[codezero]

Anonymous isn't putting anyone behind bars, that's the difference. Yes, the "authorities" will take more time, but that's because they have to build a case that will convince a jury and hopefully 1) lock the guys up, or at the very least 2) get them into a sex offender registry.

The list of names released by Anonymous won't be considered authoritative.

[darklajid]

Just to make this discussion more globally relevant:

A 'sex offender registry' is a whole different problem. Don't want to troll here, but please understand that in a global forum like this a remark a la 'at the very least' combined with a debatable ~local~ set of law(s) is a dangerous thing. In other words: No, I hope that at the very least no one ends up in any registry.

I'm all for prosecuting/convicting these people. I'm against any kind of (public) register, period.

[codezero]

Good point. Thanks for calling me out on that.

[nanijoe]

But surely, it will curb the activities of those involved, which should be the number one priority.

[codezero]

Not likely. Anonymous isn't a credible threat to them because they have no authority. Anyone whose name is released by them can just say they are the target of a smear campaign by a group of anonymous internet hackers.

[tptacek]

Part of the reason we don't stop at shutting down child porn sites is that the people who use them the most are dangerously unlikely to themselves stop at just viewing pornography.

[there]

citation needed

[tptacek]

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

[nkurz]

Strong citation, thanks! I'm not quite sure it proves your point, which seems to be that the sites are a gateway to criminal behaviour.

"Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child. It is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized pedophilia to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved. It is interesting that the NIBRS data from 2000 show that most child pornography crimes reported did not involve a computer or the Internet but were related to photographs, magazines, and videos."

So while it's seems undeniably true that many users of child pornography sites are child molesters, I'm not sure that "stop at" has the right progression. I presume the more common case is that real life molesters are attracted to illegal sites, rather than that casual online viewers become criminals.

Consider applying the same logic to heterosexual adult pornography sites, which are also illegal in some jurisdictions. I'd presume that the majority of individuals viewing such sites have also engaged in adult heterosexual behaviour, but I'd probably assign the causation in the other direction.

As honeypots, though, the sites seem like great bait. But where's the line, and what should the response be. I've recently bought lye (for brining olives), sulfuric acid (for scarifying seeds), controlled antihistamines (for allergies) and looked at Erowid (for trying to understand SSRI's). How much intense police interest do I deserve for my "obvious" profile as a meth producer? Which, to be very clear, I'm not.

[ryandickherber]

Anonymous isn't putting them behind bars, but by releasing names, communities can ostracize these people and keep them away from children.

[shalmanese]

Anonymous didn't release a list of names, it released a list of pseudonyms which is virtually useless (http://pastebin.com/88Lzs1XR). I presume these people are smart enough not to use the same pseudonym on other services so this list is pretty eminently useless.

[cullenking]

Actually, I just did a cursory google search on a few of the more unique looking names, and they come up all over the internet. One of them is definitely not too worried, their pseudonym is also registered on a bestiality/zoophilia forum as well as some overclocking forums. I think this is definitely enough information to nail some of these people, with the right investigation.

[maurits]

No guarantees though, choosing an existing handle/username with a tarnished reputation seems like a pretty good strategy to me for online shenanigans.

[codezero]

What if they put your name on the list? To what authority is Anonymous culpable, and what responsibility do they have to vet the names they release?

[msluyter]

Well, clearly, in the anarcho-capitalist utopia envisioned by ryandickherber, you would go to the private justice authorities of your choice and get a ruling in your favor by presenting evidence that you never download child porn. An empty hard drive, say, or the entire server logs for every website you've ever visited. Easy! ;)

More seriously, you hit on the problem, which is that a lot of people seem to be assuming that Anonymous' vigilante justice is error free. Those that are wrongfully accused of using child porn could have their lives seriously damaged.

[DasIch]

"Communities" can't do that as effectively as the government can nor are or should these people considered to be guilty unless proven in court.