Originally Posted by The Seduction of Art (Post 15683059)

Seems like a lot of potential for abuse. Someone could get the URL and then post it on boards in a text link as something else just to fuck people up.

Originally Posted by $5 submissions (Post 15683052)

Entrapment is legally defined as CREATING crimes when no predisposition (no previous intent) exists. Setting up a trap to snag those with a predisposition to commit certain crimes have been ruled time and time again to fall outside of the legal definition of entrapment. See http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment

Entrapment = setting up automatic popup windows or automatic downloads of illegal materials without the surfer's knowledge or awareness

Not entrapment = facts of this case

Originally Posted by $5 submissions (Post 15683052)

Entrapment is legally defined as CREATING crimes when no predisposition (no previous intent) exists. Setting up a trap to snag those with a predisposition to commit certain crimes have been ruled time and time again to fall outside of the legal definition of entrapment. See http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment

Entrapment = setting up automatic popup windows or automatic downloads of illegal materials without the surfer's knowledge or awareness

Not entrapment = facts of this case

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat (Post 15682602)

this is actually not a bad thing... some weirdo who will talk to a 13 year old girl and then agree to meet her on a date, is most likely a ped0 and a danger to the society

Originally Posted by $5 submissions (Post 15683052)

Entrapment is legally defined as CREATING crimes when no predisposition (no previous intent) exists.

Originally Posted by Matt 26z (Post 15683419)

Which is why judges started throwing out the cases of men featured on that Dateline show. The decoys were saying anything they could to talk the men into coming.

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 15682587)

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.

Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes "attempts" to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.

The implications of the FBI's hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography--and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages. The bureau could register the "unlawfulimages.com" domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on.

"The evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Vosburgh specifically intended to download child pornography, a necessary element of any 'attempt' offense," Vosburgh's attorney, Anna Durbin of Ardmore, Penn., wrote in a court filing that is attempting to overturn the jury verdict before her client is sentenced.

In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, Durbin added: "I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they've brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this."

Durbin did not want to be interviewed more extensively about the case because it is still pending; she's waiting for U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage to rule on her motion. Unless he agrees with her and overturns the jury verdict, Vosburgh--who has no prior criminal record--will be required to register as a sex offender for 15 years and will be effectively barred from continuing his work as a college instructor after his prison sentence ends.

How the hyperlink sting operation worked
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical" activity.

In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic."

more at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-98...?tag=nefd.lede

Originally Posted by bdld (Post 15683556)

if they were posting the links in pedo forums then sure it's a brilliant idea. it's not like they spammed peoples emails randomly. you only went to the sites if you were already doing something illegal, this was just a way to catch them.

Originally Posted by woj (Post 15682814)

I don't know all the details, but the guy was probably hanging out on some cp forum, he clicked a clearly labeled link, etc
you don't accidentally go to a cp forum and accidentally start downloading a 100MB file...

These guys are not stupid, obviously they set it up in a way that makes sense...

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 15682601)

As long as there is profit in convicting people of crimes this shit will continue and get worse.

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 15683569)

The problem it really doesnt say it was a pedo forum its vague at best.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15683614)

So when in doubt, take the side of the pedo.

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 15683630)

You have to get a hobby or a girlfriend really.Its like you are just trying to pick fights this helps your business how? I always thought it was innocent until proven guilty. Didnt they teach that when you went to school?

Originally Posted by Ozarkz (Post 15683645)

It was NOT just porn forums or known pedo hangouts that were targeted.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15683614)

So when in doubt, take the side of the pedo.

Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 15683700)

Those saying this is entrapment, it's no more entrapment than police dressing up as hookers to catch johns.

Originally Posted by jakethedog (Post 15683386)

I...... hell for what ever your country finds illegal ..

Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 15683700)

Those saying this is entrapment, it's no more entrapment than police dressing up as hookers to catch johns. As harsh as this may be (and I agree some people doing much more heinous shit get off way too easy), it's only BETTER for porn as a whole if CP is killed as much as possible. They obviously have to be able to really control this though - someone posting the link somewhere where they hate everyone or emailing the link to someone they hate, etc...could really be abused if the FBI doesn't have strict guidelines to ensure they're only catching people that are for sure looking to get CP.

Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat (Post 15683736)

I agree with you to a point. But this is a link, links make their way around. How do they know what lead up to that link getting clicked, they don't. Say someone rolled up and clicked this link, whatever happens and they move on with their life. 2 weeks later the cops are kicking down their door charging them with intent to possess kiddie porn. He tells them his story of how he didn't know he just clicked a link, he has no clue whats going on. The feds slam his face into the floor, rough him up a little say "Sure, whatever, likely story you sick fuck" and he's labeled a pedophile and sex offender for life. This guy's life is destroyed over a link he clicked somewhere. Who the fuck knows and how do they differentiate? There's way too many possibilities for innocent idiots to get caught up in a shitstorm here. It's like a cop dressing as a hooker, and indiscriminately charging any guy who talks to her, even if it's to ask her for directions...

I stand by the methods they've been using. I believe they need more funding and more manpower, not lazier inefficient ways to go about doing their job. Reallocate funding from somewhere else to fund these task forces. How many thousands of law enforcement officers do you think are dedicated to fighting the war on drugs, which is going nowhere. How many millions of dollars are spent trying to keep mostly harmless stoners down, while we could be putting those funds towards fighting REAL CRIME.

Fact is, that this is an international problem, and in order to fight it effectively, in needs to be fought as a joint international effort. Until an true international effort is set forth, many of the worst criminals are going to be able to use the borders as protection. Especially the ones who PROFIT from the distribution...

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 15683630)

I always thought it was innocent until proven guilty.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15683770)

I was not talking about the trial, I was and have been discussing whether or not it is entrapment. It isn't. The cops are not wasting resources setting up shit that is going to nab some innocent grandmother that accidentally clicked a link on some coupon forum she frequents.

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 15683763)

Well said :thumbsup

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15683770)

I was not talking about the trial, I was and have been discussing whether or not it is entrapment. It isn't. The cops are not wasting resources setting up shit that is going to nab some innocent grandmother that accidentally clicked a link on some coupon forum she frequents.

Originally Posted by StarkReality (Post 15683845)

Absolutely right and I highly doubt that anyone will be convicted for clicking a link if there are no other charges...but if someone destroys his harddrives when the cops arrive and there are even two CP thumbs found, it's more than obvious that this person isn't innocent.

Innocent people don't destroy any data storage devices when the FBI arrives, because they have nothing to hide...they don't have CP thumbs on their computers, because they don't surf on sites with CP. Basic common sense.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15682706)

Name one instance where someone was arrested merely for talking to a child on the Internet.

As far as entrapment is concerned, it would probably help if you had a clue what the legal definition of entrapment is. "entrapment occurs whenever a police officer or other government agent deceives an innocent person into committing a crime he or she had no prior intention of committing."

Obviously if the clicked the link, they had the intention.

Originally Posted by StarkReality (Post 15683845)

...they don't have CP thumbs on their computers, because they don't surf on sites with CP. Basic common sense.

Originally Posted by d-null (Post 15683931)

this part of the so called "common sense" needs to be careful, because I would bet there are millions of unsuspecting and totally innocent internet users out there that have questionable thumbs in their IE cache (which one can assume was where they found this guy's thumbs), even from surfing around on music or martial arts or funny video sites etc. from around the world..... do you doubt that there could be a topless 17 year old girlfriend site thumb on some Russian music sharing forum that you might casually surf past and not even take notice the thumbnail that IE automatically caches on your hard drive? better stay away from any anon chan type forum too because some anonymous person might post a pic of their girlfriend and your computer is going to cache the thumb on your hard drive just by opening the main page at the wrong time even if you don't click on it or even open the thread, yet if they seize your computer for any reason they will find that thumb and possibly use it against you even if the original reason they seized your computer turned out to be bogus

Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat (Post 15683736)

I agree with you to a point. But this is a link, links make their way around. How do they know what lead up to that link getting clicked, they don't. Say someone rolled up and clicked this link, whatever happens and they move on with their life. 2 weeks later the cops are kicking down their door charging them with intent to possess kiddie porn. He tells them his story of how he didn't know he just clicked a link, he has no clue whats going on. The feds slam his face into the floor, rough him up a little say "Sure, whatever, likely story you sick fuck" and he's labeled a pedophile and sex offender for life. This guy's life is destroyed over a link he clicked somewhere. Who the fuck knows and how do they differentiate? There's way too many possibilities for innocent idiots to get caught up in a shitstorm here. It's like a cop dressing as a hooker, and indiscriminately charging any guy who talks to her, even if it's to ask her for directions...

I stand by the methods they've been using. I believe they need more funding and more manpower, not lazier inefficient ways to go about doing their job. Reallocate funding from somewhere else to fund these task forces. How many thousands of law enforcement officers do you think are dedicated to fighting the war on drugs, which is going nowhere. How many millions of dollars are spent trying to keep mostly harmless stoners down, while we could be putting those funds towards fighting REAL CRIME.

Fact is, that this is an international problem, and in order to fight it effectively, in needs to be fought as a joint international effort. Until an true international effort is set forth, many of the worst criminals are going to be able to use the borders as protection. Especially the ones who PROFIT from the distribution...

Originally Posted by $5 submissions (Post 15683052)

Entrapment is legally defined as CREATING crimes when no predisposition (no previous intent) exists. Setting up a trap to snag those with a predisposition to commit certain crimes have been ruled time and time again to fall outside of the legal definition of entrapment. See http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment

Entrapment = setting up automatic popup windows or automatic downloads of illegal materials without the surfer's knowledge or awareness

Not entrapment = facts of this case

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 15683980)

Visit one of the many huge sites featuring that sponsor's ads using IE, and you now have "cp" on your computer.

Originally Posted by NOTR (Post 15683993)

Do you really think the FBI will go after any random person that clicks on the link? You don't think they check referrer logs to see if it actually came from the pedo forums they were targeting?

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15684025)

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15684025)

Pretend you have a clue. CP stings are not targeting those looking at 17 year olds.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15683770)

I was not talking about the trial, I was and have been discussing whether or not it is entrapment. It isn't. The cops are not wasting resources setting up shit that is going to nab some innocent grandmother that accidentally clicked a link on some coupon forum she frequents.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15684025)

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20080319/fbi2.jpg

Yeah, I can see how someone that was just "curious" might have accidentally clicked that. How many boards do you hang out at that a thread with that topic would have lasted more than five minutes.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 15684025)

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20080319/fbi2.jpg

Yeah, I can see how someone that was just "curious" might have accidentally clicked that. How many boards do you hang out at that a thread with that topic would have lasted more than five minutes.



Pretend you have a clue. CP stings are not targeting those looking at 17 year olds.



Stop with the logic.