The FBI ran a child porn site to catch predators, and now the accused are crying foul.

I think my thread dovetails nicely with yours.

FBI Exposed for Letting Child Predators Walk Free Just to Keep it's Hacking Tool a Secret

The FBI argues that their questionable tactics (deploying malware, warrants that ignore jurisdictional limits, running child porn sites rather than shutting them down, etc.), are justified because of how terrible those that view and distribute the material can be.

During the trial, the FBI drew the criticism of the court which found it acted in an “outrageous” manner. The court then described the six ways the FBI acted recklessly in its evidence gathering against child porn suspects.

1.) The Government ignored the statute forbidding such conduct: “In any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography . . . shall remain in the care, custody and control of either the Government or the Court.” 18 U.S.C § 3509(m).

2.) The Government facilitated the continued availability of Website A, a site containing hundreds of child pornographic images for criminal users around the world.

3.) The Government, in fact, improved Website A’s technical functionality.

4.) The Government re-victimized hundreds of children by keeping Website A online.

5.) The Government used the child victims as bait to apprehend viewers of child pornography without informing the victims and without the victims’ permission—or that of their families.

6.) The Government’s actions placed any lawyer involved in jeopardy for violating ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4, and raise serious ethical and moral issues for counsel.

Is the agency is just as guilty of exposing kids to further harm as the person who downloads and shares. ?

even if they get away with it this time by using the defense of entrapment at least now the FBI knows who they are and can use legal means to catch them next time.
Putting a real name and a face to an anonymous internet user makes it much easier to investigate them.

I have mixed feelings about this. I've never really understood the issue with entrapment. You either attempted to do a crime or you didn't. But since I ain't a legal scholar, I'll defer to those who say it is an issue.

Nevertheless, I got no love for these chomos and pedos. If this is what the FBI has to do to get these sick SOBs then I am all for it. Only thing better would be Negan taking Lucille to their heads out back of the court house as far as I am concerned.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Is the agency is just as guilty of exposing kids to further harm as the person who downloads and shares. ?

Very important question.
It's easy to see that they had questionable judgement in their execution of the sting. I don't know that they could have successfully sacrificed authenticity in trade for decency. They wanted to catch animals, but was it really necessary to use such an elaborate and insensitive honey trap?

a reply to: TrueBritAs a Brit with what you say, how can it be justified when a well known British musical legend gets caught with many images on his computer but gets away with it by saying he was researching for a book and because he was abused as a child?

6.) The Government’s actions placed any lawyer involved in jeopardy for violating ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4, and raise serious ethical and moral issues for counsel.

a reply to: eisegesis

Excellent point, if not a little OT. If I as a lawyer request the offending material in discovery from the Fed or state, and they turn it over, am I now guilty of possession of the offending material?

I have mixed feelings about this. I've never really understood the issue with entrapment. You either attempted to do a crime or you didn't. But since I ain't a legal scholar, I'll defer to those who say it is an issue.

a reply to: Edumakated

"Entrapment" is when a person who is otherwise *not* disposed or intending to commit a crime is made to commit the crime due to actions by the police/investigating authority.

For example, you're walking down the street and someone says "here hold this bag while I get my car keys from my purse" and the bag contains heroin: You never intended to possess heroin but from a technical standpoint, you are committing the crime of possession. That's entrapment.

On the other hand, if you walk up to undercover LO and just ask "do you have heroin" without them doing or saying anything to entice you, you are then charged with the crime.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I have mixed feelings about this. I've never really understood the issue with entrapment. You either attempted to do a crime or you didn't. But since I ain't a legal scholar, I'll defer to those who say it is an issue.

It shouldn't be that far over your head. If you never would have done the crime or attempted to do it without being influenced by the FBI, then we really have to question the role of the FBI.

For example in this case the "suspect" was recorded as saying he didn't want to do anything violent, but the FBI informant talked him into it which is a form of entrapment:

How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing 'Terrorists'

The guy who convinced the plotters to blow up a big bridge, led them to the arms merchant, and drove the team to the bomb site was an FBI informant. The merchant was an FBI agent. The bomb, of course, was a dud. And the arrest was part of a pattern of entrapment by federal law enforcement since September 11, 2001, not of terrorist suspects, but of young men federal agents have had to talk into embracing violence in the first place. One of the Cleveland arrestees, Connor Stevens, complained to his sister of feeling "very pressured" by the guy who turned out to be an informant and was recorded in 2011 rejecting property destruction: "We're in it for the long haul and those kind of tactics just don't cut it," he said.

The courts seem to give the FBI a lot of leeway regarding "entrapment" but they do seem to take it too far and if the FBI is sharing images of child victims isn't that exactly what the child victims don't want to happen? If you were a child victim would you want the FBI sharing your images all over the internet?

My first thoughts are the FBI used already gathered porn or faked child porn. They didn't make legit child porn- the people are all of age and etc.

Secondly, law is tricky and sometimes the evidence you have against someone can't be used legally. But also somebody in a chat room once told me that they were blackmailed by the FBI to do a job involving taking loads of CP off of silk rd. So now it occurs to me that the FBI has blackmailed criminals before to do jobs, become a source, etc. And I don't mind. If criminals get to play dirty, then why should we play by the rules? But I think that should only happen when people clearly cross lines that shouldn't be crossed.

It is a messy world, though. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also it's not entrapment because the people seek out the CP without any outside influences or encouragement.

Like the way Chris Hansens "kids" basically encouraged a relationship, sought them out in fact. It's just not the same. Using already gathered CP is tricky tho, too. But I think if it really helps to identify these perps then the outcome is more favorable and positive than the alternative.

Maybe I'm saying too much tho.

Also, by now knowing that the FBI could be behind a CP site, it will make people more paranoid about viewing CP at all and reluctant to search, and that would be positive too. And preventative. Making the criminals so paranoid that they cease criminal activity... that's a win in my opinion.

And I am a victim.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Just dropping off a vid that has a MO model that has and does exist within the halls of the US Govt. Now take the model and create your own operations outside of Govt's . Remember that having the dirt on someone in a position of power is crucial to not be prosecuted effectively . I wonder if Comey or some Judges have skeletons in their closet .....sure they do and this hidden power over them is used . Its not always about the money but always has power behind what is or isn't going to make it to the front pages of the MSM .

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

I have mixed feelings about this. I've never really understood the issue with entrapment. You either attempted to do a crime or you didn't. But since I ain't a legal scholar, I'll defer to those who say it is an issue.

a reply to: Edumakated

"Entrapment" is when a person who is otherwise *not* disposed or intending to commit a crime is made to commit the crime due to actions by the police/investigating authority.

For example, you're walking down the street and someone says "here hold this bag while I get my car keys from my purse" and the bag contains heroin: You never intended to possess heroin but from a technical standpoint, you are committing the crime of possession. That's entrapment.

On the other hand, if you walk up to undercover LO and just ask "do you have heroin" without them doing or saying anything to entice you, you are then charged with the crime.

Gotcha... so how is the FBI running the site entrapment? I assume they aren't tricking these dirtbags into visiting the site. I highly doubt is a situation where some guy is looking for MILFs or something and accidently clicks on CP and then the FBI claims they are a pedo.

People didn't believe the CIA ran coc aine, meth and weed for so many decades back and forth from USA and South America, but that's now common knowledge, even evening news talks about it.

So why would this be any different?

The only issue is, if any of these large scale high profile crimes gets uncovered, we won't have our country anymore, and that's why those issues will never be exposed to the public, regardless of truth.

The entrapment thing is so big now, California schools hire law enforcement recruits to pose as students and try to get other kids to get and sell them drugs, many times pestering the kids everyday until they do it only to arrest them later. Many special needs kids have been targeted and this isn't just in California.

The case of Jesse Snodgrass

Viceland article

---------

Something else that has troubled me is, framing someone with child porn, is not as hard as you'd think and files can easily be altered and in many cases, this crime is such an emotional one, not many would give some issues that don't match up too much thought as not to release a bad person.

It's one thing to supply someone with playdoh and tell them it's a bomb and arrest them if they go through the process of getting one.

It's something else to create more content of that nature and use it as a honeypot, then not be able to make that whole process 100% idiotproof.

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined
People didn't believe the CIA ran coc aine, meth and weed for so many decades back and forth from USA and South America, but that's now common knowledge, even evening news talks about it.

So why would this be any different?

The only issue is, if any of these large scale high profile crimes gets uncovered, we won't have our country anymore, and that's why those issues will never be exposed to the public, regardless of truth.

The entrapment thing is so big now, California schools hire law enforcement recruits to pose as students and try to get other kids to get and sell them drugs, many times pestering the kids everyday until they do it only to arrest them later. Many special needs kids have been targeted and this isn't just in California.

The case of Jesse Snodgrass

Viceland article

---------

Something else that has troubled me is, framing someone with child porn, is not as hard as you'd think and files can easily be altered and in many cases, this crime is such an emotional one, not many would give some issues that don't match up too much thought as not to release a bad person.

It's one thing to supply someone with playdoh and tell them it's a bomb and arrest them if they go through the process of getting one.

It's something else to create more content of that nature and use it as a honeypot, then not be able to make that whole process 100% idiotproof.

Between hackers, viruses, photoshop, etc I can see covert government operatives framing people who might be "inconvenient" to an agenda. How hard is to get CP placed on someone's computer or falsify digital records?

a reply to: Edumakated

I don't know how it's entrapment just to run the site. Sort of like if they laid out a folding table full of heroin in an alley and you came up and took some, they didn't make you take some, they just put it there.

On the other hand, if they set up the table outside a known Narcotics Anonymous meeting, it could very well be entrapment.

It's a complicated area of law that's very fact dependent.

Why would you be framed if you could be blackmailed.

I think criminals frame. Feels so familiar to me. "If I get busted, you will too." It creates a bond and forces loyalty, if you believe it. And when you're young, you believe it. I just recently went through a phase where I felt scared of being framed... I have decided, fug it if I'm framed and go to prison then I'll just write a bunch of books about the truth and then die.

Once, I was wrongly accused when I was young and I was punished for something I didn't do? But I knew deep down inside... that I was innocent and the world is messy and twisted but I'll keep standing upright no matter what. And I'll keep telling the truth. Why would I ever want to participate in a world where lies prevail, anyhow.

originally posted by: flatbush71
Let the courts decide if the sting operation is constitutional.
At least they are trying to stop it on a major scale.
These people are near impossible to catch and with the internet and electronic masking some type of outside the box operation had to be attempted.

We shall see, that's why there is a appeals process.

Buck

Trying to stop it on a major scale, while simultaneously distributing it.

Distributing is OK, as long as the people who download it are jailed.

Ah, I see. Just kidding I don't see how that is rational or logical at all. That might be the most ridiculous and ludicrous thing I have ever read or heard.

a reply to: jappee

Honestly, we could eliminate the FBI. The majority of their crime fighting is essentially various entrapment schemes meant to dupe the stupid or otherwise affected.

I do not believe a federal law enforcement agency is needed outside the US mashalls.