back to article Dark-web pedo jailed after FBI and co use vid trick to beat privacy tech

A US bloke was jailed for 13 years on Wednesday for sharing pictures and videos of child sex abuse on the dark web. Despite using an anonymizing network, such as Tor, to hide his location and cover his tracks on the internet, he was eventually nabbed by pedo-hunting cops – after he watched a crafty video that, we're told, …

  1. Agamemnon

    So the FBI ...

    *Can* do actual Police Work and Law Enforcement, within the law, using good thinking and meticulous and methodical investigation.

    Perhaps More importantly, this sort of takes the polish off the steaming shit Comey keeps feeding Congress Critters about not being able to catch criminals without massive new privilages. But then, we here in the Colonies know that Comey has nothing but the best interest of the American People in mind. </ThereIsNoWordToAdequatelyExplainTheMagnitudeOfMySarcasm>

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: So the FBI ...

      a big thumbs up for just saying it - they CAN do actual police work! [good job FBI by the way]

      The Perp is 59 years old. add 13 years, 72. plus 10 probation, 82.

      Unasked question: just HOW LONG has this guy been at it before getting CAUGHT?

      1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

        Re: So the FBI ...

        @bombastic bob - I suspect a long time. The problem is for the police to get a bead on them which is harder than one might think. They know that anyone could blow their cover if they stumble across the stash. Also, they have to be wary of others because of them could be an undercover operative/operation. So they tend to be very guarded about it.

      2. mike360

        Re: So the FBI ...

        I hope he gets put in gen. pop. at least for a week or two. That'll teach him a little something about pain.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So the FBI ...

          In the more enlightened Western democracies we moved on from using beatings and general violence as part of the legal system many years ago. The sentence is to spend time behind bars, not to be assaulted. If he does get assaulted while inside then that is the responsibility of the prison authorities who should be charged for failing in their duty of care, and possibly even conspiracy if they deliberately put him in a situation where he is likely to be harmed.

          He may be a sick pervert, but he still has a right to protection.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So the FBI ...

            He may be a sick pervert, but he still has a right to protection.

            Rumour has it he won't have that - in general, inmates don't exactly welcome child abusers and people involved in child porn and I must say I find myself not terribly burdened by that.

          2. Dan McIntyre

            Re: So the FBI ...

            As far as I'm concerned he waived all rights to protection the minute he started interfering with kids.

            He is a sick individual and deserves whatever punishment is meted out to him behind bars and as another commentard has said I'm not terribly concerned with his wellbeing.

            I do know that perverts such as this chap are usually segregated from the general prison population but mistakes do happen and they do mingle sometimes.

            Then the fun begins.

            1. Graham Marsden
              Facepalm

              Burn the witch! Burn the wit..

              ... sorry, am I in the wrong lynch mob?

            2. Kiwi Silver badge

              Re: So the FBI ...

              I do know that perverts such as this chap are usually segregated from the general prison population but mistakes do happen and they do mingle sometimes.

              The problem with silly views like yours is how it affects other people who are segregated. Take the frail old man who is in a segregated population and due to a medical event is placed in medical wing where for whatever reason someone who is not segregated is placed there as well. The mainstream asks where the old fella is, and the old fella (assuming that the mainstream inmate is from another segregated unit) answers. Later the old fella gets beaten for being a kiddie fiddler.

              Actually, he was there because he cheated on his taxes (or was accused of), or some sort of financial fraud, or helped his cancer-suffering wife to die rather than going through pain. But because so many idiots assume that a) any older people who go to prison are paedos and b) anyone who is segregated is a paedo then elderly and segregated inmates get assaulted at every opportunity.

              I don't know about in other countries, but in NZ "victims" get a healthy payout, as does each member of their family, when someone gets convicted of child abuse. Given the lack of a requirement of "physical evidence" in these cases, I suspect there may be a few who've been convicted of sex offences who aren't guilty. In the case under discussion the person was "only" convicted of child porn material, there is nothing to say that he produced or purchased any himself (yes he did apparently have to provide material to keep his membership, but there are probably ways around that). People who get their rocks off to porn that they neither produce nor purchase are not likely to be fueling any demand for it, and I suspect are less likely to actually go out and molest some poor kid (those of us who love violent video games don't tend to act on the stuff in real life, even when grabbing a sniper rifle and taking potshots at random strangers is the best way to deal with a bad day (video game of course, honest!). And there's things like the Methadone programs. That said I wouldn't want to "normalise" child abuse.

              And while the harm of child abuse can be very significant and long lasting, I understand that with treatment these types of offenders are at the lowest end of the recidivism scales. Unlike many other types of offenders (including violent types who prey on the elderly or the weak) they have a better-than-average chance of being rehabilitated, and making a contribution to society rather than the many who would be a repetitive drain.

              Finally, having grown up gay (something I was born with, ie through no fault or choice of my own), I have some empathy for people who live with desires that are not considered "normal", and indeed are faced with a society who would rather lynch them than help them when such things are discovered. It is a hell that you cannot imagine unless you've been there (despite the views of certain El Reg writers!). My desires led me to commit many "crimes" in my teens, "crimes" of having a relationship with a like-minded friend. Had we been caught we would've been subjected to who-knows-what-hell in the psych units we would've been sent to to "treat" us.

              But the worst people in society? They only think of punishing people further for the problems they have, not of working to find either a way to truly "heal" them or making their desire acceptable (not saying adults boning kids should be acceptable, but with what I went through I sometimes have to wonder if we're as wrong about this as we were with the whole "gay" thing!) The worst people in society? They belong to the "string em up" and "mistakes happen" crowds.

          3. not.known@this.address Bronze badge

            Re: So the FBI ...

            If someone willingly decides the laws that apply to everyone else can be ignored, why should they get the protection of those same laws?

            Also, this isn't something "victimless" like robbing a bank - few if any of the children assaulted by scum like this ever get to lead a normal life again. "Accidentally" falling down (and up) the stairs a few times would be justice, not having decent, hardworking taxpayers keep him for the next 10 years.

            Enlightened? Don't make me laugh - too many bleeding-heart liberals making excuses for scum who deserve punishing not protecting.

            1. Kiwi Silver badge

              Re: So the FBI ...

              Enlightened? Don't make me laugh

              On the one hand.. At least you have the balls to sign your own name.

              On the other, probably because you lack the brains to sit and think things through for a while.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So the FBI ...

        Probably decades, rather depressingly such aberrations typically manifest themselves at puberty and since society does not wish to provide treatment it’s simply a matter of time before an individual is no longer able to suppress their desires.

        And more bizarrely is the notion that a custodial sentence can somehow permanently eliminate such desires so protecting future victims instead of castration, etc which are proved to be extremely effective.

        Although if society wanted to protect children in the first place it would be actively screening for the warning signs and offering suitable treatment.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So the FBI ...

          gotta be worried when the punishment becomes the treatment.

        2. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: So the FBI ...

          "Although if society wanted to protect children in the first place it would be actively screening for the warning signs and offering suitable treatment."

          You assume treatment is a possibility. We can screen for sociopaths, but we really can't do much about them, though, because their behavior is innate and incorrigible. What if this is the same?

  2. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Unmasking

    This was probably a movie container feature. MPEG4/MooV, Flash, and some other containers have a mind-boggling number of arcane features. They can run scripts, hyperlink, and embed almost any type of remote content.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Unmasking

      Or it could've just been DRM'd, causing the video player to send up to a honeypotted authentication server. The server probably rejects TOR'ed IPs, and many media players will take the most direct route it can because authentication servers are already touchy.

      1. Philip Stott

        Re: Unmasking

        That was my first thought, too.

        Surprised by the number of users suggesting this sick f***** deserves protection? Where's Judge Dredd when you need him.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Unmasking

          Surprised by the number of users suggesting this sick f***** deserves protection? Where's Judge Dredd when you need him.

          Oh, I can understand that, because from a principles perspective they would be right. The picture changes when you have kids yourself - you'd do anything to protect them, and these sick idiots are the worst nightmare for both kids and parents.

          In my case that stance is deepened by the fact that due to my work I get the occasional briefing on law enforcement technology, and I didn't sleep very well after a lecture by Met Police on how they use biometrics to match children and parents. It turns out that a lot of these victims are brought into this game by their own parents who groom them. Personally I can't think of a more evil thing you can do as a parent, and I have nothing but respect for the people who fight this sort of crime and have to go home to their own families after having watched that sort of filth.

          The argument that the apparent psychological drivers for these people are somehow reason to treat them less harsh is IMHO also flawed: they still had a choice between seeking help or engaging in something *known* to be abhorrent. Make the choice, suffer the consequences.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Unmasking

            they still had a choice between seeking help or engaging in something *known* to be abhorrent

            Except they don't really (except in a few places like Germany) if you went to your Dr and said "I have unhealthy interests in children" they will just report you to the police, take your kids away and lock you up for being a danger to the public or your family even if you haven't done anything to anyone or looked at any videos/pictures. They know this so don't seek help until they snap and do/watch something.

            I have mentioned this a few times in these sorts of topics but we need to differentiate someone with a pathological attraction children and should be identified as having an illness the same as alcoholism or cleptomania and treated, opposed to the other sadistic sort that are into children purely to cause harm.

            Until we grow up and treat this as two different things, one an illness that can be treated (or at least managed) before someone acts and the other as someone purely out to do harm then this will never be resolved.

            1. Mahhn

              Re: Unmasking

              the US is just starting to treat drug use as a health issue first and a crime second, still people are for the most part to afraid of prosecution to reach out for help. I expect your spot on with this mental issue in the same fear of getting help. But, those that take action on their thoughts/do commit physical crimes against children, deserve no mercy in my opinion.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Unmasking

              "I have mentioned this a few times in these sorts of topics but we need to differentiate someone with a pathological attraction children and should be identified as having an illness the same as alcoholism or cleptomania and treated, opposed to the other sadistic sort that are into children purely to cause harm."

              You forget possibility #3. It's not so much an illness as a defect like sociopathy. You can identify it, but as it's an inborn trait of the individual, there's nothing you can really do to correct it, just as you can't correct a true sociopath (they just try to find ways around you and lie to your face--remember, true sociopaths can fool a polygraph). True inborn pedophiles will just live double lives to both fulfill their fundamental desires while covering their tracks.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Unmasking

            I am with you completely, and get thoroughly depressed by the majority of downvotes I see on this site when someone speaks common sense. Either The Register has an abnormally high number of single, childless, crimefree readers or there is a parallel universe that exists and I clearly have access to it. The Police/LEA's should have no powers to perform any kind of monitoring targeted or otherwise, yet they are also frowned upon for taking a technically targeted approach to solving these kinds of crimes.

            Perhaps someone would care to give us (clearly technically dumb) readers an idea of how anonymised, internet based crimes should be investigated whilst staying within the bounds of the flower lined road that many of the commentards clearly live on. There is a darker world out there, and just because you don't play in it yourself doesn't mean that you should ignore it's existence. Failure to do that excludes you from complaining that you didn't see *that* coming when it affects you personally.

          3. Kiwi Silver badge

            Re: Unmasking

            The argument that the apparent psychological drivers for these people are somehow reason to treat them less harsh is IMHO also flawed: they still had a choice between seeking help or engaging in something *known* to be abhorrent. Make the choice, suffer the consequences.

            Oh yes I know. Those arguments are just the greatest! I used to have spend a lot of time wondering about how best to end my life, and whether to do it in a manner that would take a few people who use those arguments with me or just do it quietly. Maybe make it look like an accident so as not to upset my parents so much.

            For me it was because I was gay. I mean, it was totally my choice and I could've stopped it any time I wanted to. All I had to do was chose to engage 'in something *known* to be abhorrent.' How I was treated was right of course, as I'd made "the choice", and had to "suffer the consequences."

            I hope you do have kids. And I hope your son turns out to have such a thing. And I hope you realise that your treatment of your son before you discovered this was a factor in how he turns out, and I hope you eventually (when it is to late to help your son, when he has left your home for much better places) realise just how sick YOU are.

            May the arguments you use and the thinking you have about people in this (and similar) situation be visited on yourself. See how your thinking changes when it is someone you love.

  3. mike360

    Great job on catching the guy, if he had used Tails though instead of just the Tor browser maybe he won't spend the next 12+ years playing "No, you're Natasha Henstridge with a guy called Bubba" because it won't allow outside connections.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

    Thumbs up to the FBI, good to get this guy - and it's very worrying that there are 100,000+ others on the same network, all uploading 'fresh' material. That is seriously bad.

    BUT... what's this about an 'unidentified foreign law enforcement agency' that was 'acting within its national laws'? Perhaps a country where the national laws say you can attach electrodes to someone's willy until he provides his passwords? Or beat him senseless, or pretend to drown him? A country which has no restrictions on government monitoring of communications (e.g. May-land)?

    There are some very difficult moral issues with all this - the sick scum who abuse children need to be stopped, but does the end ever justify the means? Can a group that actively runs a kiddie-porn website be 'enforcing the law'? Would we allow their agents to infiltrate a trrrst organisation and help to detonate a bomb that kills people, in the hope that they can identify other members of the group? I don't think so. Once they have control of a dodgy site surely their legal duty is to shut it down at once. If we say they can keep running it as a honeypot how long should they do it? Days? Weeks? Years? Or perhaps they should build their own website from scratch, or even their own darknet setup - kiddie-pr0n, hard drugs, assassination all thanks to your local friendly law-enforcement agency.. An extreme case, yes, but the point is, where do we draw the line? I'm not happy with the police distributing kiddie-pr0n, whatever the reason.

    1. DougS Silver badge

      Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

      Well of those 100,000 surely many are not in the US, and thus beyond the FBI's reach. Hopefully if they ensnare people in other countries they are passing that info along to the relevant authorities, though.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

      All sorts of dodgy things potentially involved in infiltration.

      All sorts of stories abound about what the UK did in the "troubles" in Ireland, some deep undercover folk alleged to have been involved in facilitating murders to retain their cover / the cover of people they handled.

      Obviously it is hard to ascertain the accuracy of some allegations

      e.g. search stakeknife for some of the allegations

    3. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

      I'm not happy with the police distributing kiddie-pr0n, whatever the reason.

      I would guess the counter is they weren't distributing to anyone who wasn't already getting it or seeking it out, and they'd get it elsewhere if they weren't. So no additional harm done and convictions obtained reduce such harm. The gains outweigh the risk.

      That is somewhat less convincing when it comes to harm done in creating kiddie-porn as a requirement for continuing to be a member of the service. But again, if they had shut the service down immediately, would it have stopped the pedos from continuing to create victims? Probably not.

      Acting 'for the greater good' is not always easy and it is right to question the means used and to feel uncomfortable about it. The further we let law enforcement step into the swamp the more we must ensure it is the right thing to do.

    4. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

      Targeted vs everyone

      Control the server to get the users is much more effective than spying on everyone

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Gimp

        "Control the server to get the users is much more effective than spying on everyone"

        What makes you think such laws to enable that have anything to do with actually catching law breakers?

        Paedos, terrorists, money launderers and organized crime are the excuses they trot out to have such laws.

        Not the actual reason.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

      "Would we allow their agents to infiltrate a trrrst organisation and help to detonate a bomb that kills people, in the hope that they can identify other members of the group?"

      We allowed thousands to be killed to protect Enigma code breaking.

      We had / have undercover agents in terrorist cells that will allow murders and beatings to happen.

      Unfortunately, some people do have to suffer to achieve the wider goal.

    6. The First Dave

      Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

      The article identified them as FLA 1

      That probably stands for Four Letter Acronym

      In the USA the CIA and FBI are both TLA's but the UK (for example) has gone one better with GCHQ

      (Other agencies _are_ available, as the usual caveat goes.)

      1. MK_E

        Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

        I'd just assumed it was "Foreign Legal Authority" or something to that effect.

      2. No-One@No-Where

        Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

        FLA = Foreign Law enforcement Agency

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unidentified foreign law enforcement agency?

      > Perhaps a country where the national laws say you can attach electrodes to someone's willy until he provides his passwords? Or beat him senseless, or pretend to drown him? A country which has no restrictions on government monitoring of communications (e.g. May-land)?

      What part of FOREIGN land did you not understand, exactly?

      Btw, I have a strong suspicion that the country in question is Spain, at least the dates correlate with local Spanish news on the subject.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Javascript

    Java script can be used to leak all sorts of crap

    e.g.

    http://thehackernews.com/2015/02/webrtc-leaks-vpn-ip-address.html

    As stated it warned about going to another URL. This was most likely a plain old vanilla website, breaking out of a TOR external node and spilling it's information.

  6. Hollerithevo Silver badge

    Didn't know videos of child abuse was illegal

    So the perv-perp insisted...and yet he was still doing the TOR thing. Funny that.

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Didn't know videos of child abuse was illegal

      In this case, given the other evidence and conviction, it seems pretty clear he likely was lying.

      But we have to be careful not to start thinking that using Tor or other means of retaining secrecy and anonymity is evidence of knowing something was illegal or otherwise engaging in wrongdoing, which is how some people would like us to think.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Didn't know videos of child abuse was illegal

      yet he was still doing the TOR thing.

      Just playing the Devil's Advocate here, but separate from the knowledge that the videos were illegal, if he was looking for them online then an anonymous network such as TOR is the only place he was going to find them. Or to put it another way, you can't buy crack at the corner store - you *have* to go to a drug dealer.

      That said, I don't buy his excuse for one second. It's 2017 and he's on the Internet. How could he *possibly* NOT know that child porn is illegal?

  7. clean_state
    Paris Hilton

    Tor decloaking subtleties ?

    The article states that using NIT trackers could "land the Feds on shaky legal ground".

    The linked article explains what an NIT tracker is: "a Flash file, is hosted by a seized child porn website, [when accessed] this Flash file is run in Adobe's plugin, and establishes a direct connection to an FBI-controlled server on the public internet without going through Tor"

    The technique used here instead involved a video file that "when [...] loaded up, somehow automatically opened a second network connection, this time to a server monitored by the police. This secondary connection did not go through [Tor]"

    How is that different ?

  8. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "an anonymizing network, such as Tor, "

    Just a reminder this is not an endorsement for Tor, other anonymizing networks are available.

  9. Andromeda451

    I don't agree with many

    If anyone hurts a child the perps rights are to my mind terminated. They should spend the rest of their days behind bars in solitary. If they are assaulted by another inmate don't expect tears.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: I don't agree with many

      What if he turns out to be a "top" man, though?

    2. Kiwi Silver badge

      Re: I don't agree with many

      If anyone hurts a child the perps rights are to my mind terminated.

      To what level do you take that though? My parents didn't provide me with a "safe" home where I could talk with them about the issues I was facing. In their efforts to raise me right according to the values they held, they actually accidentally created a situation where I was afraid to seek help for my desires.

      I had many of my classmates trying to "rectify" my abhorrent behaviour (being gay if you hadn't already seen me mention it) with regular beatings. Should their rights have been terminated? Or mine, when I occasionally retaliated (especially when one who thought how I acted when faced with 10 of them would be the same as when one caught me alone - it wasn't). What about the teachers who thought it their duty to strap/cane the "evil little faggot" so they could "beat it out of me?" You know, "spare the rod, spoil the child" and so on ideas? Even with a couple of them who truly believed what they were doing in my best interests? They believed they were acting in my best interests, and doing the right thing, and protecting society from such a sick pervert as myself, yet the result was harm. Should their rights be terminated?

      What about people who write about how sick and twisted and evil and un-redeemable and so on paedos are, when those words are read by someone in their early teens who is confused about their sexuality - maybe they're 15 and attracted to a 12yo they know, and are scared that they're becoming a paedo. I know some of these people go on to take their lives, some go into drugs, some go on to offend against kids, and some get over it. The words they read can cause (or exacerbate) a lot of harm - those who unthinkingly and stupidly wrote those words have done harm (even if accidentally and through the desire to stop other harm) - should their "rights be terminated"?

      What about parents who let a kid watch a movie that has a lasting effect on them" Or has a pet put down and doesn't take the time to be sure the child understands why (a guy I knew was bitten by the family dog when he was 6 or 7, the parents had the dog put down the next day, the kid for years afterwards wouldn't let another animal near him in case the animal accidentally scratched him and was put down as a result - was some time before the parents explained that the dog attacked other people that day as well)? Or the parent who takes their eyes off a kid for a few seconds and the kid gets badly injured or poisoned or some other harm?

      I'm not saying paedos are well-intentioned in how they treat children. Many probably are so long as they keep their desires in check and show kindness, not penises to the child in question. What I'm saying is there are a lot of ways kids can get severely fucked up simply by someone making a mistake. Paedo's have a low recidivism rate with treatment, one of the lowest classes of crimes. This is not to defend them, but to say get the treatment available to them early so those who might offend can actually get whatever it is that stops them offending done before they hurt a child. And treat them like any other offender. The person who murders a child's parents gets a better time in prison than the person who takes a picture of the child naked in the changing rooms and never has any further interaction with the child, yet when the one who causes life-long trauma to a child (or other people) beats up the who "only" looks at pictures...

      As I said last night, I have some empathy because of what I went through growing up gay in a conservative area in an era before it was tolerated, let alone accepted. None of the crap that was tried helped, but 30 years on and the scars are still pretty deep.

      Try helping instead of going for the torture devices. They're not a viable treatment.

      1. MrRimmerSIR!

        Re: I don't agree with many

        Sounds like you had a terrible time growing up. I think the difference here is the balance of power that is involved. In a relationship, whether gay or straight, both parties should be of equal mind regarding the expression of that relationship. So for instance in the case of an adult heterosexual relationship where one party forces the other one to take part in an activity against the other party's will, that is now (in most enlightened jurisdictions) considered as rape. How about an adult who grooms another adult who has learning difficulties? Same issue. Two horny 15 yo teenagers? Not so much.

        So, regardless of the ages/genders/mental capacities involved, where one party holds power over the other and uses it regardless of the other's wishes then that is the problem. It seems too complex for many societies to grasp.

        Since a line has to be drawn somewhere regarding the ability of a person to make such a decision, most countries define an age of consent. 16 might be too young for some, and too old for others.

  10. Kiwi Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Can I make a suggestion?

    ...a video file containing images of child pornography began to play, and FLA 1 captured and recorded the IP address of the user accessing the file...

    There's all sorts of talk about "re-victimising" the kids (and adults) who've been videoed in such situations whenever this stuff is played. I don't necessarily buy into that (should they know they're been viewed and have negative feelings then yes, but if they don't know then probably no, putting a complex subject very simplistically).

    So, rather than risk showing actual victims being abused again... This was supposed to be a "preview" video. How about finding some adults with children, paying them well, and having the parents film the kids while asking stuff they'd enthusiastically respond to (eg "How would you like all the candy you can eat" or "would you like to stay up late" - whatever gets the most enthusiastic response.

    Then re--dub the adult's audio, asking questions of a sexual nature - or perhaps a flirtatious nature (I do kinda find even fake questions of a sexual nature being potentially disturbing), something to act as a teaser, and cut the video with a "more to come, pre-order now" type of thing. "Be the first to view this new (whatever word they use when they should say "victim")". No more showing actual child abuse, and those desiring "fresh meat" will find that they're the ones being led to the slaughter.

    Oh, and perhaps add some blurring effects as well - mask the identity of the kid in the video as much as possible (liberal use of wigs/make up and the like could also help, add freckles, cover freckles, dye hair and so on).

    (FTR, as a horny teenager I would've welcomed the attention of a "more experienced" person. And also as a teenager I probably would've been mortified (at best, suicidal or worse at worst) if I found he'd taken and shared video or pictures of our "encounters". I also know my own parents would probably have been the sort to shove embarrassing pictures on facebook and the like, which I would've found almost as distressing, maybe more if the scum at my school were to see them - thank God film was expensive and we were poor!)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019