Sarah Nyberg / Srhbutts Internet Defense Force - It's Okay To be a Pedo As Long As He's Trans/Anti-GG

Strangely, I'm thinking this part of Butts edgelord narrative—the "I got my shit seized" was a lie portion—might be believable. The claim by Butts that it's easily verifiably false is bullshit, though. The only reason I'm even considering it is because, based on what I know of law enforcement investigations and cybercrime—which is not inconsiderable—seizure of Butts' PC in connection with a CP investigation would not have been the end of the story. Even with a crypto'd partition; they would've also been tapping his phones and Internet connection, and have raided his servers.

Further, they wouldn't have stopped on finding an encrypted partition, any more than they'd stop when they found a hidden compartment in a seized safe. If they had probable cause to seize the computer in the first place, they'd have probable cause to obtain a court order to force the disclosure of the encryption keys.

Don't turn over the keys? Enjoy the coercive sanction of indefinite incarceration for civil contempt until you do.

The saga would have been ongoing.

It's the kind of thing that a defendant could conceivably win, but there would be a public record of the resulting litigation and quite probably news stories as well.

And this is making the incredibly generous assumption that Nyberg was the crypto mastermind that mrz fancies himself.

I seriously doubt someone dumb enough to be openly passing around CP in a public chat channel would fail to have all kinds of shit all over their hard drive, swap files, deleted file space, and other OS droppings.

So yes, this story reeks. If the police seized hard drives and the like and didn't find anything at all to prosecute, given the history, we may have the dumbest cops in history.
 
Última edición:
I think pedophiles have trouble controlling their sexual urges. It's all about "advantage". Kids are defenseless, so they take advantage of that.

I think (I have no actual scientific proof, though, only casual observation) that pedos conform to two stereotypes:
1) the person who has actual attraction to underage people
2) the person who desires control and voluntarily chooses children for being weak

The second case is surprisingly more widespread. Those people don't give a shit about children from a sexual standpoint, but rather want someone to manipulate from early on so they can mold them into whatever shape they want, and dumping them once they get bored or find a more convenient target. This kind of people is a textbook example of abuser who just want a power trip no matter the cost.

However I actually think Butts falls in the first category: he's actually irremediably attracted to children (because people on the second category, I noticed, tends to prefer girls or boys that belong more in the "jailbait" category** and Butts has admitted that his "age of preference" can go very, very low. ("as low as 4" if I remember correctly)). Notice how desperate he sounds to have physical contact with Alice. ANY physical contact. Notice how proud he sounds at some point for getting to tickle her or whatever. This guy is definitely sexually attracted to children, pathologically, and he shows no self-restraint (as evidenced by his constant wanting of that contact).

Please note that in the logs, that's him speaking from a position of power (admin on the site, so fighting him over it probably had perceived or real consequences like getting banned and whatnot) and with people he was confident with (as evidenced by his lack of shame), so this is pretty much the closest you can get to his "real thoughts". Private conversations probably don't get much racier than that.

Now, there's a catch. Both types of pedo aren't necessarily exclusive, and the first type is not necessarily a helpless victim of chance. A decent human being would be scared shitless by this realization, however Butts chose to trivialize it for kicks, and perhaps to not have to ever put any resistance to such a serious issue. I think that's dangerous because as said earlier, he clearly craves that contact and is not ashamed or terrified of it, and I think that's a time bomb waiting to explode. Having a legion of enablers doesn't help.
(I still can't get over that "father" sending him pics of his daughter...)

Instead of seeking help he decided to go at it like if it was regular porn. And rebelled on the fact that it's very illegal. He treats having and sharing an archive of underage model pics as some sort of thing to be proud of, with the added benefit of making him look edgier and gangsta (in his mind). That's why he thinks the "edgelord defense" works (in his mind), because for him that was being edgier than a gritty reboot of Devil May Cry (the gritty reboot).

TL;DR: I think he's legit attracted to kids and is enough of a scumbag to try to get what he wants if he had the chance. That's the opinion I get from reading the logs, at least, so feel free to challenge it.


**I say jailbait as "teens that are partially or completely sexually developed but still not legal". I think that's how the term is used but I am not entirely familiar with it, so please correct me if that's wrong.
 
Someone I'm talking to is claiming that the logs are partially faked, anyone have a good debunking of this?

EDIT: Specifically, he mentioned that Butts said that there were "omissions and distortions" in her article.
Claiming they're faked is absolutely absurd as anyone who has read into this with even a mid level understanding of computers/servers. It's years worth of data collaborated with public forum posts from years ago where she admits the same urges.

The time required to fake it is just too much when it could just be disproven by providing the "real" logs to diff the files against.

Not to mention she's been using "copyright" to pull mirrors down and wiped it from the internet archive, if she were innocent the internet archive would be the absolute perfect evidence for it, a 3rd party verifiable clean log proving she wasn't a paedo and that the logs were modified… instead she made sure that archive was removed because it proved the opposite.

She knows she's fucked up that's why she's pushing the edgelord narrative. Unfortunately too many of her misguided supporters have their fingers in their ears just because she's a twitter big shot they like, they don't even seem to do the slightest bit of research, like that article defending her claiming the logs were "hacked" off her personal computer when they were publicly available on her web server and archived by a 3rd party.

All this ignoring the facts and spinning unlikely narratives just so she remains pure in their eyes reminds me of when a bigshot sports star gets caught raping or murdering and people just start making excuses for them because they look up to them.

If anything I'm more disgusted by her supporters at this point than her, degenerates are a fact of life but so many people rushing to defend her purely because they like what she tweets is disgusting… never gonna look at Graham Linehan the same way again.
 
Última edición:
@tepid People will believe whatever they want to believe. You'll never convince anybody one way or another. It's like with Peter Coffin. Even when it was verifiable that the woman wasn't a doll, people just kept going with what they wanted to think.

dHkiDA1.jpg
 
Further, they wouldn't have stopped on finding an encrypted partition, any more than they'd stop when they found a hidden compartment in a seized safe. If they had probable cause to seize the computer in the first place, they'd have probable cause to obtain a court order to force the disclosure of the encryption keys.

Don't turn over the keys? Enjoy the coercive sanction of indefinite incarceration for civil contempt until you do.

The saga would have been ongoing.

It's the kind of thing that a defendant could conceivably win, but there would be a public record of the resulting litigation and quite probably news stories as well.

And this is making the incredibly generous assumption that Nyberg was the crypto mastermind that mrz fancies himself.

I seriously doubt someone dumb enough to be openly passing around CP in a public chat channel would fail to have all kinds of shit all over their hard drive, swap files, deleted file space, and other OS droppings.

So yes, this story reeks. If the police seized hard drives and the like and didn't find anything at all to prosecute, given the history, we may have the dumbest cops in history.

Quite. Even (or perhaps especially) in 2005, cops hitting large swaths of encrypted data wouldn't just presume it's nothing, or that their warrant didn't reach that material. They would've gotten him to disclose the key. I remember an old episode of Dragnet where some guy conveniently "forgot" how to decypher his bookie register. They didn't just give up.

So, the unfortunate lesson for us is that in all likelihood Butts was bullshitting about being investigated. Even if it was on something unrelated to CP, if they hit some huge swath of encrypted data, they would've asked for the keys.

Do we know if there's even any follow-ups in the logs about Butts' claims?

Now, Butts et al. will surely spin matters like these into arguments that we should doubt every word he uttered in 2005 (paradoxically arguing that we should also trust him in 2015). The fact of the matter is that the police claim is easily distinguishable from the crotch shots: Butts still provably had those photos. Whether they were actually of his cousin is a matter of debate... but does it even matter? He still posted it along with dox or near-dox, plus some obscene fantasization about a preteen girl. Even if he weren't a pedo, he actively tried to bait pedos to predate on his real-life cousin.

And I guaran-fucking-tee he came into contact with circles of real pedos in his time. You don't go around claiming to be a pedo without attracting attention of that sick underbelly of the internet.

If he were a true edgelord, you know he ran with that pack. So what does it matter if he is a "real" pedo? Butts enabled real pedos, and in a country where keeping CP without actually touching children is criminal—where public policy considers that in the same vein as contributing to the abuse—Butts is already a hardened criminal.
 
So I consulted my inner SJW and realized by accepting Butt's edgelord narrative and attempting to push the story under the rug so to speak the white knight social justice squad is kind of sorta really actually perpetuating rape culture by accepting the narrative of someone they respect and trying to silence those that want Butts investigated their ignoring the fact that there's a victim here with real feelings, trauma, and a voice their kind of sort of (actually) attempting to silence.

The irony of prolific SJWs perpetuating rape culture for their own political gain is so so delicious it gave me diabetes.
 
So I consulted my inner SJW and realized by accepting Butt's edgelord narrative and attempting to push the story under the rug so to speak the white knight social justice squad is kind of sorta really actually perpetuating rape culture by accepting the narrative of someone they respect and trying to silence those that want Butts investigated their ignoring the fact that there's a victim here with real feelings, trauma, and a voice their kind of sort of (actually) attempting to silence.

The irony of prolific SJWs perpetuating rape culture for their own political gain is so so delicious it gave me diabetes.

Here's the reason they're not seeing it as abusive: Pedos exploit little kids. Little kids can't have Twitter accounts. Therefore their safety doesn't count.

It's like trying to get a politician to care about human rights in foreign countries. They can't vote in our elections, and anything that benefits them will be pointed to as a cost to us (whether correctly or incorrectly). Similarly, little kids can't dump money into their Patreons, and can't really effectively participate in aGG circlejerks.

I pray that people who were subjected to child sexual abuse come forward to call Butts out for the sick fuck he is, but I'll understand if they don't want to rehash that part of their lives in public.
 
@tepid People will believe whatever they want to believe. You'll never convince anybody one way or another. It's like with Peter Coffin. Even when it was verifiable that the woman wasn't a doll, people just kept going with what they wanted to think.

dHkiDA1.jpg

It's true, all the way until right at the end I thought Nick Bate was just saying outrageous things to get attention because 1. I was hoping nobody could be that awful and 2. If they were they couldn't be so stupid they'd be boasting about it constantly online.

And I don't even like Nick Bate so it's probally even easier for a hardcore SJW to believe that Butts wouldn't do the things she admits to in the chat logs.
 
The only pedo that can be awesome is the pedo that has enough self-control to manage his/her urges and never hurt anyone. (And even so I'd be wary to let my kids hang out with this hypothetic pedo) This is definitely not the case with Butts, who strikes me as a pretty weak-willed person slave to his sexual urges, as many simpletons are.
I don't know what kind of stock you would put in this as it's from a pop-sci article I found on the /cow/ thread but apparently studies suggest pedos might be of lower than average intelligence which would explain Butts being a dumbass. Could just be that they only studied the kiddie diddlers they caught though.

http://www.dw.com/en/scientists-find-brain-differences-in-pedophiles/a-16305968
 
It's true, all the way until right at the end I thought Nick Bate was just saying outrageous things to get attention because 1. I was hoping nobody could be that awful and 2. If they were they couldn't be so stupid they'd be boasting about it constantly online.

And I didn't even like Nick Bate so it's probally even easier for a hardcore SJW to believe that Butts wouldn't do the things she admits to in the chat logs.

I don't think anyone likes hearing one of our own is a monster. Its a bitter pill to swallow. Imagine if instead of being an SJW Butts was one of us, some of us would probably have issues accepting that. We're probably a bad example though, we don't seem to have a ton of issue eating our own when its necessary, but some of us would probably not want to believe they've been paling around with a pedo.
 
I was under the impression that they weren't allowed to demand the encryption keys for things because it violated the Fifth Amendment. (I'm not a legalkiwi and I understand that what happens in a court room is different from Podunk, Wisconsin's jail cell.)
 
I don't think anyone likes hearing one of our own is a monster. Its a bitter pill to swallow. Imagine if instead of being an SJW Butts was one of us, some of us would probably have issues accepting that. We're probably a bad example though, we don't seem to have a ton of issue eating our own when its necessary, but some of us would probably not want to believe they've been paling around with a pedo.
As someone who has had an actual childhood friend plead to child sex assault and draw a sentence of nearly two decades, I'll say this: It's crazy to find out someone you thought of as a friend could do something like that, but you get over it pretty quickly. In my case, the guy was always a little weird, though not (as far as I knew) someone who ever got into real trouble. So... I'm not going to say that after the initial surprise that it was a life-altering shock. And the small town where it all happened has, to my understanding, moved on.

There are fucked up people out there, and they look just like you and me. They aren't sharp-toothed, drooling, horrifically ugly monsters in closets. They can have jobs, drive cars, pay mortgages.
 
I was under the impression that they weren't allowed to demand the encryption keys for things because it violated the Fifth Amendment. (I'm not a legalkiwi and I understand that what happens in a court room is different from Podunk, Wisconsin's jail cell.)
My understanding is it's about the same as police having a search warrant to a safe. The owner of the safe has no right to refuse to open the safe, even if giving the combination to the safe could be construed as "speech" in some manner.

The whole "let's use a crypto'd partition" thing started, to my understanding, as a response to searches at national borders and security checkpoints resulting in people being told to hand over their computers, and then experiencing trouble when they found cracking tools or whatever on there. That's a somewhat different situation than being confronted with a search warrant and being told to open the door.

I will say though that I haven't read the law on this lately, and you shouldn't consider my response to be a full discussion of the legal factors. A much more succinct response would be to ask yourself whether, if you had the records in a file cabinet subpoenaed by a court, you had any right to refuse to comply with that subpoena. While you might under some circumstances, it wouldn't be a 5th Amendment right-to-remain-silent type right. You generally have to give up the records. Similar principle here.

ETA: Let's further recall that we're talking about something that happened in 2005. The law's approach to encrypted data was much more simplistic then.
 
My understanding is it's about the same as police having a search warrant to a safe. The owner of the safe has no right to refuse to open the safe, even if giving the combination to the safe could be construed as "speech" in some manner.

The whole "let's use a crypto'd partition" thing started, to my understanding, as a response to searches at national borders and security checkpoints resulting in people being told to hand over their computers, and then experiencing trouble when they found cracking tools or whatever on there. That's a somewhat different situation than being confronted with a search warrant and being told to open the door.

I will say though that I haven't read the law on this lately, and you shouldn't consider my response to be a full discussion of the legal factors. A much more succinct response would be to ask yourself whether, if you had the records in a file cabinet subpoenaed by a court, you had any right to refuse to comply with that subpoena. While you might under some circumstances, it wouldn't be a 5th Amendment right-to-remain-silent type right. You generally have to give up the records. Similar principle here.

ETA: Let's further recall that we're talking about something that happened in 2005. The law's approach to encrypted data was much more simplistic then.

That actually makes sense in that analogy. Thanks. Even the EFF's response to it is, "It's complicated. Get a lawyer."
 
@blackie toy @AnOminous - so from a legal standpoint, what happens next? The family purportedly went to the cops, and then they would begin an investigation, and those sometimes take a very long time. Could it be years before the shrieking on Twitter stops?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo