Job well done,

First want to say congrats on the article, sums Digerati up very nicely in my opinion and im sure others would have to agree.

The only thing it dosent really mention is how manipulative he was, and to what extents he would go to achieve his goals, even when hurting people in the process.

With regards to the 13 year old which he 'groomed', Digerati had manipulated and twisted him that much, to the point where he thought he was in love with Ryan (Digerati).

Digerati was without doubt a shady character to have around the scene, and my only regret is that all of this didnt come to light prior the Feds investigation into him, and the charges brought against him.

It's sickening to know that those pedophillia charges wont go on his record, and that even now, if he wanted to, Digerati could work with kids, there would simply be nothing at all to stop that.

They have made a major mistake here, my only hope that Digerati dosent give them the oppertunity to regret it.

Thanks again for the article.

Michael Johnson

Look on the bright side

Okay, so he wasn't charged with the child-porn offences. But he didn't actually do anything in real life about those urges- he may have later, he may still do. But he hasn't yet.

Assuming that he stuck to trying to coerce the photos out of kids rather than threatening them, no-one's really been that harmed. And he did help the Feds take down some botnet masters- which helps everyone.

Plus he's on probation, so if he can't control himself he'll get thrown in jail.

I think his sentence was perfectly acceptable UNLESS he was threatening rather than going "awww, go on. Send the photo. I'll be your friend! Oh, you're just mean...". Or if he acted it out IRL- that's a whole different can of worms compared to the privacy and feeling of safety and distance from the target you get from the 'net. Then he's a scumbag 10-years-with-Bubba nonce-crim.

'Think of the children' then stop

'Think of the children' is a good rallying cry, and doing things so it will protect children always sounds unimpeachable, but in fact nobody (in power. that is) cares about children. The horrendous number of bungled child abuse cases, the fact that child rape (aka to paedos 'loving consensual sex'), prostituting children, disseminating images of their degradation, torture and abuse (aka 'kiddie-porn') and so on continue to go on and on without any serious effort on the part of police and Government to stop it, and tells me all I need to know: that the thought stops at the thought, and that organisations such as the FBI are more concerned with hardware, software, access and processes than they are about the actual safety of children. Which is why any politician etc who prates 'think of the children' is just so much noise.

1 sided story or what

e.g.

OMg Ban that twat

OMgozor i got banned hack hack hack

Quick tell the Mr police that he looks at kiddie porn !! here upload these !!!

they sustained a relativley long attack against him too.

i dont think its quite as black and white as is made out

at the end of the day the people on tautnet also work on the darkside of the internet !

hmm

""Good example of why vigilanteesm is bad. They have effectively made nearly every piece of eidence against Mr Goldstein inadmissible in court by spoiling it. ""

Maybe you should re-read other articles regarding this matter, the only reason the child porn charges werent used was simply because Ryan assisted the FBI in other botnet related cases.

Even when the case went to court the judge had a hard time deciding whether to include them while deciding his sentance or not. Was only with the FBI's assistance, and Ryans 'plea bargin' that he was let off.

Thanks for the article.

Thanks for this surprisingly in dept article, it's actually left me trying to determine what my own views on this was.. (as opposed to most 'newspaper' articles on such subjects that would either start with 'innocent victim' or 'beast' and save me the trouble of making my mind up about something.

At first I thought good on the FBI for getting to these botnets by being willing to overlook that some schmuch looked at pics of (presumably) underage nudity. Then I read that he had actively contacted underage people online, and I thought: maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all... this guy obviously isn't just guilty of looking at shit online, he actually tried to get in RW contact with underage people (or at least get pictures and/or have cybersex with them).

I guess I would always find it uncomfortable when someone gets off a serious criminal charge for cooperating with the police... no matter what the charge was. I hope that the FBI will keep an eye on him from now on.. should he 'slip' up again and try to revert back to his nude-webcam-with-underage-people ways of old. If he does revert then I doubt that his deal with them covers any future crimes (and hopefully any future crimes would be of the kind that he has already commited, and not a direct escalation to actual abuse). OS hopefully it's prison or some sort of rehabilitation program if he does... and if he never does anything like this again (maybe not that likely) I think we could all learn to live with that.

I don't think I would be very comfortable with this if he had actually commited any sexual abuse (I'm not 100% sure I'm comfortable with it as it is...) but people have gotten immunity despite commiting murder, so I guess he might still have gotten a deal.. depending on how many/big botnets he could squeal about.

John Smith, I think (hope) what message it sends is this: If you create and/or run botnets/spam and/or DDos attacks, we will chase your sorry ass to the four corners of the earth, we will give people who are suspected of child porography immunity to get you. Political and public oppinion can go fuck itself, we will hunt you down like the scum of the earth that you are, there is nowhere to fucking hide.

I'm glad for him

Its not often that pedophiles get the treatment they deserve. The dark side of pedophilia is VASTLY over hyped.

Hacked

And did the group get charged for hacking into the Universities files? Mmm? If a crime's a crime, then they should be charged with hacking offenses.

In fact, this is probably why he wasn't charged with other offenses, 'cos the evidence was recovered illegally.

On the upside...

It does at least look like there's a fair chance that some prospective employer (or partner) Googling him in the future will end up hitting one of the various articles about him.

@Hacked

yeah coz hacking is worse then child abuse.

RE: Hmm

>> ""Good example of why vigilanteesm is bad. They have effectively made nearly every piece of eidence against Mr Goldstein inadmissible in court by spoiling it. ""

>> Maybe you should re-read other articles regarding this matter, the only reason the child porn charges werent used was simply because Ryan assisted the FBI in other botnet related cases.

AC2, I came away with the exact same impression as AC1, after reading the article. Perhaps there are issues that were published in other articles which we aren't aware of. However, this article gives the impression that they either had legitimate control of, or hacked into, the various servers where the evidence was located - which would make it very difficult for it to be used in a court of law. If they had access to the evidence then there is the possibility they could have tampered with the evidence - at the very least they may have introduced reasonable doubt by opening the argument that they might have tampered with the evidence.

BTW, why are you suggesting that he "re-read other articles", when there is nothing to say he read them in the first place? If you want to use other articles to backup what you are saying, then why don't you quote and reference them.

@ac 9:34 > Assuming that he stuck to trying to coerce the photos out of kids rather than threatening them, no-one's really been that harmed. And he did help the Feds take down some botnet masters- which helps everyone.

I think you are rather unaware of what is involved in "grooming", if you think that no one was harmed - there may not be any physical or sexual assault, but there can still be mental trauma. However, you do have a point about helping the Feds, it is possible that his assistance led to the capture and successful prosecution of people who were even more dangerous.

plea bargining is a useful tool

Basically the system is step so that as soon as someone gets arrested they are scrambling to turn in as many fellow criminals as possible to reduce their sentence. Some of those they turn in are then going to turn around and do the same thing.

It seems like this guy spent a lot of time on the internet engaged in illegal activities and he also seemed status hungry which means that he was probably well placed in any group he was involved with. He probably had multiple identities even within the same group.

My guess is that they are using this guys to make a lot of cases, and we only know about a few.

I am also guessing that due to his close cooperation they are monitoring his activities far closer than usual for someone on probation. They are probably also holding a few charges in reserve to ensure his future cooperation.

some color.

I, unlike most people in taunet and ssg, actually knew Digi quite well. I used to spend a lot of time talking to him about computer security. You might even say that he was somewhat of a mentor to me.

Digerati wasn't a pedophile or a gay, he wasn't even a security enthusiast like myself. He was simply a loner.

I got the impression that he, like most people in taunet, didn't fit into the 'real world' quite like most people do, and he turned his attention to the alternative, the cult, the non-mainstream. He only felt that he belonged amongst those who also wanted to belong.

He was always very friendly, very kind to new comers - he was just a nice and slightly childish kinda guy. I bet all this involvment with the law scared him shitless.

He asked for my photo once when he was probably around 17, (he's only a few months older than me, I know because he applied to Uni when I was 18). I sent him one and that was that. A webcam shot of me sitting at my computer - fully dressed obviously - and that was that. He never asked to see me naked or anything. I think he just wanted to know what sort of person I was.

You have to remember a few things here with this story:

The adverage age of the backdoor scene (where he came from) is early to late teens. Every one is 13-20.

If he was gay, I certainly don't think he was a pedo.

Secondly, he was a loner in real life. If you where gay he would probibly say he was too just to be your friend.

All teenage boys like talking about sex... so he made #diggerpenis for people to do that.

Basically, when your in the world of teenage hackers, no source of information is reliable. Most accusations will be an attempt to gain scene respect/notoriety, and personally I still think that this is what it's all been about. Just as soon as someone says pedophile people actually start listening.

@ Hollerith

'Think of the children' then stop

My point exactly.

But still a popular justification for mounting surveillance.

And it helped make his prosecutors target for the month.

"Whats that. No I prosecute Cybercrimes. Grooming, kiddie porn and baby raping's down the hall. Take it there. Have a nice day. Goodbye"

zerofool2005

"Cog has left the internet scene now because of all this"

So why do think that was?

If six teens in Pennsylvania can be done for possession, distribution and possession of kiddie porn (As they were when some girls photographed themselves on their phones and sent them to their bf's). Ryans befriending and photographing of a total stranger would appear to warrant something more than a slap on the wrist.

@AC11:54 GMT. I sense someone who may have had to clean up the results of one (or more ) of these. Botnets are a PITA. If the scams they proliferate work they could bag a persons whole ID. However the message you think it sends is the one the prosecutor would like to think he sent to the criminals. I think my version is more likely to be the way it will be read. Although it might make the herders check who they deal with a bit more closely. They should know if they're an active member of the KDF club their new friend is likely to rat them out as the lesser of too evils.

However it seems that the one truly iron clad law that is *never* broken is the one on plea bargaining.

This might be because over time the it would hurt the prosecutors more than the criminals.

No more of the "perfect" conviction rates which are so useful in running for elected office in the US.

Rather more of the "f%*k you. My lawyer will b^&*h slap you into next week when we get to trial. I can be bailed in a day and since my trial date is at least six months away with the backlog how many of those so-called witnesses will still be around for that given how dangerous life in the big city can be?"

But perhaps I'm being cynical here.

Should Ryan decide to go legit I think I have just the company. You might think a vindictive, manipulative predator who seeks power to more effectively victimize people while covering his tracks and spreading false trails might be hard to place.

I doubt it. Provided he can change his name while on probation he can well on his way to a degree (or possibly Masters) in IT with a minor in Marketing. And then its off to the Pacific Midwest. I'm told Seattle is lovely in the Summer.

Mine's the one with the Windows 8 feature list in the side pocket.

@Why not to be a vigilantee

I believe that your post is based upon a misunderstanding of the Exclusionary Rule in the US, by means of which illegally gathered material can be excluded from evidence which is to be used in a prosecution (disclaimer: IANAL and this is not legal advice, so if this discussion is of more than hypothetical importance to you get an actual lawyer to tell you what is what). If you google "Exclusionary Rule" you will find that evidence gathered by private persons who are not acting as agents of the police does not fall under the rubric of the Exclusionary Rule, so if hackers bring illegally acquired information to the police, they are allowed to use it.

That this should be so makes sense considering the purpose of the rule: to provide the police with a disincentive to "accidentally" (on purpose) violate a suspect's rights against unlawful searches and seizures. If the police know such evidence will just be excluded from trial if they do this, why would they bother. Hence, while TV dramas may make it seem that the purpose of the Exclusionary Rule is to provide an out for guilty defendants, the real purpose is to make the police actually follow the Constitution and its guarantee of rights for the accused. Excluding evidence which is not the result of misconduct on the part of the police does nothing to increase this incentive and, unsurprisingly, is not something that the Exclusionary Rule requires.

Hmm..

Not that I'm defending Digerati in any way at all, but I think its interesting that the channel is going along the line of child safety being more important than computer damage, when they waited a year before reporting it.

Heinous quoting:

"Over the next year, Digerati's online opponents would resort to a variety of tactics to get the hacker off their backs, but none of them worked. When diplomacy failed, they reported his repeated online liaisons with boys to university officials and then to the FBI."

ding ding ding

"the idiots who pursued a vendetta against the guy are almost certainly to blame for those charges not being laid, since as others have said they would have rendered most of the evidence inadmissible"

Thank you, Greg, for such an informative and calm post on why statements such as the above are misleading. I think some people are confusing admissibility of evidence, state and non-state actors, contempt of court during a trial, and stuff half-remembered from Law & Order.

More generally - yes, it seems a little unfair that people can inform and plea-bargain their way to a shorter sentence. But on the other hand, it frees up the investigative/prosecutorial agencies to pursue other as-yet-unidentified criminals, and generates fresh leads on other criminals. That's completely normal in the US across most types of crime. And seeing as (unsurprisingly) El Reg doesn't have any information on what/whether the convicted person actually produced, then we can't come to a view about whether it was a worthwhile exercise or not.

Cellmate

Both he and the group appear to be guilty of cracking / hacking so why no level playing field on those charges? He should have been charged as a sexual deviant and made to share a cell with Abu Hamza: fisting the night away.

Correction

"Not that I'm defending Digerati in any way at all, but I think its interesting that the channel is going along the line of child safety being more important than computer damage, when they waited a year before reporting it."

What if it wasnt until a year later that we could actually prove it?

@ The guy saying Dig was not a pedo:

Re-read the article, they found 1000's of child porn related images on his computer system, dig was and is a proven pedo.

As for you saying most of the people in and around Taunet / SSgroup didnt know digerati very well, well i'd talk to him for hours on end about.. just about everything including computer security. I would talk to him after his arrest while awaiting court etc etc, and was likely one of the last to speak to him prior his arrest.

aha

just goes to show, "haxxorz" are socially retarded freaks, who have no trouble betraying their friends to save their own asses ...... and engage in mind bogglingly boring crap all day, just to deface a website no one visits with inspired words such as "U got Ownwd by leet haxxorz"

More colour

There are plenty of other possible reasons why we're hearing that he had underage pictures on his computer...

We all knew Digi was a big supporter of Tor. If a forensic team take a look his hard drive they're going to find a whole bunch of stuff in swap which wasn't 'his'.

Perhaps he was somewhat of a porn horder. 1000 pictures when you've got several terrabytes of data off usenet isn't suprizing. Perhaps the ratio of porn involving minors to people of age would be more useful.

Maybe his machine was hacked, and this whole thing (the porn, him offering beta backdoors for op, etc etc) was set up by the people who wanted him gone.

The most important question really is where did El Reg get this info from? Because it seems to mimic the leaked zip file version of events and structure exactly.

This zip file was 'leaked' by the admins of Taunet... so not exactly a credable source you would think.

I'm not siding for or against Digi at the end of the day. All I'm saying is I would take everything said here with a pinch of salt. It all stems back to bickering teenagers.

No proof of porn

Neither the DOJ press release nor the indictment (which was later downgraded to an information) mention a word about child pornography. In fact, there are no government documents that say anything about it.

Interestingly, the only information about child porn comes from a single Philadelphia Inquirer reporter (her article was picked up by the AP, ...). It's strange that the only source for this article is other (probably rival) hackers, who have a clear interest in disparaging Ryan however they can.

The lack of proof of these activities and the very dubious sources make one wonder the true motivations behind this article.