The FBI is soliciting nude pics of child porn and it is legal for them to do so????

Click here for more information.

reply to post by whatukno


You are correct. I should wait for verifiable facts before I pass judgement on what people say on ATS. I know better and I pesonally have never seen anything like what is in the op.

Originally posted by whatukno
Nevermind this is obviously just one of those NAMBLA defending threads made by people who think that child porn is ok and that finding people who use child porn or investigating crimes in this country is somehow wrong. I think it's sick, I think that getting people who trade in child pornography off the streets is a good thing but obviously my attitude is the minority in this thread. Seems like the majority in this thread think that it's just fine for these sickos to be watching this stuff and trading this stuff and they don't think that law enforcement should do anything about it.

I think you and I agree here, Wukky. We SHOULD get the people who display child porn off the street. That is why I believe the FBI should be abolished. They create a bureaucracy that is redundant with other agencies. And the fact that they display the reported 96% of child porn on the web speaks to exactly what kinds of operations these people are running.

Just like the misguided teen that was goaded into acquiring bomb parts by the FBI, who found him and convinced him to direct his anger into extremism (basically, creating an extremist from a angst ridden teen where ther was none previously), the FBI fails miserably at the "I" in their moniker. It should be "E". They don't investigate. They entrap.

Now...be a nice troll and head back to the bridge.

The FBI is supposed to be stopping child porn, not distributing it!

This is about the victims of a horrible crime. We are supposed to be trying to help victims of child abuse and stop there from being more victims in the future. Yup, we can definitely all agree on that one.

So, put yourself in the shoes of the victim. You are sexually abused as a child and some pervert takes pictures of you and stores them on his PC. He gets caught. It doesn't solve the painful emotional scars that you have to live with, but it helps.

Years later the FBI, who are supposed to protect you, release the same pictures that pervert took of you to other perverts on the internet. They download and redistribute those pictures of you all over the world to other perverts. Yeah maybe a few get caught, but there's no way to know how many of those horrible dirty people now have their hands on that image of you being abused.

How do you feel? Happy that those pictures are being looked at by God knows how many sick pervy paedos?

It's easy for some of you to say 'but we're stopping more paedos', 'we're saving more victims' but if you were the kid in that photo i can assure you that you would in NO WAY want those pictures getting distributed by the agency that is supposed to protect you. You've suffered enough abuse and emotional scarring without the thought of those pictures being sent worldwide again. I don't see how that is difficult to understand.

If the FBI got permission from the victims to use the photos in this way, then i have no issue with it. If the victim did not give permission then the FBI should be punished for distribution of child pornography in the same way as the perverts are.

It is just like the CIA with drugs, they put it out there. Child services has been caught more than once where they were involved in the production of child porn. You can argue that it is just some evil men at the bottom of the totem poles, but I beg to differ. No matter how many busts there are, there is always more to go around. How come? Because they want it out there! Unlike drugs though, producing it isn't victimless and all child porn is evidence of child abuse.

A couple quick notes before my comment:

This is going to be a VERY sloppy of a reply for a few reasons. First, I accidentally closed the message before posting it. So, I'm too frustrated to go into so much detail again. Secondly, I'm very tired right now, so I might have misread something. I am having trouble concentrating. Third, usually I would do fuller citations that would support what I say, but again, I'm too tired, so I am just going to reference the original article in question.

==============================================================

The title of this thread is misleading. The actions in question happened 26 to 24 years ago (" in January 1985, began an undercover operation targeting him. Twenty-six months after the mailings to the defendant commenced, Government investigators sent him a brochure.") The first conviction happened 23 years ago. It was appealed 21 years ago. Then, as I mention below, the final case decision was done 19 years ago.

So, not quite current events.

Additionally, you said "The FBI is soliciting nude pics of child porn and it is legal for them to do so????" Actually, no, it isn't legal for the FBI to do this. The courts overturned the conviction in 1992 because the courts ruled there was entrapment ("in 1992, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. United States(1) overturned a Federal child pornography conviction based on an entrapment defense")

So, while the issue is important, thre article you referenced was just talking about entrapment cases through the past few decades, and the Jacobson case was just used as an example.

(Again, sorry for how disjointed this is and the lack of decent citations, as well as any facts that I was just wrong about.)

reply to post by whatukno


I was not going to get involved in this thread, because it is always topics such as this that are so emotionally charged. However, as a sort of professional pride, I feel that I should correct a statement made by whatukno, so that people are not confused on the technical fact of the matter. This is not anything against him, it is simply to clarify for anyone who is not relatively familiar with web technology.

The quotation in question is cited under page 3, under the poster "whatukno". The quote is as follows:

Yea, and you would have had to prove to those news outlets something, that the pop up was unsolicited. Because after all, you don't get pop ups like this unless the computer you are at has cookies for similar kinds of websites.

My focus is on the second sentence of that statement. In essence, it's false. When you are playing a browser based game, regardless of genre and age range (it was mentioned it was a child's game), you are logged in with something called a session. These can be made from multiple different language packages, such as PHP, Ruby on Rails, JSP, or any other server side scripting. This is similar to a browser cookie, except the only thing stored browser side is a encrypted key with an expire time stamp. The actual session is stored in the host database and is used for user authentication and security.

Why is this important? Because games such as these usually have advertisements embedded in the web page. These are generally supplied by third party ad hosts, such as DoubleClick, Google, Kontera, ProjectWonderful, and the like. This means that the host site actually has no control over which ads are seen by the user (most of the time, some ad packages allow the publisher to ban ads from a campaign). And what do the _javascript in the ads use for user tracking? Right, sessions. Sessions based on IP helps determine which ads a user click, how many times it's seen a specific ad, and several other statistics that are collected. Usually, problem ads such as SPAM, scams, and pornographic material are only removed after they have been reported and investigated, leaving them to be exposed to quite a few people in the meantime. Not only this, but ad networks are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement, such as the FBI. These ads are not targeted because "the computer you are at has cookies for similar kinds of websites. ", as quoted. They are targeted by campaign, which is run by the site publisher. Meaning that, if indeed this ad was on the game in question (pop-ups are a type of ad, I must remind you), it had nothing to do with the people visiting the site, and was actually targeted to the site itself. Anyone playing that game would have access to the same ad, when it's rotation came up.

The implication through suggestion that the poster in question's machine had "visited similar sites" is completley based in speculation, and would not be proven through an ad campaign, that initially targets users at random. Even had the poster been looking at questionable material, you aren't going to find adsense on a kiddy porn site for the sessions to even propagate in the first place.


In know, I know, wall of text, I'm sorry. I just had to get that out before people started running around claiming "OMG YOU GOT A PORN AD, YOU MUST LOOK AT PORN A LOT". The technology doesn't work like that, even if most people don't understand it.

Yet again, whatukno, this was not a personal attack, just a clarification of provable fact.
I thank everyone in advance for understanding my position.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by agentblue

 

But these are pictures that they have already confiscated from cases they have already prosecuted, it's not like they are taking the pictures themselves, they aren't re traumatizing anyone unless they are forcing kids to view there own pictures.

Do you realize what you just said? You just said that as long as you did not create the image, it is okay for you to spread it around and allow for perverts to get off...That is what you just said...

Children who were raped and molested are traumatized...Having footage of their abuse posted online for pedophiles to see, further traumatize them....Each time such images are posted ( REGARDLESS OF WHO POSTS THEM FOR WHAT REASON) the child in that image is further traumatized... If you disagree, then quite frankly, you need to sit down and rethink your position on life

Really? You don't get it wuk.... Whether childporn is posted by a pedophile for other pedophiles to view or posted by law enforcement for pedophiles to view, the fact remains that child porn is being distributed and this is highly illegal for reasons even you can understand...

You sit there and act like there is only one way to catch pedophiles. You are wrong... There are legal ways to do it and if your mind is so closed, and you think it is okay for the FBI to DISTRIBUTE CHILD PORN ( This is what you are defending... An organization distributing childporn.... Yes... YOU are... Not the OP...YOU)

If you think it is some how okay to distribute child porn at all, then...Well,maybe you have a problem...

The fact is you can catch these perverts and arrest them, and it can be done in a legal way....

What else can I say? You sit there and continue to defend the distribution of child porn... The rest of us will talk rationally...

I never thought I would have to say that to you WUK, but you are so wrong...

Originally posted by agentblue

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by agentblue

 

There was a time in America where the gov't was expected to abide by its own laws. That is clearly no longer the case. What are you going to do about it?

I am gonna try my !@# off to get Ron paul elected! I believe he can steer us back to gov't accountability.I realize that the president does not have the great magical powers people think a POTUS has but he has more influence than a lot of other people do.

Newsflash my friend...
your vote means nothing, nor does anyone else's.
You can try and try and try, and 90% of americans could vote for him, and he still wouldnt win.
That is the reality of our 'system'.

So you/we are left with 2 choices..
Revolt....
or...
Revolt.

Originally posted by Ahmose

So you/we are left with 2 choices..
Revolt....
or...
Revolt.

Ah, but the reality is that the two choices that we have are going to be democrat or republican.

People in the US will never revolt, its too easy to keep the masses apathetic.

reply to post by whatukno


I absolutely agree. Ordinary people don't go looking for child porn and those who do should be arrested and sent to jail to prevent them from physically hurting a child.