FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects

[caphis]

And it's okay-ed by a Judge.

Whew. I'm watching this one, because it has the capacity to set a -horrible- precedent if handled improperly. I hope an appellate judge with sense gets ahold of this one; or at least, a judge that will sit down for a few minutes with people who will rationally explain to him or her the scope of the decision.

[another day]

You know what this is a little troublesome. A simple hyperlink is so easily clicked. Real pedophiles are usually determined by the sheer amount of effort and time they put into obtaining child porn.

But a simple link? It could be clicked on by anyone out of sheer morbid curiosity, or even by mistake.

And what's next.. doing this with illegally downloaded videos like tv shows/movies?

[Technosoul]

If I were on the jury the key would be what was found at the house searched. If the site led them to someone who did in fact have a stash of child prone that was downloaded from other sites, then that would be like an investigation, simular to following a "money trail" to bust a posititution ring or some dope dealers.

(which procedure might also be wrong?).

Just clicking on the site is not enough evidence to jail a person in my opinon.

What if a reporter was doing a story on child prone and just wanted to see how many webpages could be located for his "stats"? Or if some preacher wanted to make a sermon about the evils of prone and wanted to click around the net to find out how much of a threat is out there?

[caphis]

Quote by: Technosoul If I were on the jury the key would be what was found at the house searched. If the site led them to someone who did in fact have a stash of child prone that was downloaded from other sites, then that would be like an investigation, simular to following a "money trail" to bust a posititution ring or some dope dealers. (which procedure might also be wrong?). Just clicking on the site is not enough evidence to jail a person in my opinon. What if a reporter was doing a story on child prone and just wanted to see how many webpages could be located for his "stats"? Or if some preacher wanted to make a sermon about the evils of prone and wanted to click around the net to find out how much of a threat is out there?

Ironically, the "key" for you might end up being entirely inadmissable with a good defense lawyer. I don't consider the FBI's tactics in this case to be sufficient for probable cause (though the courts have shown a different view). Regardless of how much kiddie porn was found, you may not be able to consider it if the search is ruled illegal.

[HelioPrime]

Seems reasonable enough. This isn't some unclear link.

The cast shown has a message board posting where it was made pretty clear the links lead to sex video's involving very underage children. If your going to click on a link offering sex between minors be prepared to suffer the punishments.

[caphis]

Quote by: HelioPrime Seems reasonable enough. This isn't some unclear link. The cast shown has a message board posting where it was made pretty clear the links lead to sex video's involving very underage children. If your going to click on a link offering sex between minors be prepared to suffer the punishments.

Um... I'll take "Slippery Slopes" for $1000, Alex.

This is entrapment, first of all, which is illegal.

Second of all, it doesn't matter how the site is set up at all. Imagine someone who decides to prank you by sending you a "hey, click this funny video!" link and... bam, there you go. Or an email spammer who embeds an image from that site into an email you open. Oops, now your IP is logged as a visitor.

Or someone hopping onto your wifi and heading over to the site. Or *any number* of things that could lead to this -not- being anyone's attempt to view child porn, but who get to the site through otherwise innocuous methods. What about spyware? The average user will come across dozens of viruses and spyware through regular net browsing. If just one of them calls up a request for an "illegal hyperlink," well, you're apparently guilty as charged.

Please familiarize yourself with a bit of technical info, as well as the text of the document. You'll note that comment was made about Referer information not being stored. In layman's terms, that means that regardless of how you ended up on the site, you were there, and that's all that matters.

It happens all the time on the internet, especially on message boards. You clicked the link above without not really knowing where it was going. Or perhaps you're more cautious than to click Federal Court Judge rules marijuana possession legal; but many, many folks will click.

The point is, this has the potential to set a horrible precedent, and lead us down a slippery slope. Thankfully, any computer expert with a lick of sense will be able to point out enough flaws to strike this activity down once they get up on the stand.

Not that any of that is relevant -- it's entrapment by definition, and I hope heads roll for it.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: caphis Um... I'll take "Slippery Slopes" for $1000, Alex. This is entrapment, first of all, which is illegal. Second of all, it doesn't matter how the site is set up at all. Imagine someone who decides to prank you by sending you a "hey, click this funny video!" link and... bam, there you go. Or an email spammer who embeds an image from that site into an email you open. Oops, now your IP is logged as a visitor. Or someone hopping onto your wifi and heading over to the site. Or *any number* of things that could lead to this -not- being anyone's attempt to view child porn, but who get to the site through otherwise innocuous methods. What about spyware? The average user will come across dozens of viruses and spyware through regular net browsing. If just one of them calls up a request for an "illegal hyperlink," well, you're apparently guilty as charged. Please familiarize yourself with a bit of technical info, as well as the text of the document. You'll note that comment was made about Referer information not being stored. In layman's terms, that means that regardless of how you ended up on the site, you were there, and that's all that matters. It happens all the time on the internet, especially on message boards. You clicked the link above without not really knowing where it was going. Or perhaps you're more cautious than to click Federal Court Judge rules marijuana possession legal; but many, many folks will click. The point is, this has the potential to set a horrible precedent, and lead us down a slippery slope. Thankfully, any computer expert with a lick of sense will be able to point out enough flaws to strike this activity down once they get up on the stand. Not that any of that is relevant -- it's entrapment by definition, and I hope heads roll for it.

I think that what you do on the internet relative to downloading stuff should be as private as what you get in the mail. No one should have the right to search what you have in your computer especially if they need a password to get into your files. That is as private as if you locked something up in your desk.

It is your own private business, between you and your own conscience.
Not their bizz wax.

If I watched a video of some adult positute having sex that does not mean that I am responsible for positution. If I watch someone buying and using drugs in a movie does that mean I am responsible for all the unlawful use of drugs in America? If I watch a war on the news am I responsible for that war?

[Awardness]

No, that would be ridiculous.

[RealRockingham]

Ha, so in other words the FBI just gave a free pass for pedophiles to observe THOSE child porn links, seeing as it is illegal for one to be punished for viewing them.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: caphis Um... I'll take "Slippery Slopes" for $1000, Alex. This is entrapment, first of all, which is illegal. Second of all, it doesn't matter how the site is set up at all. Imagine someone who decides to prank you by sending you a "hey, click this funny video!" link and... bam, there you go. Or an email spammer who embeds an image from that site into an email you open. Oops, now your IP is logged as a visitor. Not that any of that is relevant -- it's entrapment by definition, and I hope heads roll for it.

As the article states, this was not judged as entrapment.

I think of it more as a cyber sting operation. The agencies act as the porn provider getting the perverted to click the links fully expecting to see child pornography.

Child pornography is illegal. If you feel the need to click it in the safety of your home even for a second your still doing a crime.

[caphis]

Quote by: HelioPrime As the article states, this was not judged as entrapment. I think of it more as a cyber sting operation. The agencies act as the porn provider getting the perverted to click the links fully expecting to see child pornography.

And if it's ruled that an apple is an orange, it's still not an orange.

Child pornography is illegal. If you feel the need to click it in the safety of your home even for a second your still doing a crime.

I'm not defending child porn. I'm saying that it's not just child pornographers that will fall for this. You, yourself, could be subject to a search warrant if spyware on your computer pulls up the link.

[another day]

Quote by: HelioPrime As the article states, this was not judged as entrapment. I think of it more as a cyber sting operation. The agencies act as the porn provider getting the perverted to click the links fully expecting to see child pornography. Child pornography is illegal. If you feel the need to click it in the safety of your home even for a second your still doing a crime.

What if someone heard about this and clicked it from another persons computer to screw them over? What proof is there that the person who owned the computer actually clicked on the link? None.

I can see this being used as probable cause to search a person's home for child pornography, but alone it does not stand up.

[grandpa]

Quote by: another day What if someone heard about this and clicked it from another persons computer to screw them over? What proof is there that the person who owned the computer actually clicked on the link?

True. It's also true that, at least every once in a while, porn can be stumbled upon. A classic example is a personal one that happened to me at work. I was on the internet and some gay porn site just popped up. Thankfully, nobody noticed (to my knowledge). But the overriding point is that such things can happen.

There is another problem, of fundamental importance: Something clicked on is not necessarily something I have done. For example, if I go to rotten.com, does it mean I've done everything on there? Certainly not. Or how about if I end up on a neo-Nazi website (which are arguably places we should look at to better understand what makes such people tick)? To me, it's somewhat like beating someone to a pulp for checking out Hitler's Mein Kampf from the local library.

So, regarding the crime of looking at nasty things online, other possibilities might explain the "evidence."

If what I've said here runs counter to a good argument, I'd be interested in the discussion.

Grandpa h.

[ChaChynga]

They could come up with a better plan and that is exclusive to porn and porn only.

Create an extension that all porn must be filtered through like an ****.XXX

or instead of the WWW

XXX.123.com

All porno must have those designations, and anyone that is caught doing otherwise - will have very severe penalties... very very severe, up to and including death.

Then anyone that goes to these PORN sites MUST for the security of people - I D themselves, with their state ID or REAL ID (GOD FORBID IT).


I dont like the idea of the sting, it's not right and it doesn't mean that they wanted to click on the link, per se. It's just a ruse to test the political sea of the people to see how far they can go. Just like a Waco, Texas, this is no other than a means of the Government running outa hand with their delegated authority.

[Toyotech]

As a comedian, i must make light of a topic that concerns me.

First concern is that I don't want to click on the link to the news story because what if that hyperlink files away my information with the FBI for being curious about a program that they are operating looking for curious people?

I'm the kind of guy that would discover what this link was without actually clicking on it, then copy the hyperlink and re-name it something else and put it up on some kind of message board or chatroom with a much more entertaining and eye grabbing and finger itching title. Lets see what the FBI does with 2 million hits per minute

Next, what happens when you click on this link? Are you momentarily graced with a large collection of under-18 porn, over 18 porn, or a big screen that says "Stop what you're doing, come out of your house with your hands up and your penis tucked safely inside your pants"?

In all seriousness I am unconcerned about this... I find it hard to believe that unless there are horrible pranksters out there like myself, I would never even find the link to click on it.

[Jack]

Create an extension that all porn must be filtered through like an ****.XXX

That was proposed by ICANN in January 07 but guess who shot it down?

The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography.

Bush administration objects to .xxx domains - CNET News.com

[Toyotech]

That article got me fallin all over the place laughing the first time around... thanks for the refresh Isherwood