of naked extremely young girls not only got reported
to IWF but also to ASCPA
so no matter if you live in the UK or like I believe the US, you have
been under investigation for sometime.
Using a remailer like you think that protects you lol

Since I believe you live in the US here is an interesting story and the
US law regarding CP

How the hyperlink sting operation worked
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI
Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit
porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed
was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server
allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is
now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical"
activity.
Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child
pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct
link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau
affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file
located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic."
When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the
Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence
the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell
if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as
an e-mail message.
With the logs revealing those allegedly incriminating IP addresses in
hand, the FBI sent administrative subpoenas to the relevant Internet
service provider to learn the identity of the person whose name was on
the account--and then obtained search warrants for dawn raids.
The search warrants authorized FBI agents to seize and remove any
"computer-related" equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any
"addressed correspondence" sent through the U.S. mail, video gear,
camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements, and credit card
statements.
While it might seem that merely clicking on a link wouldn't be enough
to justify a search warrant, courts have ruled otherwise. On March 6,
U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Nevada agreed with a magistrate judge
that the hyperlink-sting operation constituted sufficient probable
cause to justify giving the FBI its search warrant.
The defendant in that case, Travis Carter, suggested that any of the
neighbors could be using his wireless network. (The public defender's
office even sent out an investigator who confirmed that dozens of homes
were within Wi-Fi range.)
But the magistrate judge ruled that even the possibilities of spoofing
or other users of an open Wi-Fi connection "would not have negated a
substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to
believe that evidence of child pornography would be found on the
premises to be searched." Translated, that means the search warrant was
valid.
Entrapment: Not a defense
So far, at least, attorneys defending the hyperlink-sting cases do not
appear to have raised unlawful entrapment as a defense.
In the case of Vosburgh, a college instructor who lived in Media,
Penn., his attorney has been left to argue that "no reasonable jury
could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vosburgh himself
attempted to download child pornography."
Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink;
knowingly destroying a hard drive and a thumb drive by physically
damaging them when the FBI agents were outside his home; obstructing an
FBI investigation by destroying the devices; and possessing a hard
drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the
youths weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible).
The judge threw out the third count and the jury found him not guilty
of the second. But Vosburgh was convicted of the first and last counts,
which included clicking on the FBI's illicit hyperlink.
In a legal brief filed on March 6, his attorney argued that the two
thumbnails were in a hidden "thumbs.db" file automatically created by
the Windows operating system. The brief said that there was no evidence
that Vosburgh ever viewed the full-size images--which were not found on
his hard drive--and the thumbnails could have been created by receiving
an e-mail message, copying files, or innocently visiting a Web page.
The first image depicted a pre-pubescent girl, fully naked, standing on
one leg while the other leg was fully extended leaning on a desk,
exposing her genitalia... The other image depicted four pre-pubescent
fully naked girls sitting on a couch, with their legs spread apart,
exposing their genitalia. Viewing this image, the jury could reasonably
conclude that the four girls were posed in unnatural positions and the
focal point of this picture was on their genitalia.... And, based on
all this evidence, the jury found that the images were of minors
engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and certainly did not require a
crystal clear resolution that defendant now claims was necessary, yet
lacking.

US law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A
Definition of child pornography as it relates to us code.
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any
photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated
image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical,
or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A)
the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B)
such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or
computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of
a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C)
such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear
that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I)
who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted,
or modified; or
(II)
whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the
visual depiction; and
(ii)
who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness,
or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or
other recognizable feature; and
(B)
shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the
identifiable minor.

----------------11869919161749207826
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<title></title>
<meta name="Generator" content="Cocoa HTML Writer">
<meta name="CocoaVersion" content="1404">
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 15.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 15.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #011892}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #011892; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000}
p.p7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica}
p.p8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p9 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p10 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p11 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p12 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p13 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p14 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 24.0px Times; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p15 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font: 14.0px Times; font-kerning: none}
</style>
</head>
<body>
On 2015-09-10 05:00:02 +0000, Anonymous said:
 
What fucking court order, you stupid euro Holland cunt? In which 
country, under which jurisdiction and for what transgression, you 
stupid euro Holland cunt? I'm pissed off now and I recall that 
when you were posting as ma, you did post some illegal images even 
though they were zipped. It's on the record and fuckwits like you 
ALWAYS leave a trail.
 
I'm looking for the Interpol Criminal Intelligence Officer - ah, 
here it is: s.telladogonzalez@interpol.int
 
Now, for your headers... posting4.xlned.com!fx03.am1.POSTED!not-for-
mail
That would be extremeusenet.nl, correct?
They keep posting logs. Here's your MID <2015090916312570919-Duke@Earlcom>
 
Here's ma: when he posted illegal content (I've only downloaded the 
headers for a par file):
 
bcyclone02.am1.xlned.com!posting6.xlned.com!fe41.am1.POSTED!not-for-
mail
That would be extremeusenet.nl, correct?
Here's your MID as ma <2015071211490935373-Doff@Modode>
 
You're done. Flush your hard drive, but that won't help. You're 
gone, cunt. Report's in.
 
You are so funny weenie boy. I told you a long time ago to report whatever you wanted
That post didn't even violate US law muchless Dutch law and I do not live in the UK
The posts you made of naked extremely young girls not only got reported to IWF but also to ASCPA
so no matter if you live in the UK or like I believe the US, you have been under investigation for sometime.
Using a remailer like you think that protects you lol
 
Since I believe you live in the US here is an interesting story and the US law regarding CP
 
How the hyperlink sting operation worked 
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical" activity. 
Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic." 
When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message. 
With the logs revealing those allegedly incriminating IP addresses in hand, the FBI sent administrative subpoenas to the relevant Internet service provider to learn the identity of the person whose name was on the account--and then obtained search warrants for dawn raids. 
The search warrants authorized FBI agents to seize and remove any "computer-related" equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any "addressed correspondence" sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements, and credit card statements. 
While it might seem that merely clicking on a link wouldn't be enough to justify a search warrant, courts have ruled otherwise. On March 6, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Nevada agreed with a magistrate judge that the hyperlink-sting operation constituted sufficient probable cause to justify giving the FBI its search warrant. 
The defendant in that case, Travis Carter, suggested that any of the neighbors could be using his wireless network. (The public defender's office even sent out an investigator who confirmed that dozens of homes were within Wi-Fi range.) 
But the magistrate judge ruled that even the possibilities of spoofing or other users of an open Wi-Fi connection "would not have negated a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of child pornography would be found on the premises to be searched." Translated, that means the search warrant was valid. 
Entrapment: Not a defense 
So far, at least, attorneys defending the hyperlink-sting cases do not appear to have raised unlawful entrapment as a defense. 
In the case of Vosburgh, a college instructor who lived in Media, Penn., his attorney has been left to argue that "no reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vosburgh himself attempted to download child pornography." 
Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink; knowingly destroying a hard drive and a thumb drive by physically damaging them when the FBI agents were outside his home; obstructing an FBI investigation by destroying the devices; and possessing a hard drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible). 
The judge threw out the third count and the jury found him not guilty of the second. But Vosburgh was convicted of the first and last counts, which included clicking on the FBI's illicit hyperlink. 
In a legal brief filed on March 6, his attorney argued that the two thumbnails were in a hidden "thumbs.db" file automatically created by the Windows operating system. The brief said that there was no evidence that Vosburgh ever viewed the full-size images--which were not found on his hard drive--and the thumbnails could have been created by receiving an e-mail message, copying files, or innocently visiting a Web page. 
The first image depicted a pre-pubescent girl, fully naked, standing on one leg while the other leg was fully extended leaning on a desk, exposing her genitalia... The other image depicted four pre-pubescent fully naked girls sitting on a couch, with their legs spread apart, exposing their genitalia. Viewing this image, the jury could reasonably conclude that the four girls were posed in unnatural positions and the focal point of this picture was on their genitalia.... And, based on all this evidence, the jury found that the images were of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and certainly did not require a crystal clear resolution that defendant now claims was necessary, yet lacking. 
 
 
 
US law
<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A</a>
Definition of child pornography as it relates to us code.
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A)
the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B)
such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C)
such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I)
who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II)
whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii)
who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B)
shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
 
</body>
</html>
----------------11869919161749207826--

Follow-ups:

Prev.

Article List

Favorite