FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects

[Mugu]

The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.

Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.

A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who's using an open wireless connection--and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.

Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.


Read complete article at:
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nefd.lede

[SteppingRazor]

1. Man, I hate to seem like I'm coming down on the side of kiddie-porn users, but...

this is wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.

[wtmusic]

9. Right here at DU we have many who are ready to lynch them

or brand them for life, and wouldn't bat an eye at these fucked-up baiting tactics.

Let's hire hookers to solicit unaware politicans and see how far that gets.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Send the link to Moral Majority types and ask them to verify just how bad...

the sinful Internet has become.

:evilgrin:

[TheWraith]

21. Yeah... this is illegal in so many ways that it's not even funny.

The irony is that any competant defense attorney will point out that clicking on a link in no way rises to the level of probable cause. So even if they manage to find any people with actual child porn--which is a long shot--they'll end up having the case dismissed because of the illegal search.

Fucking morons.

[Richard Steele]

2. That is the very definition of "entrapment". Too bad our Constitution is a thing of the past. nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. What specifically does the Constitution say about entrapment?

:shrug:

[Richard Steele]

12. If you look close at the fine print, it says "Bite me, Freddie, you worthless contrarian."

nm

[flvegan]

13. .

:spray:

[orleans]

40. link? n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Due process clause of the Fourth Amendment ring any bells?

[Oeditpus Rex]

17. No, it isn't

The definition of "entrapment" is influence or coercion by law enforcement to induce someone to commit a crime that they would not have committed without said influence or coercion.

Logic dictates that someone who clicks a link to something they know is illegal would have done so no matter how the link got there.

It's sneaky as hell, but it ain't entrapment.

[TheWraith]

22. Entrapment is irrelevant. Probable cause is the issue.

Clicking on a link which purports illegal activity is a far cry from having the level of evidence required to get a search warrant.

[XemaSab]

35. So if you are surfing porn

and you see a website that says "Barely legal!" do you pause to think about the ages of the models?

Or there's lots of stuff out there with girls who look REALLY young but are 18....

All you have to go on is the word of the sleazy porn provider that the girls are legal anyways. :shrug:

[Oeditpus Rex]

36. Porn...?

:shrug:

[Occulus]

43. OH yes it is- or could be...

I posted this in the LBN thread. Maybe it deserves its own thread.

Google is an amazing search engine- hell, we now use it right here at DU- and I'm guessing the search terms on the FBI sites will come up if one performs a Google search including those terms. I'm also willing to put money on not every last single possible search term that will bring those FBI sites in Google being sexually-related. Some of the words that cause these sites to appear in Google are, surely, common use words not related to sex.

But here's the thing: there's an extension for Firefox which brings up a preview window of the link in question simply by mousing over the link. Obviously, this creates a hit on the previewed page.

In other words, if the FBI site does in fact come up when performing an innocent search- and I can and will believe they were careful to disallow that as much as possible, but accidents do happen- and you have a preview window extension installed (which a lot of people do)... it's very possible that someone could get "busted" by the FBI without ever actually clicking anything and, in fact, while searching for something other than child pornography.

Mousing over a malicious link isn't far-fetched at all. That's why we should be concerned about entrapment on this.

[Richard Steele]

45. Let me propose a metaphor for ya:

You are in a poorly organized, very crowded book store.
Although the books on the shelves are attempting to maintain
some sort of order, they are fighting a losing battle against
the random piles of books which choke every walkway.

As you wander through, your eye catches a glimpse of a large
cardboard box which someone has labeled "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY"
in very large letters.

You think to yourself, "Kiddie porn? No way! That label can't possibly be true!"
You lean over to look into the box, but the moment your hand
touches it, men with badges leap from the shadows
and place you in handcuffs.

They inform you that they box was empty, and that -THEY- labeled it
and placed it there. And that you are now a "sex offender", and will be
so regarded until the end of your days.



"Influence" doesn't even begin to describe what they did.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Holy shit. Have they considered posting links professing the start of illegal wars?

I'd sure like to see them arrest a few people with that tendency.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. entrap much? Duh. n/t

[flvegan]

6. Sue them for false advertising!!1! Yeah, kidding.

Seriously though, this seems a little...extreme. If there really is THAT much illegal porn out there, it seems like it shouldn't be all that hard to track down who's uploading/downloading it.

[lame54]

7. How many senators and governors have they gotten?

[izquierdista]

8. A winner all the way around!

1) The accused has no way to weasel out, for it is only conspiracy to commit a thought crime.

2) The prosecutor can extract maximum leverage to get a plea deal for only several years and a lifetime on a database somewhere.

3) Corrections Corporation of America gets another body that it can bill the government to look after.

I don't think I will surf the net at all the next time I visit the US.

[DJ13]

10. My question would be, does the FBI actually post child porn to get repeated hits?

If so, THEY are peddling child pornography.

[Richard Steele]

15. They have done so in the past.

Not in this case...but there have been cases where they
arrested folks running kiddie-porn websites, then continued
to maintain & operate the sites to lure in new suspects.

So, yeah- the FBI has occasionally used your tax dollars to distribute kiddie-porn.

[Mugu]

19. Why would the authorities care about kittie porn?

[Johonny]

16. I don't think so

That's why they raid the homes. The belief being that the person who clicks on the link is the kind of person that is likely to have some child porn.

[NNN0LHI]

11. This one always bothered me

If someone gets a choice of clicking on one link that says Good looking young babes here, and another link that says Not so hot old dames here, which one is the guy going to click on?

Don

[orleans]

41. but what if it's not so general--and i'm thinking it wouldn't be so general

what if the link says you'll be redirected to a site with kids 7 and younger?

it is probably specific enough to zero in on those p.files. because those are the freaks that are the most important to be caught.

[lpbk2713]

18. The FBI must be one of the biggest porn suppliers in the world.

With all these stings they work.

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Isn't that a bit like rick-rolling?

and then arresting the people who get rick-rolled?

[BlooInBloo]

23. Except that kiddie porn bears no resemblance whatsoever to Rickey Astley, yah.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. So if I do this:

Hot underage minors here!11!1:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

And you click on it, is that committing a crime?

[BlooInBloo]

25. I dunno. But kiddie porn still bears no resemblance whatsoever to Rickey Astley.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Well there's no kiddie porn actually involved.

Like it says in the OP, there isn't any kiddie porn at the FBI link.

[Pavulon]

33. And no one gets a half and half from a cop in a mini skirt

but you are still fucked for trying. Rightly so.

Kiddie porn bastards are scum and deserve what they get.

[FlyingSquirrel]

46. Good one. (I didn't click on it though)

Anyway that's not necessarily the crime, they're not gonna book 'em for clicking on that link. They're gonna search their computer to see whether they have a pattern of clicking on such links and have illegal stuff on their computer.

I still think it's a bit ..... scary.

In reality they need to spend more time focusing on the people CREATING the stuff. They're going about this the same way as the Drug War and having probably about the same effect. You get a few low-level punks and nothing changes.

[Uncle Joe]

27. I received an e--mail which I deleted without ever clicking on it, but it said

something to the effect of "watch me get off". I never clicked on it so I have no idea whether this was an adult or a minor, so I can't help but wonder whether these entrapment links explain that to the person clicking on the link.

One other point it seems to me the FBI by taking this strategy is in effect advertising kiddie porn and as such is guilty of promoting child pornography.

[Nutmegger]

28. Really sad

And because it deals with unsavory subjects, to put it nicely, the Constitutionality issues go out the window because if you dare question this then you are a "pedo-defender".

This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[Matariki]

29. A couple friends of mine had an idea

to create ads that said stuff like 'totally nude pics of youngest babes on the web' and 'hot mother/daughter action' with links that led to ultrasound photos.

[hunter]

30. Heh.

Don't click this:

Playground Playmates!!! You won't believe how far they will go...

:wow:

[varkam]

31. I do not think that this is entrapment.

The FBI agents posted the links onto a site where they believed there was traffic in child pornography. The links were also clearly identified as depicting sexual activity between a minor (a 4 year old) and an adult male. Being that this link was already placed on a site where this wouldn't be out of place, it is reasonable to assume that anyone who clicks on that link which is hosted on this particular website is looking for illegal material. It would be different, in my mind, if the FBI sent out unsolicited e-mails to people advertising child pornography.

The thing that I don't agree with, though, is making clicking a hyperlink a crime. If someone has their browser set to not display images or videos, then one could click on that link without viewing such material - though they would still be guilty of a crime (the only reason that springs to mind is a book I read by a social scientist who researced these communities and turned off his browser's ability to display images in order not to violate the law).

[wtmusic]

38. The legal definition is blurry

"A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Is "inducement" the same as providing a "favorable opportunity"? Where do you draw the line? At best this is an unethical tactic by self-righteous crusaders.

[varkam]

39. On that definition, this does not rise to the level of entrapment.

"A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

I think that it would be hard to argue that people who were visiting this site had no previous intent to commit a crime involving child pornography, given that it seems that such trafficking took place on this site on (presumably) a regular basis. If someone is browsing a porn site, then it is reasonable to assume that their intention is to view that material for purely prurient interests (though it is notable that the intent of why one chooses to access these things is immaterial to the law).

To answer your question, though, I do not think inducement is the same thing as providing a favorable opportunity. With inducement, there is no prior intent to commit a crime. That intent is produced via the actions of the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer). With a "favorable opportunity" though, the intent is already present - the LEO is just making it easier for the suspect to commit (or attempt to commit) the crime.

I agree that it is a rather blurry concept, but the key (for me anyway) is whether or not the intent was present prior to the actions of the LEO. In this case, it appears to me that intent was indeed present.

[wtmusic]

42. Devil's advocate

What if this person as an ex-pedophile (yes there are some) had found a suitable replacement in "traditional" (legal) pornography then came across this link? I don't see how that could possibly not come across as inducement. What if someone who never had any inclination toward kiddie porn came across this link and clicked out of curiosity? No prior intent.

There are many reasons why, though we need to protect our kids, this tack is unethical and IMO illegal.

[varkam]

44. Then the question that I would have...

is what is an ex-pedophile doing cruising around a site that traffics child pornography? Given that the site's function appears to be for users to meet and swap child pornography, I'd think that hanging around such a site could demonstrate intent.

Your second case is more interesting, I think. What if someone who has never viewed child pornography gets a link to this site from a friend, decides to visit it, and out of sheer morbid curiosity clicks the link? I'm not sure - perhaps that could be viewed as entrapment. And perhaps the FBI might not prosecute the case, since a search of this person's computer wouldn't turn up much.

I'm not taking the stance that I think this is necessarily a worthwhile endeavor for the FBI, and I think there are perhaps better ways of protecting children than this.

[Wizard777]

49. But there is no crime. No kiddie porn is involved.

They have to set a bike or car out for you to steal if they are going to charge you with the theft. They have to sell you crack and not a piece of wax if they are going to charge you with buying crack. I thought a Judge had already ruled in dateline like police internet stings. That if no minor is involved in the online conversation. Their is no crime. What this calls for is called legal fiction. IF the link would have displayed or downloaded kiddie porn they would have been breaking the law. The facts of the matter is that it doesn't and they didn't. They really hate that word "IF" in court. At best they MIGHT have them on conspiracy to possess kiddie porn.

[Mugu]

32. Kick for the nighttime crowd. n/t

[XemaSab]

34. That's total entrapment

:(

[riverdeep]

37. What does Pete Townshend think of this?

Seriously, though, this is not right. I hate peds, but clicking shouldn't be a crime. I can imagine some teenagers clicking for the hell of it, and the parent getting a face-full of asphalt at 7 in the morning.

[Norrin Radd]

47. A prank tinyurl.com link could ruin someone's life...

[Wizard777]

50. Or that link is used in an auto downloader. It forwards you to the FBI site.

You really have little or no control over that.