*Warning: NSFW - Dragonbyte Tech Convictions.

[Fillip H.]

As your computers and deivces were taken by the police: Was any client data on those computers / devices?
Have any clients been affected by this ordeal in any way?

My MacBook Pro would have had stored AdminCP/FTP details that I had been provided with over time. We always told people to provide us with temporary FTP accounts, and I would assume that the vast majority of those FTP accounts would have been deactivated by the time this occurred, as there were no outstanding support tickets at the time of this ordeal.

I have no reason to believe any clients have been affected by this in any way.

And, in addition to that, would any client/customer data be unavoidably given to authorities if they were to request history records...

Potentially, though I can't be sure.

(I do find it curious that they've been banned from using the Firefox browser... wonder if that includes derivations of.)

No-one I've spoken to has any idea either.

You three? The 61 years old guy and you two?

No, just the two owners of DragonByte Tech. I don't know the 61 year old guy at all.

 

[haqzore]

A terrible thing all around to be caught up in.

As I hoped for in my first post, this did turn out to be a grave misunderstanding.

Appreciate Fillip H., can't imagine how uncomfortable every bit of this is.

I'll say the same thing I tell my kids. We all make mistakes. What matters is how we react to them.

I'll continue to be a Dragonbyte customer.

 

[Fillip H.]

I truly appreciate being given the chance to explain myself, and that you all were willing to listen.

All I want is to continue doing my work. I love this job, I love the community, I love developing for XenForo. I know I have no right to ask for anything, so I won't. I of course completely understand if anyone would choose to not continue doing business with us.

 

[Alpha1]

Will this cause any changes in the business operation of dragonbyte tech? For example the branding that products carry are likely to cause issues.

 

[Fillip H.]

Will this cause any changes in the business operation of dragonbyte tech? For example the branding that products carry are likely to cause issues.

I don't know, it's possible.

 

[sbjsbj]

No, just the two owners of DragonByte Tech. I don't know the 61 year old guy at all.

Can you explain this:

Multiple reports named Kidd, 30, as one of three men found guilty of collecting and filming child pornography over a 12-year period.

I am not convinced that this is just a case of hentai unless you prove otherwise.

 

[Fillip H.]

I am not convinced that this is just a case of hentai unless you prove otherwise.

I can't speak as to what was found on his computer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe he was filming any form of child pornography. I also have no reason to believe his offences were any different.

I can't prove a negative, and even if any of my equipment is eventually returned to me, the equipment would be without hard drives so I could not use that to prove what was on my computer.

I don't know the exact source of that quote, but considering the earlier point made about the legalese speak where being in possession of illegal imagery is bundled together as "being permitted to take", to me it sounds like hyperbole.

I also don't know the details of the 3rd person named in the original article, whether their offences were any different.

 

[Liam W]

I don't know the exact source of that quote, but considering the earlier point made about the legalese speak where being in possession of illegal imagery is bundled together as "being permitted to take", to me it sounds like hyperbole.

It's like the way the charge is worded in English law... 'Making an indecent image' is used as the person would've made a new copy of the image when it was found on their device. I.E, they caused a new instance of that image to be created. It does lead itself to confusion among the public masses.

 

[we_are_borg]

Fillip H. can you tell us what sentence you got with the restrictions you have. For example is changing your allias to your name part of it.

 

[Fillip H.]

Fillip H. can you tell us what sentence you got with the restrictions you have.

Certainly. I believe it was posted in part earlier in the thread, but in full:

• Six months curfew from 7 PM to 7 AM, meaning I am not allowed to leave my home between the hours of 7 PM in the evening and 7 AM in the morning.
• Three years supervision, meaning the police will routinely visit my house and inspect my devices and their browsing history.
• I am not allowed to delete my browsing history, nor am I allowed to use the "Incognito Mode" in my web browser
• I am not allowed to use the Firefox web browser for any reason (still not sure why)
• I must regularly attend appointments with a social worker, where we discuss life, how I'm doing, whether I'm struggling in any way, and my plans for the future
• I must notify the police of any change to my circumstances, including (but not limited to) new bank accounts, bank cards, plans to travel, etc

I have also taken a further step that was not mandated, namely I have turned on the adult content filter that all UK ISPs are legally obligated to offer. My ISP calls it "Child Safe". The reason why I did this is because in our business, we occasionally have customers that run adult websites, and I do not want to risk visiting a site that hosts content legal in their jurisdiction but illegal under Scottish law.

If I did visit such a site, "it was a customer's website" would obviously not be a valid excuse any more than "I didn't know", so to keep myself safe and legal I would prefer to block all adult material.

I have also applied this block to my mobile network for the same reason.

For example is changing your allias to your name part of it.

No, the reason why I changed my alias on this site is that this site I browse for business purposes, and if a forum account (or Slack account, or whatever) is on a website I visit for business purposes, I would rather use my name there.

 

[sbjsbj]

I can't speak as to what was found on his computer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe he was filming any form of child pornography. I also have no reason to believe his offences were any different.

And I have absolutely no reason to believe you.
There is a fact about you and your co-worker got indicted and until now you haven't provided anything.
Your word versus the newspapers word. And in this case, as you got invicted by law, I will believe the other side until you provide proof for otherwise.

I can't prove a negative, and even if any of my equipment is eventually returned to me, the equipment would be without hard drives so I could not use that to prove what was on my computer

I am not expecting you to show us your hard drive. There must be somewhere a legal paper stating and showing the list of stuff you had stored in your computer. If it was just hentai, it would be seen in such a list (obviously you could black out not related personal information from such paper).

Again, your words versus the words of the law. You may lie right now for example.

You still didn't give us any explanation of how on earth from all thouse thousands of people living in Scotland they got you and your co-worker.
I am 100% sure somewhere in Scotland hundreds of other people downloaded such hentai, yet somehow both of you (not just 1 of you) get indicted.

 

[Liam W]

I am not allowed to use the Firefox web browser for any reason (still not sure why)

I'm wondering if it has something to do with the Tor browser, but if that's the case why not just ban people from using the Tor browser? Wonder if Firefox does something strange with browsing history that means it can't be analysed easily.

Anyway, thanks for posting that.

 

[Fillip H.]

There must be somewhere a legal paper stating and showing the list of stuff you had stored in your computer.

Neither myself nor my solicitor was ever given such a paper, so I have nothing to show you unfortunately.

You still didn't give us any explanation of how on earth from all thouse thousands of people living in Scotland they got you and your co-worker.
I am 100% sure somewhere in Scotland hundreds of other people downloaded such hentai, yet somehow both of you (not just 1 of you) get indicted.

I can't answer as to why the police do what they do. Like I said earlier, though, the time frame this occurred in was over several years, so it's possible that this was a factor.

yet somehow both of you (not just 1 of you) get indicted.

As I said previously, the two of us were living in the same house at the time. When the police arrived, they looked at all computers in the house, not just devices belonging to the two of us.

I'm wondering if it has something to do with the Tor browser, but if that's the case why not just ban people from using the Tor browser? Wonder if Firefox does something strange with browsing history that means it can't be analysed easily.

It's possible, I have never used Tor but I could definitely see why they would want to ban the Tor component.

As for why they didn't simply ban Tor, maybe in their experience Firefox is commonly used? I don't know, I haven't used Firefox in years.

 

[Liam W]

As for why they didn't simply ban Tor, maybe in their experience Firefox is commonly used?

The Tor browser bundle is shipped as a modified Firefox installation.

 

[Fillip H.]

The Tor browser bundle is shipped as a modified Firefox installation.

Oh, I was not aware of that. The only thing I know about Tor is what I heard on the Computerphile YouTube channel where they've done a couple videos on how Tor works.

 

[Tom C]

A search of seized equipment revealed Kidd had almost 984 still images and 496 moving, and 7689 pictures of extreme pornography.

While Hannisdal had 170 still pictures, 50 moving and 163 images which the court heard depicted sexual activity involving people and animals.

 

[Fillip H.]

[...]

I don't deny that either, that part in particular is what constituted "extreme pornography".

 

[Tom C]

I don't deny that either, that part in particular is what constituted "extreme pornography".

Okay, so you weren't in the possession of any actual child pornography? Hate to have to go into detail but I think it's an important distinction, as I don't exactly condone bestiality, but it by no means makes you a paedophile.

For me, regardless of whether it's legal or not, animated porn containing what's clearly meant to be children is morally wrong anyway.

 

[Fillip H.]

Okay, so you weren't in the possession of any actual child pornography?

In the eyes of UK law, being in possession of cartoon images depicting characters that either are or look under the age of 18 is considered "child pornography", due to the law I linked to in a previous post (the article from The Register) that came into effect at some point in 2010.

But if by "actual" child pornography you mean images of real, human children, then no.

 

[Steve]

It looks like Twitter accounts and such are deleted, why not explain in a tweet what you’ve done here if you say it’s just “cartoons”?