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

Originally posted by BiohazardT
So I just found something where they talk more about this.
Details about the operation, what they're looking for when they go through the computers, what's grounds for pressing charges, etc.

So what is this link really about? For FBI raids or roflwaffles? It might have been with good intentions but uh as they say

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

btw you're pretty cute. You single? One date, or I sue you for the raid I am now expecting anytime now



link removed

[edit on 27/3/08 by masqua]

Originally posted by BiohazardT
firstly, SHE. SHE. SHE!!!!
see:picture.

Which one? You've changed it twice since the post in question.

If you're referring to this one...

...sorry, the female aspect didn't immediately jump out at me. *shrugs*

As to the wall image, there was no person there.

Regarding your latest choice...

... that one looks a bit more noticeably female.

Originally posted by BiohazardT
also, i did it for the lulz.

So you find the idea of trying to ruin someone's life, by false accusations of kiddie porn, funny? Sorry, not just "someone's", anyone except you.

That has to be one of the sickest viewpoints I've ever seen posted here.

Thankfully, I believe the F.B.I. wouldn't allow active URLs to be posted, in news articles, due to the fact that inconsiderate sadists might try to use them "for the lulz".

Originally posted by BiohazardT
i would most likely get in a lot of # (as well as my friends) if my computer was searched.

Nice public admission.

I only hope that Canadian LEOs can use it, along with your pics, and the knowledge of your Vancouver BC locale to raid you.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]

Originally posted by redmage
Thankfully, I believe the F.B.I. wouldn't allow active URLs to be posted, in news articles, due to the fact that inconsiderate sadist's might try to use them "for the lulz".

You believe based on what exactly?

And why would it be necessary that it came from a news article?

I could do a google search right now and throw in a fake link for you.

Nice to see the forum moderators took quick action, if anyone gets raided by this though then i'd happily support any case to sue the user responsible and maybe teach them a lesson. You have to be seriously messed up to do something like posting a link that could get you accused of being a paedophile, people have killed themselves just for being accused of it.

reply to post by JoeTheThird


Have you even read the article in the opening post?

The link that she posted came directly from the FBI affidavit (pictured in the article). It was one of the actual "honeypot" links that the F.B.I. used.

She was actively attempting to get members falsely raided.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]

Originally posted by redmage
reply to post by JoeTheThird

 

Have you even read the article in the opening post?

The link that she posted came directly from the FBI affidavit (pictured in the article). It was one of the actual "honeypot" links that the F.B.I. used.

So then why would anyone be sued for posting a link that was in a news article?

Either way, it is a good way to point out that the text portion of a link could actually point to anything.

Originally posted by JoeTheThird

So then why would anyone be sued for posting a link that was in a news article?

Either way, it is a good way to point out that the text portion of a link could actually point to anything.

Sue because if this indeed leads to anyones arrest it would cause a great deal of mental distress. The intent of this ATS member was to see if they could get someone raided, just because they thought it would be funny.

Anyway i think it at least underlined that a link online can go anywhere, if you read the original article it also states that the FBI are not logging if someone was misdirected from somewhere else or even if it was a link in an email. I mean come on FBI guys, your computer techs aren't stupid, could they not see the obvious abuse (demonstrated here) that would occur?

Originally posted by JoeTheThird
So then why would anyone be sued for posting a link that was in a news article?

First off, I never mentioned suing anyone.

Second, that's why I said "Thankfully, I believe the F.B.I. wouldn't allow active URLs to be posted, in news articles..."

Originally posted by JoeTheThird
Either way, it is a good way to point out that the text portion of a link could actually point to anything.

This has been pointed out ad infinitum throughout the thread, and exactly why this new tactic, by the F.B.I., is such a dangerous one.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]

Sheesh, this is disturbing, not because I have any sympathy for child porn types (I don't), but because this unfair tactic could be expanded to critics of the government. Once this precedent is established, look out.

There are those who'll stand up and squeal about the erosion of civil rights in these cases. I don't recall civil rights including pedophilia.

(toasting the FBI)

Originally posted by Truthseeker_013
There are those who'll stand up and squeal about the erosion of civil rights in these cases. I don't recall civil rights including pedophilia.

Please show me where anyone, opposed to these actions, has made the claim that pedophilia is a civil right.

Until then, your rationale is entirely baseless, and doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]

Originally posted by Truthseeker_013
There are those who'll stand up and squeal about the erosion of civil rights in these cases. I don't recall civil rights including pedophilia.

(toasting the FBI)

I don't think this has anything to do with civil liberties, it is about the fact that many innocent people could be arrested and have their name tarnished so badly by a false allegation that they may end up taking their owns lives. Proving yourself innocent could take months, imagine in the mean time the abuse you would get in prison, beaten most likely. Or if you post bail, your friends avoid you, your neighbors sneer at you and probably your house and family come under physical attack and harrassment.

This is a stupid attempt at catching these people, go back and read some of the thread, my posts have highlighted multiple times how this could effect someone innocent. Also realise a member has had their posts removed because they posted a misleading link leading to the FBI's honey pot website! Many ATS members may now be in trobule if the FBI is still keeping that link active!

I friggin clicked that friggin thing!

That's effed if my grandma gets raided. I'm not even friggin kidding that it will probably kill her.

I wish I had know though, I would have done a screenshot. I can't remember what it showed, but it was something seemingly innocuous.

Hey Mods!

How about a nice call to the FBI on behalf of the ATS victims here who clicked that damn thing?

EDIT to add: Not even kidding, someone actually working for ATS should post here to tell us what the facts are at this point.

[edit on 3/27/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by Truthseeker_013

I don't recall civil rights including pedophilia.

Pedophilia is not a crime, it is a mental disorder. But who cares about civil rights now anyway?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Pedophilia is not a crime, it is a mental disorder. But who cares about civil rights now anyway?

Technically you are correct, if someone has thoughts about a child but never acts upon them by either physically abusing a child or downloading pornography then they cannot and should not be arrested. Whilst it is horrible to think someone would even have these thougts if they don't act upon them they should not be arrested.

Is it a mental disorder though? Would you call being homosexual a mental disorder? Is being straight a sexual disorder? It is afterall a sexual preference, it's a tricky one to argue over, is a sexual preference a mental disorder?

its like patriot act, they have hidden agendas behind child porn or terrorism ; nsa/cia both rape and murder people at will and they never go to prison
and yet they have guts to judge others,it is called fascism where i come from

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I don't think this has anything to do with civil liberties...

I'd have to disagree. I think it directly relates to the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Due to the very shaky and abusable nature of these lazy tactics; I feel that a simple IP log does not constitute justifiable grounds (for probable cause); especially for a crime where a mere accusation is enough to irreparably ruin one's life, and livelihood.

I get a strong impression that the judge who approved this measure wasn't very tech savvy, and didn't comprehend the inherent "ease of abuse" a system like this has.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Proving yourself innocent could take months, imagine in the mean time the abuse you would get in prison, beaten most likely.

Beaten? One could only hope to get off so "lucky". In prison, they do far worse than merely "beating" suspected child offenders.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Proving yourself innocent could take months, imagine in the mean time the abuse you would get in prison, beaten most likely.

Originally posted by redmage

Beaten? One could only hope to get off so "lucky". In prison, they do far worse than merely "beating" suspected child offenders.

Yes i realise they do worse but i didn't want to post gory details but ok. Rape, beaten, disfigured and most likely killed. That is what would happen to someone in prison awaiting to prove they are perfectly innocent and simply misclicked, were tricked into visiting such a site with a misnamed link or had their internet connection or computer hacked.

I take your point on "unreasonable search and seizure" as an argument about civil liberties, but to me i'd rather argue on the idea of it being so very risky with regards to getting many innocent people.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Is it a mental disorder though?

Touché!

You make an excellent point. I suppose I consider it to be a disorder simply because it exists on the fringe of an acceptable reality. But I wonder if it is something that is treatable. Probably not any more so than any other sexual prefernce.

There again too, some might consider Tourette's to be a disorder. But can anyone really do anything about that either?

it's a tricky one to argue over

Indeed. I do however, believe that toleration toward pedophilia should be displayed so that those who experience it can find assitance to help them avoid criminal activity, as opposed to being driven even further undergound than they already are, and increasing the liklihood of them to offend.



[edit on 3/27/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Would you call being homosexual a mental disorder? Is being straight a sexual disorder? It is afterall a sexual preference, it's a tricky one to argue over, is a sexual preference a mental disorder?

Hey Imaginary,
There are many members on ATS that do think that way yes, but fortunately I think there is even more on ATS that don't. To see what I am talking about you should check out this thread, it's 25 pages but it's very worth the read and addresses exactly what you're talking about:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Personally I think we can class pedophilia as a mental disorder. As someone else in the thread pointed out, it doesn't even make sense biologically, as the victim is often too young to even be reproductive. Reproduction aside, they are so young usually that they cannot understand or handle the emotional trauma sex with and adult will almost always cause. I think it's a mental disorder. At the very least a mental problem!

[edit on 093131p://27u33 by Lucid Lunacy]