moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Well, well, well......
How long can you go? 
Looks like Direct Revenue has gone even further down the gutter than thought possible.
In some cases, just the mere mention of having child porn could warrant a legal search of someones computer.
When will it stop? |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | If I were the Atorney General in that state indicments would be ready by the end of the business day.. Rounding up the scum right around dinner time.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
| reply to moonpuppy
Frankly shouldn't be clicking on that crap in the 1st place. so this would just be a case of a degenerate feeding off another degenerate looking for kiddie porn. fine by me. Let the pedophile sue the Adware company then get himself busted, they'll take each other out. |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| Hrm.
I posted earlier in the day stating that I was curious what bomb Chris was about to drop re: this issue.
Unfortunately, as I stated my brain was telling me, this isn't much of a surprise or an exposé. I'm not entirely certain if it's illegal to claim they're under 18 if in fact they're over 18 (IANAL, I literally don't know). Who knows how legit any of it is. And it's no shocker that the bundlers would target this type of file for distribution. Duh, this just in: people on the internet like porn.
The (brushed over really) implication that they're also using copyrighted materials they don't own rights to though... that's somethign that would seem to me to stand better from a legal standpoint,a nd would be a bigger mistake.
Like I said I could be wrong, IANAL. But to me this is nothing, not new news, and won't do anything to slow anythign down. |
|
Fatal Vector
@sfldmi.ameritech
| reply to AtomicZero
Re: Well, well, well......
And he goes on and on about how these companies just stumbled into this and how could they and acting like these companies are "legitimate" (which is, of course, nothing but wolf bane to try to keep the lawsuits away-If you're going to pontificate, at least have the balls to say it like it is, especially when you know you're right. Do you really think any of these sleaze bags will actually sue and open up themselves to investigation? Please.). Seeing as these companies have a proven record of sleazy practices as far as installing their software, do any of you really believe they were clueless about this campaign?
Sooner or later, they will try to get too slick and underhanded and the force of the law is going to land on their head as the complaints against them reach a critical mass. Their arguments about licenses will not save them either as there is ample evidence of sneakery.
One can only hope that this will be the one that starts the steamroller. |
|
paperghost
join:2005-04-13
1 edit | reply to Primis1
Re: Hrm.
from looking athe strict letter of the Canadian law, it appears that they would indeed take a hard line on simply making it look like they were under 18, even if they were not:
...and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer either. Though there is of course the horrible possiblility that the girls in the mediafiles could actually be under 18 anyway, in which case its pretty irrelevant anyway. though IANAL either 
however - it looks like MMG used an affiliate of their own in some crazy way to possibly sort out the mediacontent on their behalf. which is nuts. but if thats the case, the top brass at MMG would likely not know about this either.
and i do not think the adware companies involved had any idea that this kind of file was out there. its just too big a risk. my disappointment comes with the knowlede that nobody seemed willing to take Dave up on his offer of help. |
|
rodoke
join:2003-10-28
Carbondale, IL
| You pays your money, you takes your chances
I guess some people have to learn the hard way that you don't need to run arbitrary executables to get free porn: we all have to learn sometime ;^).
On another note, why exactly is the existence of trojans on p2p news? If anyone actually believed that the Bittorrent network (whatever that is...) was "pure", they deserve everthing that happens to them. |
|
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone
| figures
lately most of the pr0n on bittorrent requires you to run an executable. ive tested this out and it installs about 400 different types of crap on your computer that takes about 2 reboots to get off. the moral of that story is-dont bother downloading pr0n off bittorrent. |
|
rodoke
join:2003-10-28
Carbondale, IL | Intéressant...
"Tested it", have you... |
|
Underplay
join:2003-10-19
Tacoma, WA | reply to 53059959
Re: figures
lmao thats funny crap. Anything that is not from a offical website i dont execute. |
|
DarkGryphon7
join:2004-04-16
Jamison, PA
| reply to 53059959
lol.
People like you need to get a clue. First of all if the stuff you download is in executable form, you're going to the wrong places. I can find hundreds of terrabytes without a single piece of adware spyware or any types of viruses.
Secodnly, the instant you start downloading something via bitorrent, all you have to do is check the folder contents and if you see anything other than a vid clip or iso, stop d/ling. It's that simple. |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Shutem'down!
If they are actually using child porn, then turn them into the proper authorities! Get them shut down and their crapware out of our networks!
If it isn't child porn or pirated software then technically is it not false advertising? The article says it IS a 'marketing campaign'...
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
stefanla
join:2004-11-09
New Zealand | reply to 53059959
Re: figures
what are you on about?
reputable torrentsites only release svcd's |
|
mcfrisch
Revelare Pecunia
join:2000-07-02
Lakewood, OH | reply to 53059959
There is so much pr0n out there, who would even think they have to run an executable? Hell, Google is good enough;)
--
Mcfrisch(Cox HSI : Cleveland) |
|
Advoc8
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Well, well, well......
The problem cannot stop on this path. The *real* problem is that there is no logical determination of whether child porn is even harmful. it's just always been assumed. Until there are actual studies done which result in conclusive evidence, anything involving the term will by sheer mass of public opinion be a major part of society and law.
To be more specific, not only are sex crimes lumped into one category of harm with only emotional arguments against them in most of the public's minds, but there is no way to logically apply a speciric age to anywhere close to a majority of all cases, particularly not the one we have now. Mother nature says they're ready about 4 years before that. Popular culture makes them ready about that much sooner then their parents were. The entire point is almost moot because NOONE is ready their first time, period.
Until we apply logic to the roots of this issue, we can never get logical results out the other end. Trust me. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Advoc8:
The problem cannot stop on this path. The *real* problem is that there is no logical determination of whether child porn is even harmful. it's just always been assumed. Until there are actual studies done which result in conclusive evidence, anything involving the term will by sheer mass of public opinion be a major part of society and law.
Child porn is not harmful?!?!?!?!?!?!
Tell me you are not this stupid. |
|
Advoc8
| I never said either way. Are you saying it is harmful? Based on what? Tell me you have something besides your words to back it up?!?!?!?!?!?!
Saying something is true doesn't make it so, even if 100 million people say it together. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Advoc8:
I never said either way. Are you saying it is harmful? Based on what? Tell me you have something besides your words to back it up?!?!?!?!?!?!
Saying something is true doesn't make it so, even if 100 million people say it together.
This is what you said:
said by Advoc8:
The *real* problem is that there is no logical determination of whether child porn is even harmful. it's just always been assumed. Until there are actual studies done which result in conclusive evidence, anything involving the term will by sheer mass of public opinion be a major part of society and law.
Here is one piece of evidence:
»www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm
No post up your evidence where it is not harmful. |
|
Advoc8
| That site is entirely biased, and even so they admit "I want to assure you that every child who views pornography will not necessarily be affected" that it is not a known fact, but a mere possibility that any harm may be done. |
|
Christopher001
| reply to Advoc8
Actually, Advoc8 is right! There have been no studies done that show that child porn is actually harmful to the children that are used in it. The only study that was actually done and published on it in this century by the Danish, I believe, actually came to the OPPOSITE conclusion, that there is no damage to children from seeing porn, having sex with an adult, or having sex with other children.
Every study our (United States) government has funded has been buried because it actually came to the OPPOSITE conclusion from the one that the government wanted, and the same conclusion that the Danish study found.
The big problem is just that parents do not want to believe that their children could be interested in sex from an early age, and that they have the right to decide for themselves whether to be in sexual activity.
Sure, if they are being forced and you suspect that they are, ask them if they were threatened. But if they say they weren't and you believe them, simply butt out, it is their body and their right to decide who they want to touch it and what they want to do with it. |
|
