Support NeoGAF

[ajim]

Hello!

Other items of business:

- TrueCrypt and other encryption techniques are good but not perfect. And bear in mind that (in the UK, at least) if you don't tell the authorities the passphrases to your encrypted volumes, you are liable for 2 years in jail.

- Different filesystems have different ways of dealing with deletions, but it is correct to say in broad terms that when you delete a file the filesystem does not remove the data itself from the disk, which is why data can be recovered which has previously been deleted.


Hope that's helped a little bit. I can go into the more technical details of file recovery if you'd like, but to be honest there are far better recources online. Christ, just look up FAT or NTFS on wikipedia, that's a good start.

Sure, nothing is ever perfect. However, truecrypting your drive with a completely randm 64+ character pass phrase with complimentary key file authentication is pretty much impossible to get into.

Also, thats why Truecrypt has plausible deniability so you can avoid buttfuckery like that UK law.

It sounds like a lot of work to normal folk, but, people should be more aware of encryption and even utilise it, considering the best is free, and your personal details, information and even freedom could be at stake.

 

[WickedAngel]

Breaking into drive encrypted with TrueCrypt takes about five minutes...

 

[Youta Mottenai]

There must be more details for this story that we´re not aware. I simply can´t grasp the idea that the FBI and prosecutors would go this far for someone that is innocent.

The second thing that bothers me, if this is really true, is that the FBI is simply telling to pedophiles and the scumbags who produce CP how to make investigations over this more difficult.

Just create fake accounts on many sites/forums as possible upload fake named files with CP (or something illegal that will draw authorities attention) or simply change the pic of the avatar to some CP and that´s it. Now the investigation agencies have thousands (if not tens of thousands) of "disgusting pedophiles and sex offenders" to catch, prosecute and send to jail.
It was in your one (or more) year old cache files so you must be guilty, right?

If the criminals are tech savvy, have the resources or both (and surprise, surprise, organized crime don´t get this name just because it looks cool on reports) now authorities will spend years looking for 'ghosts' while the culprits laugh their asses off. Damn, any asshole troll could do it just 'for the lolz'.

If the law enforcement agencies are this stupid, behaving no better than ignorant puritans that pointed fingers and cried 'Witch!', 'Blasphemous!' etc., instead of, you know, doing their job and protecting society, terrorists and criminals already won.

 

[Fafalada]

Thats an absolute solution though and hence this data can stick around.

Magnetic media has residue - you'll have to overwrite the whole disk many-times before the deletion is "absolute", and it should probably be with random data as well.

 

[WickedAngel]

Organized crime usually doesn't focus on child pornography for a number of reasons. First and foremost, there is a very limited market for it. Past that, it is targeted fiercely where other, more profitable crimes aren't (Phishing scams, for instance).

 

[bengraven]

Oh shit, he accidently downloaded child porn 2 years ago from Limewire and now they're coming after him?!

Looks like half of GAF will start disappearing this month.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Breaking into drive encrypted with TrueCrypt takes about five minutes...

I do not believe you, please back that up.

 

[Garcia]

Nothing to say that hasn't already been said in this thread. But goddamn, this really is a 21st century witch hunt. Fucking sick. How can you not rationally look at the case and conclude that there's a very high chance it was downloaded accidentally and not intentionally viewed? And he could get 20 years for this and have his life destroyed? Can we get some sane people in power, please?

I don't know what's more disturbing. The fact this piece of news is scary as shit, or that half of the responses so far can't even comprehend how easily this could happen to everyone who browses the web.

And common sense for those in power?.. I think it's up to the people to make such changes.

 

[WickedAngel]

I do not believe you, please back that up.

I'm not going to provide you with the source of the exploit. Just know that TrueCrypt's drive encryption is vulnerable to a MITM attack.

 

[xelios]

I don't know what's more disturbing. The fact this piece of news is scary as shit, or that half of the responses so far can't even comprehend how easily this could happen to everyone who browses the web.

Or the naivety of some, being unable to at least consider the possibility there could be more to the story.

If there really is this much of a witch hunt over the simple accident of downloading a misnamed file then yes, it is scary.

 

[nbcjr]

I'm not going to provide you with the source of the exploit. Just know that TrueCrypt's drive encryption is vulnerable to a MITM attack.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

LOL

Is there any way you can be more vague? Which MITM attack?

 

[LazerRanger]

Poor guy...I've been told stories about friends accidently finding weird stuff on Kazaa and Limewire, I havent touched those programs for nearly ten years now.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

All the talk about wiping hard drives is silly. Just get your hard drives degaussed then shredded. Of course, those machines are very expensive, but there are companies out there that offer to do it for a relatively cheap cost.

Here's a review of a hard drive shredder made by the company linked above posted on Geek.com:

Of course, there is a large red button...

Simply put, the Model 22 HDD Hard Drive Disintegrator is the coolest thing I have read about in a long time. Aside from having a great name, it serves an important purpose: it is basically a hard drive shredder. Old hard drives are a serious security threat to both companies and individuals and if a drive is too old to be reused you can’t just eBay it or throw it in the trash. This is where the SEM Hard Drive Disintegrator enters the picture.

Forget formatting and forget block erasing. When you want real security you need to get rid of the hard drive. The Model 22 takes just three minutes to turn a 3.5-inch hard drive into a pile of useless metal shavings. And what better way to do that than with a closet-sized device that has a “destruction chamber” and “rotating knives”?

The drives are shredded into fragments as small as half an inch, making the remaining particles little more than small metal fragments. The 20 horsepower (25HP optional) motor that powers the Disintegrator can destroy up to 20 drives an hour, though it can only handle up to 3.5-inch drives, so nothing too old school.

Curious how it works? The product literature states:

SEM disintegrators utilize proven rotary knife mill technology to destroy virtually any bulk material into irregularly shaped particles which cannot be reconstructed. The cutting mechanism consists of 3 knives mounted on a solid steel rotor which pass 2 stationary bed knives. Waste is cut continuously until it is small enough to pass through a perforated steel sizing screen. Once the material passes through the screen it falls into a 2 cu. ft. stainless steel collection bin. In addition to hard drives, some other items our disintegrators destroy include:

* Books & Bound Documents
* Capsules and Tablets
* Casino Chips and Dice
* Circuit Boards
* Data Cartridges and Tapes
* Plastic Bottles & Tubes
* Returned Goods
* Off-Spec/Obsolete Products
* Expired Inventory and much more.

It’s hard to believe that anything like this has downsides, but there are a few. The first is that the Model 22 weighs about 3600 pounds, so finding the right place for it might be an issue. Also, the (GSA) price of the Model 22 is $58,771.95.

To see the Model 22 in action, check out the video here.

 

[Anth0ny]

Hard Drive Shredder

:lol :lol :lol

 

[GaimeGuy]

oh wow :lol

 

[Sielys]

Slightly off-topic, am I the only one who doesn't DL fapping material? I just visit a site, clear my history and then move on.

 

[Stabby89]

Slightly off-topic, am I the only one who doesn't DL fapping material? I just visit a site, clear my history and then move on.

Yeah dude, you're not downloading anything :lol

 

[Aurora]

Guilty, and no other way around it.

Paedophiles always use key words to search for child porn to avoid obvious detection. Sure this guy could have committed a genuine mistake, but we have to enforce the law otherwise real paedophiles could be getting let off on this technicality.

Anyway, what a retard for downloading porn off LimeWire.

 

[_Isaac]

So I guess you don't agree with the idea of "Better to let x criminals escape than convict 1 innocent?"

 

[Aurora]

So I guess you don't agree with the idea of "Better to let x criminals escape than convict 1 innocent?"

Child porn was found on his computer and he acknowledged downloading it (albeit accidentally). The burden of proof lies with him.

I just don't see how he could be let off if we are to have a serious legal system.

 

[KHarvey16]

Child porn was found on his computer and he acknowledged downloading it (albeit accidentally). The burden of proof lies with him.

I just don't see how he could be let off if we are to have a serious legal system.

No, the burden lies with the prosecution to show he is a danger to children. That's what the list is for.

 

[Youta Mottenai]

Guilty, and no other way around it.

Paedophiles always use key words to search for child porn to avoid obvious detection. Sure this guy could have committed a genuine mistake, but we have to enforce the law otherwise real paedophiles could be getting let off on this technicality.

Anyway, what a retard for downloading porn off LimeWire.

What?
Please someone with a working sarcasmometer tell me this is a joke post.

edit: it seems he just doesn´t know very basic civil rights or how the law work.

 

[silverbullet1080]

Guilty, and no other way around it.

Paedophiles always use key words to search for child porn to avoid obvious detection. Sure this guy could have committed a genuine mistake, but we have to enforce the law otherwise real paedophiles could be getting let off on this technicality.

Anyway, what a retard for downloading porn off LimeWire.

notsureifserious.jpg

 

[Aurora]

No, the burden lies with the prosecution to show he is a danger to children. That's what the list is for.

Possession of child porn is against the law. He has broken the law and therefore must face the legal consequence of this. Explain to me how or why he should walk away from this charge?

Regarding him being a danger to children, this is legally implied by his possession of child porn. Anybody that has downloaded child porn, in theory, poses a risk to children. I don't see how the law can be relaxed on this issue. If he is deemed a low risk (i.e. the risk solely stemming from the child porn on his computer) then it is fair for the judge to reduce his sentence accordingly, but for him to be let off just because he said it was an accident is a ludicrous suggestion. Again, it is for him to prove it was an accident, otherwise under the eyes of the law he is guilty of possession of child porn - simple as.

 

[Lost Fragment]

What?
edit: it seems he just doesn´t know very basic civil rights or how the law work.

Could just be a closeted pedo.

 

[Shadowmancer]

What bugs me is that the FBI was able to 'recover' the deleted file, even after 2 years. I know about files not actually being deleted by most delete methods, and even about residue and digital fingerprints, but seriously, finding one very specific, deleted file after 2 years of random read/writes? I mean it is possible that after he deleted the file he did nothing on the computer that wrote to that particular sector of the HD, but it just seems so unlikely.

 

[KHarvey16]

Possession of child porn is against the law. He has broken the law and therefore must face the legal consequence of this. Explain to me how or why he should walk away from this charge?

Regarding him being a danger to children, this is legally implied by his possession of child porn. Anybody that has downloaded child porn, in theory, poses a risk to children. I don't see how the law can be relaxed on this issue. If he is deemed a low risk (i.e. the risk solely stemming from the child porn on his computer) then it is fair for the judge to reduce his sentence accordingly, but for him to be let off just because he said it was an accident is a ludicrous suggestion. Again, it is for him to prove it was an accident, otherwise under the eyes of the law he is guilty of possession of child porn - simple as.

You don't understand. He is automatically added to the sex offender list no matter what his sentence is. That list is not a punishment, its job is to protect children. There are many examples in this thread of people being prosecuted for child porn who, given the evidence, DO NOT pose a threat to any child. The prosecutors SHOULD have to prove that he not only had the porn, but is also a threat to children. To say one guarantees the other is stupid.

 

[captive]

As has been said, when you "delete" something, you don't actually delete it. You just give your OS permission to forget that it's there, and maybe at some point in the future it happens to get overwritten. So the only way to "erase" a hard drive is to write a zero to every little one or zero on the drive.

Buuuttt... hard drives are magnetic. They're basically analog, not digital. If you wipe zeroes across your entire hard drive, then it's good enough to count as zeroed as you would normally read it (or use a program to find deleted files), but if the FBI takes your discs into their lab and rips them apart and looks at them close enough under a microscope (apparently they have nothing better to do), there will be a little "echo" difference in that the zeroes which used to be zeroes still look like zeroes, but the zeroes which used to be ones look slightly like ones. They can use this magnetic echo to figure out what you used to have, even if you deleted everything and wiped your drive clean.

If something incriminating has been overwritten by normal use, and they can figure out exactly what files overwrote it, they can even compensate for that and still dig up all your dirty little ones and zeroes.

It's said that to completely erase a hard drive, you have to wipe it with ones, then zeroes, then ones again, then zeroes again, then ones again, and then finally another layer of zeroes. Six passes. Probably doesn't hurt to spill random data all over the drive afterward either. Unless you randomly create child porn. That would hurt a lot.

So no, your hard drive doesn't have infinite capacity. Maybe you can double or even triple (if you can read an echo inside another echo) it's capacity if you had limitless resources, but each increase is incredibly flaky and unreliable and not really useful.

If you happen to want to bail out of the internet now, a liberal amount of fire is much faster than formatting. Just make sure you get it all, and don't leave behind any unburnt bits.

Or, you could just drill holes in the hard drive.

 

[WickedAngel]

:lol :lol :lol :lol

LOL

Is there any way you can be more vague? Which MITM attack?

A few more symbols might make your point more substantive. I'm being vague for a reason; I use and recommend TrueCrypt. That should have been obvious from my post. I was only arguing against the ignorant assertion that it is unbreakable.

 

[demon]

Possession of child porn is against the law. He has broken the law and therefore must face the legal consequence of this. Explain to me how or why he should walk away from this charge?

Regarding him being a danger to children, this is legally implied by his possession of child porn. Anybody that has downloaded child porn, in theory, poses a risk to children. I don't see how the law can be relaxed on this issue. If he is deemed a low risk (i.e. the risk solely stemming from the child porn on his computer) then it is fair for the judge to reduce his sentence accordingly, but for him to be let off just because he said it was an accident is a ludicrous suggestion. Again, it is for him to prove it was an accident, otherwise under the eyes of the law he is guilty of possession of child porn - simple as.

The laws may currently be written that way, but because of the nature of the internet, the laws need to change. You can't possibly say that absolutely everything that ends up on your computer from the internet is a reflection of your character regardless of whether or not you intended to download it, can you? Coming into contact with child pornography- or anything for that matter- unintentionally is just too easy on the internet to completely lay the burden of proof in such a "guilty until proven innocent" manner on someone who has one picture/video of CP downloaded off of limewire. The way the system is set up, if you have a piece of CP on your computer and don't even know it, and the feds find out about it, your life is most likely fucked. Something is very wrong with that.

 

[Torhthelm Tídwald]

A few more symbols might make your point more substantive. I'm being vague for a reason; I use and recommend TrueCrypt. That should have been obvious from my post. I was only arguing against the ignorant assertion that it is unbreakable.

If you were serious, this is where you would offer to have someone send you an encrypted file, which you would then decrypt.

 

[Aurora]

You don't understand. He is automatically added to the sex offender list no matter what his sentence is. That list is not a punishment, its job is to protect children. There are many examples in this thread of people being prosecuted for child porn who, given the evidence, DO NOT pose a threat to any child. The prosecutors SHOULD have to prove that he not only had the porn, but is also a threat to children. To say one guarantees the other is stupid.

Ah right, well with respect to the sex offender list I completely agree. It is insane that he should be added on it when the only thing that has been established is that at one point in time he downloaded child porn whether intentional or not. But I also believe that in this case he should face punishment for possession unless he can prove that it was a mistake beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[captive]

Guilty, and no other way around it.

Paedophiles always use key words to search for child porn to avoid obvious detection. Sure this guy could have committed a genuine mistake, but we have to enforce the law otherwise real paedophiles could be getting let off on this technicality.

Anyway, what a retard for downloading porn off LimeWire.

I've used limewire, way back when, when I didnt know any better.
You could search for "hot teens" there is no guarantee that all the results are going to be legit.
If someone clicks on what they believe is legit porn and they get some 15 year old stripping on their goddamn webcam how is that their fault?

And dont even get me started on those kids that were threatened with possession of child porn because they took nude photos of themselves.
edit: like this one http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...ces-sex-offender-status-for-the-next-20-years

 

[xelios]

Possession of child porn is against the law. He has broken the law and therefore must face the legal consequence of this. Explain to me how or why he should walk away from this charge?

Regarding him being a danger to children, this is legally implied by his possession of child porn. Anybody that has downloaded child porn, in theory, poses a risk to children. I don't see how the law can be relaxed on this issue. If he is deemed a low risk (i.e. the risk solely stemming from the child porn on his computer) then it is fair for the judge to reduce his sentence accordingly, but for him to be let off just because he said it was an accident is a ludicrous suggestion. Again, it is for him to prove it was an accident, otherwise under the eyes of the law he is guilty of possession of child porn - simple as.

Well technically if someone posted child porn right now and you loaded this page unaware, you downloaded it. Anyone could come along and make most people who read this thread suddenly "possess" child porn as far as it being or having been on your hard drive. Do you suddenly pose a risk to children because of that?

It's too dangerous to think in such black and white terms. Ideally there should be a trial where more evidence is presented, such as HOW it got there, and what you were doing or searching for in the first place to happen upon it. Intent, not just that it was there.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The laws may currently be written that way, but because of the nature of the internet, the laws need to change. You can't possibly say that absolutely everything that ends up on your computer from the internet is a reflection of your character regardless of whether or not you intended to download it, can you? Coming into contact with child pornography- or anything for that matter- unintentionally is just too easy on the internet to completely lay the burden of proof in such a "guilty until proven innocent" manner on someone who has one picture/video of CP downloaded off of limewire. The way the system is set up, if you have a piece of CP on your computer and don't even know it, and the feds find out about it, your life is most likely fucked. Something is very wrong with that.

Aurora's reasoning reminds me of the trial in the UK where the guy was found guilty of possessing a firearm for turning a firearm he found into the police in order to do the right thing. (Now there's a flawless example that the "law" does not automatically equal what is "right" much less what is even sensible.)

As for this case in particular, you don't have to be looking for porn to accidentally download child porn. These days there's any number of ways for someone's computer to be afflicted with malware that installs whatever it likes without you even knowing about it.

So what if, for instance, a case comes up where a person has CP on their computer because malware installed it and it remains there, undetected, even after the malware is removed? So later on somebody finds it, such as a technician, and decides to be a good trooper and rings up the FBI. How would that person "prove" that they didn't know it was there?

Another example of why the law cannot handle the Internet or computers and disaster is just waiting to happen.

 

[sweetvar26]

This is so fucked up, kinda freaking me out. What if I accidentally did download something like that, I could be fucked in every possible way and so are others.

 

[Aurora]

Well technically if someone posted child porn right now and you loaded this page unaware, you downloaded it. Anyone could come along and make most people who read this thread suddenly "possess" child porn as far as it being or having been on your hard drive. Do you suddenly pose a risk to children because of that?

It's too dangerous to think in such black and white terms. Ideally there should be a trial where more evidence is presented, such as HOW it got there, and what you were doing or searching for in the first place to happen upon it. Intent, not just that it was there.

The laws may currently be written that way, but because of the nature of the internet, the laws need to change. You can't possibly say that absolutely everything that ends up on your computer from the internet is a reflection of your character regardless of whether or not you intended to download it, can you? Coming into contact with child pornography- or anything for that matter- unintentionally is just too easy on the internet to completely lay the burden of proof in such a "guilty until proven innocent" manner on someone who has one picture/video of CP downloaded off of limewire. The way the system is set up, if you have a piece of CP on your computer and don't even know it, and the feds find out about it, your life is most likely fucked. Something is very wrong with that.

I completely agree, but how can the law be reformed while retaining maximum protection for children? I'm really not sure. I suppose if the FBI looked through your entire computer, chat logs and internet history and couldn't establish that you ever intended on downloading child porn, then they couldn't charge you as such. But then what about paedophiles that regularly wipe their HDD? It would make it near impossible to catch them out before they committed serious crimes. It seems really difficult to find a balance between liberty and effective law.

 

[KHarvey16]

I completely agree, but how can the law be reformed while retaining maximum protection for children? I'm really not sure. I suppose if the FBI looked through your entire computer, chat logs and internet history and couldn't establish that you ever intended on downloading child porn, then they couldn't charge you as such. But then what about paedophiles that regularly wipe their HDD? It would make it near impossible to catch them out before they committed serious crimes. It seems really difficult to find a balance between liberty and effective law.

Child pornography is not what makes a pedophile.

 

[demon]

I completely agree, but how can the law be reformed while retaining maximum protection for children? I'm really not sure. I suppose if the FBI looked through your entire computer, chat logs and internet history and couldn't establish that you ever intended on downloading child porn, then they couldn't charge you as such. But then what about paedophiles that regularly wipe their HDD? It would make it near impossible to catch them out before they committed serious crimes. It seems really difficult to find a balance between liberty and effective law.

Are you serious?

I think we'll be okay losing whatever protection is gained from locking up and destroying the lives of people who "may or may not have" downloaded child porn. Or taken nude pictures of themselves as minors. Or continued having sex with their 17 year old girlfriend after turning 18. etc etc.

 

[xelios]

I completely agree, but how can the law be reformed while retaining maximum protection for children? I'm really not sure. I suppose if the FBI looked through your entire computer, chat logs and internet history and couldn't establish that you ever intended on downloading child porn, then they couldn't charge you as such. But then what about paedophiles that regularly wipe their HDD? It would make it near impossible to catch them out before they committed serious crimes. It seems really difficult to find a balance between liberty and effective law.

Yeah, I'm really not qualified to suggest what a proper balance would be. I do know that child porn, even one photo, simply being on someone's hard drive at some point in time is not enough. We're talking about PCs and the internet where much is out of our hands due to the maliciousness of others or the unpredictable nature of the web. It should take more than that to put someone onto a list, say they're a threat to children and ruin the rest of their life, with no questions asked or circumstances considered.

I just *hope* there's more to this story and the feds have more information than that. Mostly because I don't want to believe it.

 

[Aurora]

Child pornography is not what makes a pedophile.

I'm not saying that the guy should be punished because he is a paedophile. I agree that this cannot be established just by a few pictures on his harddrive, which is why I'm against putting him on the sex offenders list. But I still believe possession of child porn should be a punishable offence - I'm just not sure on the best way to adjudicate it.

 

[Medalion]

I just read somewhere... and I really hope this isn't true cuz this is just insane...

Canada is making it so it's illegal or criminal activity for any reason an adult talks to a minor on the internet. Even if the conversation is non-sexual or not asking them to meet you somewhere for whatever, it's still suspicious activity.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/Luring_Charges_091203/20091203?hub=Canada

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm not saying that the guy should be punished because he is a paedophile. I agree that this can't be established just by a few pictures on his harddrive, which is why I'd be against putting him on the sex offenders list. But I still believe possession of child porn should be a punishable offence - I'm just not sure on the best way to adjudicate it.

I think it should be treated like the possession of anything else illegal, really. As long as he isn't the one producing it, use him to get at those who do. Punishment can vary depending on the situation. Include a psychiatric evaluation and if there are no signs that this person is a danger to children let that be it.

 

[Why For?]

Seems pretty fucking unfair.

Sounds like the lawyers pressured him into the guilty plea. I mean seriously how hard could it be to say the truth in court?

You'd like to think a jury/judge would believe him.

I mean, they can see when it was downloaded and deleted.

 

[Ferrio]

You'd like to think a jury/judge would believe him.

Unfortunately, get a bunch of moms on the jury. Soon as they hear "childporn" they'd brand him as guilty. Common sense goes out the window whenever it's mentioned, politicians know this well.

 

[worldrunover]

I just read somewhere... and I really hope this isn't true cuz this is just insane...

Canada is making it so it's illegal or criminal activity for any reason an adult talks to a minor on the internet. Even if the conversation is non-sexual or not asking them to meet you somewhere for whatever, it's still suspicious activity.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/Luring_Charges_091203/20091203?hub=Canada

Why is that insane? What possible reason would you as an adult have to talk to a child online that you didn't know?

 

[Ferrio]

Why is that insane? What possible reason would you as an adult have to talk to a child online that you didn't know?

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

 

[xelios]

Why is that insane? What possible reason would you as an adult have to talk to a child online that you didn't know?

Pretty much agree it's suspicious if it's like a one-on-one chat, but not forums and the countless other ways you might come in contact with a child. Doesn't mean you should be prosecuted for it mind you, just that it can be considered worth checking out.

 

[Ferrio]

Pretty much agree it's suspicious if it's like a one-on-one chat, but not forums and the countless other ways you might come in contact with a minor.

It's not even suspicious then. You people have fucking warped minds.

 

[worldrunover]

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

From the article:

"Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics," he said.

He said the law "makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences."

But he said the word "facilitating" could be interpreted to mean anything that would make it easier or more probable for a young person to be taken advantage of.

This includes anything that would reduce their inhibitions or exploits a child's "curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality."

Fish said the conversations don't need to be sexually explicit to fit these criteria.

He said the new Internet luring law "criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences."

"This is in keeping with Parliament's objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey."

The decision was part of an Alberta man's case who admitted to online sexual chats with a 12-year-old girl in 2003.

At a 2006 trial on two sexual luring counts, the judge called Craig Bartholomew Legare's actions "despicable and repugnant," but said that since he had no intention of ever meeting the child, there was no crime. Legare was acquitted.

You're for adults and children carrying on anonymous conversations, regardless of content?