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

Originally posted by chromatico
One practically had to be begging for the most vile kiddie porn to spring the trap.

Actually it was the fuzz that was doing the begging.
All the target had to do was wiggle their finger.

Wow. Click a link and go to the Klink. (?) Hmmm...

I wonder how long it will be before they end up raiding a blind man's home.


 

reply to post by apc


Well, come-on. One doesn't "accidentally" login to board and "accidentally" click on a link for the filthiest smut imaginable, properly described.

What about those with a open wireless network?

Your neighbor or just someone passing by could be looking at this stuff on your IP...

reply to post by C0le


Yes, this is why we encrypt our wireless networks.

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by C0le

 

Yes, this is why we encrypt our wireless networks.

But you shouldnt have to face the inquisition for somebody else stealing your wireless.

Should you have your door kicked in just because someone hacked your wireless/ you dont know how to encrypt?

This is entrapment plain and simple, and its despicable. How about they use legitimate means to catch these paedophiles instead of targeting a broad spectrum of people, many of whom may be innocent.

Good....The first thing the FBI have EVER done that is worth a damn. The intel they can get and pass down to local and state police will help big time.

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by C0le

 

Yes, this is why we encrypt our wireless networks.

Yes it is but thats not the point, Not everyone does, And this is all completely circumstantial, there are numerous ways one can come across these links For example what if some jerk figures it out, the hyper links you to it?

Or hackers start embedding these links in normal websites? we are going to have to start paying close attention to the url destination in our browsers...

You can justify this all you want but as bad as it is, unless they put actual child porn which can be downloaded into these destination links, then this is nothing short of a thought crime, If they click a link which takes them to nowhere, then they didn't do anything illegal.

What crime was committed here? Where is the illegal contraband? Who is the victim?








[edit on 23-3-2008 by C0le]

Well in this case I have to agree with the poster that said only htose looking for this would click the links.

Anyone who read the article and read the image that was posted needs to reread it.

The agent went to a forum offering a video of a four year old yes a four year old engaging in sexual activity with an adult male. It also says this “4yo hc with dad (toddler, some oral, some anal)”
All of the links pictured that had 4yo_suck in the link itself.

Any fool clicking that deserves their door kicked down. If you’re going to a forum that offers or discusses child porn than you are going to come across the links. I have never seen any forum that spoke of child porn and allowed links to stay if they were there for any other reason.

Sorry but you cannot miss that this was supposed to be child porn not a seventeen year old.

Raist

If you really want to know what is sick, look at what sentences people get for actually assaulting a chid and compair it with what people get for just looking at a picture on the internet.
Unless you are paying someone to abuse children and send you the video, I do not see where the crime is.
People have been arrested and brought to trial for looking at drawings of children. That finally went to federal appeals court and got struck down by a Clinton appoited Judge.
The authrities wanted to be able to prosicute people who created computer graphics that look like chidren.
Meanwhile people continue to molest children and get probation, while downloaders get prison.

reply to post by jmdewey60


If the images are real then a child somewhere is being abused.
Not being able to understand that is an assault to intelligence. On the other hand CGI type of images are not real there for no real crime was committed.

Downloading real images of children in a sexual manner is not only wrong but it is abuse to that child. Is there any question that the child is doing it because they are choosing to do so?

What child says “hey come here and take naked and sexual pictures of me”? Does anyone really believe that because it is a photo that it is not abuse? Someone somewhere is abusing that child, downloading the images only encourages the abuse even more.

I will agree though that child predators in general get low sentencing. But I have seen plenty of child porn cases that only got probation or a few months. While some predators that perform sex get 10 plus years (still a light sentence).

I worked with a person who is now in jail for having sex with a girl who was only a few years older than his daughters. The girl was 14 he was early 40s. He should have easily gotten more than that, but I guess the judge knows better.

Raist

Yeah we all know child porn is bad.

But what I would like to know is what if the Feds find out that it was another minor looking at the sites?

What would they do then?

I know some people are against the "catch a predator" show, but at least with that they are able to show intent, even if there is no victim.

This is a total rape of our rights.

As stated in the article, the address could have even been hotlinked in an email, with some innocuous message.

Furthermore, how do they prove who actually clicked the link? I know that I had roomates for a while, and we all shared the same computer.

Lastly, this is a perfect example of Big Brother moving the goal posts. Today its kiddie porn. Tomorrow they're busting down the door because you were looking at weapons, or a Canadian pharmacy.

[edit on 3/23/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by Bumr055

Everyone knows when the video ends that faster you get to the next page the better lol.. and I probably have a homo cookie or too to prove it:

That's messed up but reassuring.I'm always checking out hard core chicks doin anal,LOL. When cleaning my history found a homo pic and accused my son, LOL.

Time to go apologize and breath a sigh of relief.

reply to post by jackinthebox


As for hotlinks I never click any hotlink I do not right click first. Go to properties and get the URL you will be taken to. An example: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is where I would be taken when left clicking the U2U button under your post.

As for the other issue of telling who clicked the link. I would presume that they would investigate this much like in the article to see what other web sites had been visited or images downloaded. After all I know I have an alibi on my whereabouts, if I am at home and want to lie about that I would need a reliable alibi.

Getting an email from someone you do not know with a link in it and clicking it is pretty much asking for trouble though. If you are getting emails with links to child porn you need to be busted. If you have friends who would send this to you then one you need better friends, and two you could prove that it was sent to you by a friend through the HD of your PC. Maybe it is my lack of trust of others that keeps me from clicking anything I am not already familiar with without checking the links properties first. In the world today with ID theft and such, it is irresponsible not to do that.

This is not far from other sting operations though as these links are set up in areas that attack this type of person. Any one going to places that hold these links are probably being watched to start with. Others it would be seen as an anomaly.

There are three things that make up attempt (which is what happened to the guy in the article). They are intent to commit a crime, actions being taken to commit that crime, and failing to commit that crime. Intent in this case is most likely argued as the search for such links, the action would be clicking the link to find child porn, and of course the latter would be failing and seeing the page described in the article.


Raist

Doesn't this void the 4th and 5th amendment? No unreasonable search and seizure?

reply to post by TomProctor


Well, it's reasonable to suspect you're looking at kiddie porn if you click on a link deep within a forum.

This has such a great chance of being abused. That's where we all get ourselves in to trouble.

See, they take advantage of the emotional and controversial problems. They use our own emotion and anger against us.

An overwhelming majority are against, and are angered at, child pornography, and for very good and obvious reasons. But being against that does not mean you should support every measure to deal with it.

There are fake links, re-directs, fake videos, graphics that look like a video box such as the ones that I'm sure everyone has seen where it looks like a YouTube video, but is really a graphic that is a link that directs you to some website you don't want to go to.

The point is, people go to websites they don't want to go to all of the time because of how many ways there are that people can FORCE you on to their site. There are even pop-ups that randomly come up that, even if you CLOSE them, they send you to some unwanted site.

How do you even stop that?

I don't even support the "if you're browsing for x amount of time" suggestion because it still leaves everyone open to abuse of the law and system.

Again, people need to learn how to be for crack downs but against measures that go too far. This measure goes too far. People are too quick to accept any measures to deal with a problem they think needs to be dealt with, and they label anyone who disagrees with the measures as someone who supports the problem, i.e. whoever is against this likes looking at child porn.

It's unfair and it's very troublesome.

As a victim of pop-ups and re-directs to extremely unwanted sites, as I'm sure most of us have been at some point, it's worrying to say the least. There's no telling what they'll do to get people to these sites of theirs to meet their quota, as biggie smalls said in the beginning.

By the way, biggie smalls and apc, and a few others, great posts. Starred.

I found a video that sums up my objections to this FBI operation perfectly:

How Internet Links Can Be Decieving

I highly doubt the majority of people who've seen that video were actually looking for it, so who's to say that people won't go find these links and start posting them as "pranks?" What if you fell for such a prank? What if you were expecting a video about gardening and you got the FBI's fake child porn video, and a week later your door gets kicked in by the Feds?

Sure, they'll search your computer and all your belongings and (hopefull) find out that you're innocent. In the meantime, all the neighbors watched the FBI raid your house and you have the privilege of buying a new door.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I may be incorrect, but I recall seeing a segment on there, the guy had left his house, and drove by the street the "set-up" house was on, then turned around and drove back home. He was arrested. The thing I don't get is, yeah this guy had intent initially but apparently thought better of it and decided he was about to do something very bad and went back home. I never understood how they were able to arrest him for that one.

As far as links are concerned, I could easily see a hacker with a warped sense of humor getting the link information and posting it everywhere as something benign. I think it would make the FBI rethink their tactics a bit.