Not long ago someone in this group alleged that file names alone mean
nothing in a court of justice, here is someone who also believed that
and is now in jail.

Summing up the case, the guy stored all of his child porn collection on
an external hard drive, maybe even encrypted, I don't know, but it does
not matter as  the files names are still easily recoverable from the
registry.

SO this IT worker repairing his computer notices jpegs named "7yo boy
XXXXed by man" but only the names, and all the data point to an external
hard disk. He calls the cops who have no hard evidence, but thanks to
the suspicious named files it is enough to confiscate his computer
(maybe also search his home), they never find the external hard drive
but they do find some few child porn (deleted internet cache anyone?) on
the computer.

Another one bites the dust, in this case just because he thought naming
his files with what looks like criminal actions did not matter as long
as they do not find the hard evidence, but it does as this case proves,
and then go and explain a jury why you name your pictures with those names.


http://theaustralian.news.com.au/st...lic_r
ss


OK, someone will say, they did find evidence in the end, but they would
have never investigated him if he had named his files with something else.



--

Customized News: http://news.spotback.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <4630a3d5$0$36744$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
email@is.invalid says...
>
>
>Not long ago someone in this group alleged that file names alone mean
>nothing in a court of justice, here is someone who also believed that
>and is now in jail.

(Snip)

Yes, I recall that. I got flamed as a clueless twit because I had the temeri
ty
to suggest that innocuous file names could be a first line of defence agains
t
snoopers and busybodies. It was in connection with a file name changing
application with a simple GUI that the effete know-it-alls here sneered at.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <Y6qdnW2qMoKrNa3bnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@bway.net>
Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> In article <4630a3d5$0$36744$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
> email@is.invalid says... 
>
> (Snip)
>
> Yes, I recall that. I got flamed as a clueless twit because I had the teme
rity
> to suggest that innocuous file names could be a first line of defence agai
nst
> snoopers and busybodies. It was in connection with a file name changing
> application with a simple GUI that the effete know-it-alls here sneered at.[/vbcol
]

Nice rewrite of history there, gogarty.

You got flamed as a clueless twit because you had the temerity to
suggest that renaming a file containing something illegal such as
child porn would make the slightest bit of difference when the file
still contained that illegal material.

Renaming a file that contains illegal material is not going to help
anyone. The law enforcement use tools that look at the *content* of
the hard drive. Renaming childporn.jpg to shoppinglist.txt does
nothing to help.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Gogarty wrote:

> In article <4630a3d5$0$36744$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
> email@is.invalid says... 
>
> (Snip)
>
> Yes, I recall that. I got flamed as a clueless twit because I had the
> temerity to suggest that innocuous file names could be a first line
> of defence against snoopers and busybodies. It was in connection with
> a file name changing application with a simple GUI that the effete
> know-it-alls here sneered at.

You're STILL a clueless twit. For one thing you apparently neglected to
actually read the cite so you're oblivious to the fact that the OP is
rewriting the article to make it appear to be something it's not. Flat
out lying in fact, if you assume everything the OP did is intentional.

Fact is, clueless twit, we have no way of knowing whether or not file
renaming would have removed this "evidence" at all. The alleged
material was allegedly downloaded from the Internet so it's almost a
sure bet the original names would have still existed somewhere after
renaming anyway, probably in an Internet history.

In fact, you clueless twit, we don't even know if that's not where the
names were found SPECIFICALLY because the article doesn't say. We don't
even know if the files hadn't actually BEEN renamed because they were
never found. You and the OP assume (or try to convince us) that they
were in some sort of "access log", but that's the very least likely
scenario. Near IMPOSSIBLE scenario considering the names were first
spotted by a tech who would have had no pressing reason to look for
things which a "forensic investigation" would need to be initiated to
uncover.

The most plausible scenario, and the one suggested by the article
itself, is that the repair guy opened a browser and spotted them in its
history while fixing up some sort of connectivity issue. Even the
nature of the alleged file names themselves is strong evidence of that,
and the fact your "file renaming" bullshit would have or actually
DID fail miserably just like anyone who doesn't lack the ability to
think critically knows it will.

Sorry clueless twit, but renaming files is useless from the perspective
of the person trying to secure something, and even the OP's fabricated
"synopsis" of an article doesn't do anything to prove otherwise. It may
even be evidence to the contrary.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <b7e38f2481fe2ce9228723880c1b9819@pseudo.borked.net>,
nobody@pseudo.borked.net says...
>
>
>Gogarty wrote:
> 
>
>You're STILL a clueless twit. For one thing you apparently neglected to
>actually read the cite so you're oblivious to the fact that the OP is
>rewriting the article to make it appear to be something it's not. Flat
>out lying in fact, if you assume everything the OP did is intentional.
>
>Fact is, clueless twit, we have no way of knowing whether or not file
>renaming would have removed this "evidence" at all. The alleged
>material was allegedly downloaded from the Internet so it's almost a
>sure bet the original names would have still existed somewhere after
>renaming anyway, probably in an Internet history.
>
>In fact, you clueless twit, we don't even know if that's not where the
>names were found SPECIFICALLY because the article doesn't say. We don't
>even know if the files hadn't actually BEEN renamed because they were
>never found. You and the OP assume (or try to convince us) that they
>were in some sort of "access log", but that's the very least likely
>scenario. Near IMPOSSIBLE scenario considering the names were first
>spotted by a tech who would have had no pressing reason to look for
>things which a "forensic investigation" would need to be initiated to
>uncover.
>
>The most plausible scenario, and the one suggested by the article
>itself, is that the repair guy opened a browser and spotted them in its
>history while fixing up some sort of connectivity issue. Even the
>nature of the alleged file names themselves is strong evidence of that,
>and the fact your "file renaming" bullshit would have or actually
>DID fail miserably just like anyone who doesn't lack the ability to
>think critically knows it will.
>
>Sorry clueless twit, but renaming files is useless from the perspective
>of the person trying to secure something, and even the OP's fabricated
>"synopsis" of an article doesn't do anything to prove otherwise. It may
>even be evidence to the contrary.
>
See? They are still at it. Effete twerps.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

macarro wrote:

> Not long ago someone in this group alleged that file names alone mean
> nothing in a court of justice, here is someone who also believed that
> and is now in jail.
>
> Summing up the case, the guy stored all of his child porn collection
> on an external hard drive, maybe even encrypted, I don't know, but it
> does not matter as  the files names are still easily recoverable from
> the registry.

Where in the article does anyone say anything about the file names
being discovered in a registry, or that file renaming would have
removed the evidence of the original file names from the registry if
they were?

Summing up, it doesn't. You're assuming, and either inadvertently or
purposefully being misleading. The more likely scenario is that the
tech in question spotted the manes in a history file that wouldn't have
been effected in any way shape or form by renaming the files, if they
ever actually existed at all.

> Another one bites the dust,

Only in your delusions. The truth of the matter is that the article
suggests file renaming is useless, because the evidence existed even
without the files themselves being present.

> OK, someone will say, they did find evidence in the end, but they
> would have never investigated him if he had named his files with
> something else.

Now you're just telling bald faced lies.

Not only do you have no way of knowing if the clues would have still
existed regardless of new file names, you're not psychic and can't
predict the "never" part. History suggests this pervert would have, at
some point, been discovered.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:58:03 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:


> Renaming a file that contains illegal material is not going to help
> anyone. The law enforcement use tools that look at the *content* of the
> hard drive. Renaming childporn.jpg to shoppinglist.txt does nothing to
> help.

Did you read the original post? The pedophile kept the original names of
the files when he stored them.

The names were all the police needed to confiscate his computer and
probably search his house. That led to them finding child porn pictures.

If Australia is like the US, the police have to make a case to a judge to
get a warrant to do the search and confiscation. The evidence given them
by the repairman was all they needed.

If he had renamed the files in the first place, he would never have come
to the attention of the police, they would not have been able to get a
warrant, and he would still be free.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Anonymous wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:58:03 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> 
>
> Did you read the original post? The pedophile kept the original names of
> the files when he stored them.
>
> The names were all the police needed to confiscate his computer and
> probably search his house. That led to them finding child porn pictures.
>
> If Australia is like the US, the police have to make a case to a judge to
> get a warrant to do the search and confiscation. The evidence given them
> by the repairman was all they needed.
>
> If he had renamed the files in the first place, he would never have come
> to the attention of the police, they would not have been able to get a
> warrant, and he would still be free.
>
But as the other poster pointed out, you don't know if re-naming the
files might still have left something on disk somewhere. It doesn't say
how the filenames were recovered, or from where. So the article proves
nothing.

Andy

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:35:45 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

>
> You're STILL a clueless twit....Fact is, clueless twit...In fact, you
> clueless twit..."file renaming" bullshit...lack the ability to think
> critically...Sorry clueless twit...

As the old saying goes: when you lie down with lice you get lousy.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:

> See? They are still at it. Effete twerps.

What's important to note here, is that you have exactly zero in your
arsenal to refute or dispute anything. The very best you can come up
with is a lame XXX, one line "told you so" insult.

This proves at least three things:

1. You didn't bother reading the article before you started your ASCII
masturbation session, and now that you're caught out in the open with
your pants around your ankles you're too embarrassed to even try and
defend your spew.

2. You can't dispute the fact that this alleged incident doesn't
really prove anything, because you know damned well after being clubbed
over the head with a clue-by-four that the information the tech
stumbled across could have been there whether the files were renamed or
not, and probably was given the fact that it was so damned easy to
find.

3. You're a congenital idiot.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]