>Has a trojan ever been identified that downloads illegal child porn images.

Two recent cases here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/09/malware_child_abuse_images_frame_up/

And background here:

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091109/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_a_virus_framed_me

>@Matt – If one were to be written there would certainly be little point in making it do something as obvious as change the wallpaper. In any case as it was a council laptop it should (maybe a big assumption!) have had upto date anti-virus/spyware/firewall etc

The further issue not raised is that a Council may well be liable, depending on the level of management of the PC. If someone run across dodgy stuff on a council PC etc there may well be a case for “they didn’t manage it properly”; it’s the sort of thing where a settlement out of court may be possible. That may be another reason why use should be restricted stricly to the Councillor/Employee.

Matt

No – and to be honest an empty MSIE cache/web history would usually attract the suspicion of an administrator.

@Matt – that report seems far from conclusive on the point though. Has a trojan ever been identified that downloads illegal child porn images. If one were to be written there would certainly be little point in making it do something as obvious as change the wallpaper. In any case as it was a council laptop it should (maybe a big assumption!) have had upto date anti-virus/spyware/firewall etc

Given that the democratic process doesn’t reward competence, integrity or trustworthiness, merely who has the better PR machine I don’t see an issue with an independent body mitigating the risk.

Given the number of ”personal data” breaches over the last couple of years, I’m somewhat surprised by the number of people advocating letting him off. The nature of the material isn’t too important, the fact that he exposed the council, and by implication constituents, is enough.

An important part of the role of a councillor is to scrutinise the council. This may involve finding information and making communications which the councillor would for good reasons want to keep confidential. It may be casework in which allegations are made against council employees. It could be a major investigation into large scale fraud.

The principle that what a councillor has on his or her computer is for he or she alone to know is probably worth the possibility that some of them may have a pornography habit they use it for. I would suggest the norm is that the contents are only looked at if there is good reason to believe the councillor has been using it for illegal purposes.

If it was my previous comment I asked them to delete it.

>I always wondered whether the bog-standard “delete browsing history” can withstand serious investigation. Presumably not.

No . Hence the Rover buyout chappie buying that cleanup package on expenses.

@david

Usually it is a Council laptop because the IT Dept control the environment, and can lock it down a bit etc.

I don’t blog at work now so presumably I’m free to say whatever I want.

Never went on any illegal websites, & while I’m sure my comments wouldn’t go down well in some quarters they’re not police matters. Not unless Brown gets a 4th term & makes them so, that is!

I don’t watch porn myself (find it a bit crude in general) but I like a well-crafted erotic story. Partial to a nice pair of lesbians I am.

And in this situation when the law is a … er … donkey.

Hopefully the laptop has been handed over to the police and if the ex-councillor is adamant of his innocence he could get the porn investigated to see how it was downloaded – I have been thinking about this – it would be so easy for a fellow councillor to download porn onto his laptop if he lent it to others (as he has said he did). He failed to attend meetings and the local Lib Dem group were anxious to enforce his resignation after all…

Also just re-read the story – and porn was only found on one of two computers lent to him (not both as I had previously said).

http://www.spamfighter.com/News-13454-Computer-Viruses-Could-Download-Porn-As-Well.htm

.. as far back as 2003 …

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2003/08/2647.ars

… and was used as a defence in 2001 in the UK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/technology/11PORN.html?ex=1061179200&en=6224a12a26400866&ei=5062

“While a case that played out in the British legal system sets no precedent in the United States, legal experts say the technical issues raise two troubling possibilities. For one, actual child pornographers could arm themselves with a new alibi that would be difficult to disprove. Or, unknowing Web surfers could find themselves charged with possessing illegal material that a lurking software program has acquired.

“The scary thing is not that the defense might work,” said Mark Rasch, a former federal computer crime prosecutor. “The scary thing is that the defense might be right,” and that hijacked computers could be turned to an evil purpose without an owner’s knowledge or consent.

“The nightmare scenario,” Mr. Rasch said, “is somebody might go to jail for something he didn’t do because he was set up.”

Mr. Green was eventually exonerated, but his life has been turned upside down by the accusations. His ex-wife went to court soon after his arrest and gained custody of their youngest child and his house. Mr. Green, who is disabled because of a degenerative disk disease, spent nine days in prison and three months in a “bail hostel,” or halfway house, and was allowed only supervised visits with his daughter.

“There’s some little sicko out there who’s doing this,” Mr. Green said, “and he’s ruined my life. I’ve got to fight to get everything back.”

He said he had no clue how the rogue software showed up on his computer. “I never download anything. and as far as I knew, no others had,” he said.

When his solicitor, Chris Bittlestone, hired a computer security consultant to examine the PC, nearly a dozen Trojan horse programs showed up on the hard drive. “When the report came in, it was very much what you would call a eureka moment,” Mr. Bittlestone said. But Mr. Green took the news differently.”

Matt

He says he didn’t do it. The machine downloaded it for him apparently. On both occasions. Bad luck huh?