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

Except the search.

Except for having your computer taken away for weeks at a time while they analyze the hard drive.

Except having all your friends and coworkers say, "Hey, why did the FBI come asking about you the other day?"

The investigation is as damning as the trial and conviction.

Do you think the FBI is friggin psychic, and they just magically know why you went to the link before they've done a full scale investigation?

I hope on all hope that this happens to you, so you'll realize why it's a problem.

hey did anyone hear about David Copperfield got aressted a few months ago and they conficated his computer at a wearhouse he owned and took the computers out for child porn and you have never heard another word about it ????? Funny for one a man that famous youb think would raise hell if inocent but if guilty it would be splashed all over the news but nuhting wierd

reply to post by mattifikation



reply to post by Hypntick

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.

Well, it depends on what state they're in. Just talking on the internet can be a felony, he didn't even have to show up at all. Then there is the possibility that he might have seen something that tipped him off at the scene.

But I do see where you're coming from. It just doesn't feel right seeing a person go to prison after they decided to make the right decision.

Concerning the guy who turned around, it's possible that he did things during the chat that were illegal in and of themselves. A lot of those guys send dirty pictures of themselves and things of that nature.

I don't feel half as bad for the people who get busted on "To Catch a Predator."

It's one thing to click the wrong link on the internet, but nobody shows up naked at the wrong house with a bag full of booze and condoms....

So what we have here is the FBI using entrapment, self-incrimination and illegal search and seizure while pretending to distribute illegal child pornography, all to catch some people who may accidentally click on a link, and the masses welcome it with open arms.

What in the hell is society coming to? How does this line of thinking make any sense?

Bachelor made a good point earlier:

Originally posted by Bachelor
Actually...

It kind of makes you wonder who is more twisted... the pervs that are surfing for child porn, or the sick freaks who get their rocks off pretending to offer it to the pervs. And yes I think anyone is a sick freak who would pretend to offer child porn just to catch someone that's looking for it. It's voyeuristic, evil and cruel.

It's like offering a box of delicious krispy kreme doughnuts to a morbidly obese person just so you can get your kicks watching to see if they'll chow down or not.

100% agreed!

Viewing child pornography is disgusting. I agree. But I don't think it's any more wrong than pretending to distribute it all to ruin someone's life.

It's the lesser of two evils. If I had to choose between someone watching child pornography, and that person actually harming a child, I would choose them watching it.

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.

Let's focus on people that actually commit a crime and stop targeting people who curiously or stupidly wander on the Internet (which everyone does at some point).

I mean, this is basically like condoning lazy law enforcement. Tracking someone's IP is easier than tracking down real life pedophiles, so we're going to open our arms to this method, throwing curious or stupid Internet users in the same boat as serial rapists and pedophiles.

They clearly abuse people's emotions and stupidity to meet their own ends. And once again, people fall in line, willfully and ignorantly.

reply to post by chromatico

It's completely misguided to have any sympathy for pedophiles.

You are a bigot then. Pedophilia is not a crime, it is a mental illness. The same as dendrophilia, or any of the rest of these here.

Molesting a child is a crime. Molesting a pre-pubescent child should be met with castration upon the first offense.

What about this scenario, you work in an office, you hate your boss, you pack the job in, but still have a way of getting into the workplace and into the hated boss's room, you know what time the boss pops out, but you also know he does not have an alibi for this time, because he is a bit of a loner, and goes out the back way to sit by the river bank to have his lunch.
You log on his comp or he has a habbit of keeping it logged on, then you go on the faked fbi site, and bingo you have just got your boss jailed.

I know this sounds fanciful but also a bit possible with a few tweaks, what about so called mates who really hate your guts, their is nothing stopping them setting your comp up so it looks like its you that has logged onto these sites.

I am all for catching these perverts, but do not think this is the way.
As I think too many innocent people will be set up by others who hate them.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
any of the rest of these here.

MACOPHILIA: Arousal from the sight of a high-end Macintosh

SIDERODROMOPHILIA: Arousal from riding in trains.

TAPHEPHILIA: Arousal from being buried alive.

This is a joke, right? ...

....right...?

reply to post by jackinthebox


I said nothing about visiting a normal porn site as relating a person to being a pedophile, you insinuated that yourself. What meant though is that is you are frequenting sites that host such material it will show up on you PC.

As for the email thing, again this is relating to emails being sent by your request. Pretty much what I took away from the article. So if you are not requesting such links you should not have to worry about them. Again if you are handing out your email to someone you do not trust you’re setting yourself up as well. If you get a link that does not state it’s accurate content you still have the email bring it up in court and your off the hook, unless of course you visit child porn sites or have a bunch of it on your PC. If you are emailed such a link, forward it to your local authorities this should also be proof that you do not have intent to view such material.

If you just click any link sent you are setting yourself up for future trouble. You should always check links before clicking them, especially if the PC is not yours. I would hope you check someone’s car that you borrowed if it starts to act funny or makes odd sounds, it is called responsibility. Even though you do not store or believe you store info on your PC if you have ever put such information onto the internet at anytime it is stored on the PC you used to put it out there. You can delete anything you like but that does not make it go away forever. The only way to get rid of what has been placed on your PC is to completely destroy the hard drive. Someone with enough know how can dig up things you thought were long forgotten if not.

Raist

I hesitated to metion this given the tone of intolerance displayed on this thread, but I know a man who went to prison under somewhat similar circumstances.

He was a guidance counselor at a school, who donated an older computer he had. Somehow, someone found that the computer had visited an illegal site of the sort we have been discussing here. No downloads, no multiple searches or anything like that.

He admitted that he had clicked on a few pics and left the site, never to return. I honestly believe, as do his children who are in their late teens now, that he did so in a manner consistent with his explanation. He had heard about child pornography, and working with children, was concerned and curious about its proliferation. He stated first that he did not know it was actually illegal to access it on the internet at the time. And secondly, that he did not actually believe it would be that easy to locate and view. So he was quite shocked when the link actually delivered such material. He thought that would be the end of the story.

In another case that happened in Westchester County, if I remember correctly, there was an Police Officer who was arrested for downloading illegal images. He had actually worked on a squad specifically tasked with taking down traffikers of such materials. His downloads however, had been made after he left the squad and at his home. He too admitted what he had done, but had a different explanation. He claimed that he never would have actually touched or even spoken to a victim on the internet, but became obsessed with the images, after having seen them so much in his work. There was a line that seems to fit here, from the movie 8mm..."There are some things you can't un-see."

I would just like to say that I would rather authorities focus more on enticing would - be pedophiles that are looking to actually meet up to have sexual relations with a child, rather than raiding someone's house over pictures.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
HA HA, YOU GOT ME. I was sidetracked talking w/my son then I saw Proof the Gov behind 911 and opened the link.

Just waiting for my door to get kicked in. Good one.What a schmuck I am. LOL

reply to post by Raist

I said nothing about visiting a normal porn site as relating a person to being a pedophile, you insinuated that yourself.

I was mistaken then, that you were in fact alluding to that.

What meant though is that is you are frequenting sites that host such material it will show up on you PC.

I don't know how far you would have to go into the internet red-light district to find illegal material, but I am sure people end up on sites that they certainly have no interest in, or at least has content that is far from what they are looking for.

As for the email thing, again this is relating to emails being sent by your request.

I do not see such a differentiation made explicit in the method of law-enforcement being dicussed here. You only assume this to be the case.

So if you are not requesting such links you should not have to worry about them.

You may not be convicted, but that won't stop them from pounding in your front door and ripping you and your (naked-if you sleep that way) spouse out of bed and pounding you into the floor in front of your children. The telling you to tell it to the judge. Maybe you'll get you job back a year later when you finally get your say in court.

Again if you are handing out your email to someone you do not trust you’re setting yourself up as well.

I have several different email adresses for different purposes, and one in particular is quite public.

If you just click any link sent you are setting yourself up for future trouble. You should always check links before clicking them, especially if the PC is not yours.

And if I don't, I should go to prison. Or better yet, if I don't, you should go to prison because I was on your computer checking my mail?

I would hope you check someone’s car that you borrowed if it starts to act funny or makes odd sounds, it is called responsibility.

Complete opposite. I would do that for my own safety. That doesn't mean if a shopping cart hit it in the parking lot I would tell them.

Even though you do not store or believe you store info on your PC if you have ever put such information onto the internet at anytime it is stored on the PC you used to put it out there.

Agreed. I change passwords often.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Actually, no. I knew a literal tree-hugger actually. Actually two. Yes, they liked to have sex with trees, and involve trees in their direct relations to eachother.

EDIT to add: And the train one too actually. An ex of mine had a thing for trains, and always wanted to have sex with me while we were riding.





[edit on 3/23/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by 19DCW71


Yep. It's that easy.

I'm not saying they would necessarily hide it under a "9/11 INSIDE JOB!!" link, but for those who don't get it, my point was basically that a hyperlink can take you somewhere completely different than what it says. Someone can simply make it say something to entice people, when in reality, it just takes you to a site like a porn site.

The FBI may or may not do that, but I suspect hackers, if they get the URL, will definitely do that.

[edit on 3/23/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Jackinthebox,

I understand what you and others are suggesting can happen by using this. But I would also like to mention that there are innocent people in jail now. At this same time there are innocent people getting out of jail. Just because a person gets sent to jail does not mean their case ends right there. I am not condoning the jailing of innocent people nor am I trying to make it less than it is. In the cases of computers though it is easier to prove guilt or innocence than some other crimes. Computers do not forget, unless the hard drive is destroyed. Finding out who was on the computer should not be difficult either. As you mentioned earlier with friends over, you will find out what date/s the site was accessed on. At that point you mention your friend was over and he gets questioned also. Proper questioning will make finding which of the two of you is guilty much easier. When it comes to wireless networks you still have a specific IP assigned to your PC. I have three computers in my home and all can be traced down to a certain PC, if there is a number that does not match my computers it simply is not mine. The majority of the number may be the same but they are different. Also depending on the site and your computers antivirus they could easily take a look at your computer’s hard drive for all the evidence they need before ever coming to your home. If you have heard of or used a P2P program you know this. No PC is safe from someone wanting to get in but they can be protected well.

I am simply saying that this is not far different from many other sting operations out there. Innocence can be easier to prove as long as there are not multiple hits on your PC of child porn. I am not going to argue about the person you know but that seems as if there might have been more on the PC than is being let on. Also I have heard others state they were “researching” the issue and clicked the wrong thing. Question is though why went he got to the site did he click on “a few pics”? Most people would not click on any pics if they came to such a site. Simply by clicking on the images he placed himself in a bad situation. Had he went to the site and closed it out without clicking on the images he would have been better off, less chance of them showing intent in his case. Also when you visit a site it is downloaded onto your PC the same is true for images. That is how you have a history on your PC; this can be deleted but also recovered as well. Now had he found the sites and reported them to the police at that time and explained the situation things would not have come to that more than likely. Though he might have had more difficulty explaining things to the school.

Again your hard drive can prove everything you have ever done on your PC if the right person gets hold of it. Again the intent of the crime would show that one actively perused child porn, in more than just clicking the FBI link. They do after all have to prove that you intended to view child porn, actively perused child porn by searching for it, and either succeeded in the crime of failed. Succeeding in the crime speaks for itself, failing is attempt.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


Yes, but it should be irrelevant. Setting up links like that is entrapment. How can you tell if it fits into that category?

A person can claim entrapment if the crime they committed may not have happened if the "trap" was not set.

So for these people, it would be very easy for them to claim entrapment. Any subsequent evidence found should be dismissed, as the original charge and warrent should be void due to the previous faux pas.

Even if more porn is found during the raid, it should not hurt the defendant's case. Any evidence found should be removed, so it could not be used to prove that the defendant would have searched for child porn without the FBI link there.

I am all for catching perverts, but we cannot allow our police to set up stings like this and then raid our houses based on it. It would be abused in the name of catching a few bad guys.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by jackinthebox


If you borrowed my car and a cart hit it leaving a scratch or dent and you didn’t tell me I would be expectedly mad and I would be asking you to pay for the damage. To not tell someone what you are planning to do or have done with their property is nothing more than rude.

I allude to the asking for such emails to be sent by the FBI because they are not going to just send them for no reason. And if I got an email from the FBI without expecting one I would be highly suspicious of it being a fraudulent email and delete it. Again I think heavily about the safety of myself and also my computer.
When they drag me out and fail to prove that I am criminal and they have caused some form of harm in my life they will face a lawsuit and I am sure it would be easy to find civil rights groups to back that lawsuit if their evidence was not valid.

Also no one gets on my computer without my knowing what they are doing on it to begin with. This goes again with protecting my computer and me.

Raist

Originally posted by dgtempe
THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK

I am very much against child porn. I love to hear cops and feds cracking down on them! God, much much better then tasing people! But.. as was said...

Just because someone clicks on a child porn link does not mean they meant to

I wonder exactly how they are doing these links?

If there is a chance someone could do it on accident. Wow would it suck to have the feds, or cops, storm your house!

You should have seen what i saw when i clicked on Google images the other day looking for an "attractive Brunette" avatar!!!!!

:

Hey I would have supplied it!

reply to post by Sublime620


It is hard to call it entrapment when this was set up on a forum for this sort of thing and the link was clearly labeled with 4yo_sucking in it. Not to mention that the post it was located in clearly says the links are about a 4 year old and adult male with toddler, some oral and some anal.

Tell me how you consider that entrapment. The only ones wanting to commit such a crime would be those with the intent to do so because they were clearly labeled. If they were not labeled the intent could not be proven. The site or email such a link came from would show if it were clearly labeled bringing up the proof or lack thereof of intent.

They cannot prove intent if the link does not state clearly so that anyone could tell. But when a link states 4yo_sucking it seems pretty clear.


With the information given this is no different than any other sting used to catch criminals. The link is labeled clearly, those clicking such a link are looking for what is at the end of the link. If I go to buy drugs and find a guy selling “drugs” I then hand over money and get busted I have done the same thing this link offered. It was labeled clearly/so was the drug dealer, the link was clicked/money got handed over, the FBI comes to your house/I get busted for buying drugs.

If they could prove the link was not labeled properly (which is easy to do with the computer hard drive) they could claim entrapment. If it is labeled it is like walking into a house labeled “crack house” and not expecting it to be just that.

Raist


[edit on 3/23/08 by Raist]