FBI Sets up Fake Child Porn Links That if Clicked Trigger Armed Raids on Users

reply to post by chromatico


thanks not worried really just curious they change so much in softwear so fast I cant keep up with it anymore lol

reply to post by Raist


The context of the paragraph makes it clear what those links represent. However, the links are open to a wide range of interpretation. For example, just looking at the links outside of the context of the paragraph the links could be for Hip Hop material of some sort. Music, video, etc. Something like, "4 Yo Suckas". Who knows what those links really stand for outside of the context of that paragraph. Somebody could have taken those links and posted them on music site saying "Free independent rap tracks! Check 'em out!" and a bunch of folks who thought they downloaded corrupt MP3s would suffer FBI raids the next morning. Then the afternoon edition headline of The New York Post would read, "FBI Busts Hip Hop Kiddie Porn Ring!".

A darkly humorous scenario, no doubt. But, seriously, the FBI should kill that program because of the potential for abuse of unwitting participants.

reply to post by zerotime


That's only one example and barely even covers that. There are so many ways that this could be exploited.

Honestly, would you feel comfortable if officer's acted this way on the street? Walked up to people and offered them illegal services and then arrested them if they accepted?

It's entrapment in it's purest form.

reply to post by Sublime620


In the backalley behind a porno theater this example might be comparable but not on a public street. The links in question exist in bulletin boards that the average person would probably never visit.

reply to post by sharpest


"Probably".

The internet is a funny place. People end up in weird places all the time. These obviously aren't hidden boards, or else the FBI wouldn't need to post links. They are setting up traps on open forums to the public.

What else is there to discuss?

What happens when someone figures out that it's an FBI plant, and figures he'll email it to everyone under the link:

"Funny video, check it out!"

Or when some idiot leaves his wireless connection unsecure, and while he's downstairs watching TV, one of his neighbors clicks the link.

Who's to say that since you are condoning this action, the FBI won't start mass mailing this to email addresses to see who clicks? Or maybe posting it in chat rooms or other places where they'll get more traffic?

reply to post by Sublime620


The fake link possibility has already been debunked. The other examples are remotely possible, as I admit, but I've also previously posted that there is no perfect law enforcement technique and that I believe this is the FBI's best chance to catch pedophiles.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by zerotime

 

That's only one example and barely even covers that. There are so many ways that this could be exploited.

Honestly, would you feel comfortable if officer's acted this way on the street? Walked up to people and offered them illegal services and then arrested them if they accepted?

It's entrapment in it's purest form.

The police use drug and prostitution stings all the time and the courts have said this is not entrapment. The police also set up cars on the street that they can control. If a criminal breaks into the car the police can cut the engine and lock the driver inside. The police are not going around asking people to look at child porn. They are setting up fake sites and the pervs looking for this stuff will find it.

No matter how anonymous a person believes they are on the Internet they are not. Not only that but all computer systems log events. When anyone turns on a computer, starts a program, etc, those events are logged inside of the computer. When a criminal uses a computer and the Internet they are really screwing themselves. The amount of traceable information is huge.

reply to post by zerotime


Yes, but there are limitations. The person cannot be enticed to committ the crime. For instance, the car cannot have a giant sign that says, "Hey the keys are in the car. Steal me."

In prostitution stings, the "bait" cannot start the conversation. He/she will not walk up to someone and tell them they are a prostitute who "$%$# them for $10".

There are reasons for this.

reply to post by Sublime620


Well, sure, but where did the FBI entice anyone beyond what would typically be expected in a kiddie porno?

reply to post by PsykoOps

I can assure you that its already done

edit for one liner : Also I think that an IP is not an ID like it was said before

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Jigore]

reply to post by Jigore


In a way that triggers an FBI raid? I doubt it. This has been debunked earlier in thread.

Originally posted by sharpest
reply to post by Jigore

 

In a way that triggers an FBI raid? I doubt it. This has been debunked earlier in thread.

I was talking about the ''Anon already did it'' on the front page. Im ashame to say i didnt read all the thread

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
If no one watched child porn, no one would create and distribute it online. Simple idea, and quite accurate. Supply and demand, so to speak.

I addressed that in that very same post:

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
You could make the argument that people viewing it feeds those who actually do carry out these acts and video tape it, but I don't think that's true. I think those people are going to do it regardless of if there's a video camera and a computer nearby.

If they are ill enough in the head to wish to exploit, abuse, molest, rape etc. children, they are going to do it regardless of if there is a camera and computer nearby. You don't just suddenly get the urge to risk the rest of your life by getting caught kidnapping, raping, and possibly worse, murdering, a child, just so you can distribute, for free, what you did on the Internet.

It's a drive to commit the crime. It's not a drive to distribute the pictures (or video) of your crime.

They're going to do it regardless of if someone is watching.

Originally posted by space cadet
I bring it up to show how easily someone can wind up on a site they never meant to see, wrong keywords and bam! You are looking at a donkey show and never paid a dollar!

Exactly! Thank you for bringing that up.

It's so easy because when you create a website, there are ways to basically assign "keywords" to your website to get your website displayed in even the most vague terms on Google.

People abuse that to get more traffic to their site.

A good example is on YouTube. I've seen it on 9/11 videos, so go look up a few of those. Some people put the 'tags' as "Britney Spears" or I've even seen "Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders", as well as some other things. That's because when people put that in to the search bar, their video comes up.

It's pretty easy to set something up like that.

The point is, people can put in very vague search terms and their website will come up while doing a search not even related to the content of that website. Your search, I can see how it would find that. The Internet is full of porn, so it's pretty easy to stumble on that with those keywords. I know you weren't looking for that, but it's easy to see how it would come up.

But the sad thing is, you could put even the most vague terms in and get something you don't want to see.

Example: A few days ago I was talking to a friend and actually had her do an experiment to see just how much porn is on the Internet. So I'll let you guys do it - go to Google Images and put in "horse".

Very vague, non-pornographic term, but damn if you don't get a surprise.

(no I don't look up porn involving horses or any other animals, I stumbled on it one time while actually trying to look up something about a horse)

reply to post by sharpest


It had a very indepth description as to what was to be expected if the file was opened. It would be similar as to if we had a woman cop on the streets walking up to guys asking if they want a $%$%$% for $10. That's not legal.

It is entrapment.

Now if they set up a site, and said email for further info, anyone who emailed them asking for pictures or movies would then be liable (unless they offered it and described it, enticing the individual).

Basically, you can't dangle an illegal act in front of someone. It causes some people do something they wouldn't normally do.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Those damn kiddie perverts are going to ruin the internet for the rest of us, since they give the govt the perfect excuse for more and eventual complete control of the internet, taxes to support the enforcement, etc.
I still can't believe they haven't used spam as their excuse for govt control, but I guess ths is better.
NY is passing a law that requires registered sex offenders to register all email addresses and other social networking identities. You know, the guys who WERE CAUGHT ALREADY. WTF, how about we just keep them in jail, I wrote my state senator. He reminded me of some initiative that keeps them past their release date, until deemed safe. SO - it's a safety net for the safety net. Where's the safety net for this one??? And what's it going to cost (in money AND freedom)

WHen they say "it's for the children" you better worry.

All this and the one I mentioned are going to do is make the perverts smarter, they will be wardriving in search of an unsecured wifi, they will buy the wireless nic at a yard sale so the MAC is untraceable, so they will have to pass more laws and gain more control.

WHen it's time to make YOU a criminal, they will have the mechanisms in place. How many more shootings will it take to make all the 2nd amendment supporters public enemy #1??? Or trying to get treated outside of the "national healthcare"?????

LMAO. What about people on public networks, or people who share a wireless network. I DARE the FBI to figure out who out of 100 people clicked their entrapment link.

This is borderline ridiculous, much like To Catch A Predator. I can't believe that kind of entrapment sticks in court at all.

so .. what's the exact NAME of the website.... ??! If, for an example, it's child***.com.....or anything that is plainly blatant THEN it's pretty obvious!!! duh!! If it's 'childfun.com'.. THEN THERE'S a HUGE problem!!!

Originally posted by sharpest
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Your complacency will be your undoing....

There is no perfect law enforcement method but that is not an excuse to do nothing.

Intent due to the reasons that not only I cited, But others as well have also made very clear due to the intricate nature of the Internet cannot be proven, And Intent is the only ground the Feds will be standing on, As if these links contain no illegal content, And no illegal content was viewed, then no law was broken and no crime was committed, You can spin the BS whichever way you like and be an apologist for the feds to your little hearts content but it doesn't change these facts.

The difference between a drug sting, And even Prostitution stings is the transfer of money for an illegal service or item, proving Intent

Essentially if drug stings worked out the way this Link Issue does, then you could be arrested if a guy offered you drugs and you simply looked at it...

So I ask you do you want to live in a world where a simple link regardless of name could be a criminal act? Because rather you realize this or not this will be the precedent it sets, If the transfer of illegal content doesn't take place or the transfer of funds for a service, Then what crime was committed here?

You are opening up the doors to allow people to be prosecuted for nothing and thats exactly what it will be if those two actions above don't take place

Do you not realize this?!?!?!

[edit on 24-3-2008 by C0le]

reply to post by C0le


Great point. I suppose they could set up some sort of fake site with "premium content". Then when someone signed up to be a member, they would have committed an illegal act.

Still dangerous ground though. There are ways that could be misleading or attract people who don't intend to view porn with children in it.

It is a much better idea than just a link "strategically" placed though.