True, you show as a hit to all 4 files, it is going to be pretty hard to pass that as accidental...

You should read the thread. I did post the definition. I am sorry, I did not look up the difference between US law and Canadian law, but since we are talking about the FBI, US law should suffice.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. They didn't. This is not entrapment, it is a sting.

It isn't like they don't know how to do this.

The thing is... how do you know someone else didn't do just that?

The goal isn't to get to know that someone most likely did something, but that he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt. In this particular case, clicking the link provides a perfect reason for seizing someone's computers and storage media, but without a decent amount of other evidence (e.g. a stash of cp), it's still a problematic case.

Nothing is going to convince you that the man isn't trying to keep you down, is there?

It's not just my "view", it's the current state of US law regarding Entrapment.

Nothing to do with "the man" keeping anyone down.

It's about running the risk of convicting innocent people, even when the chance of that happening is very small.

So you make up scenarios and avoid doing anything because someone might do something.

fuck.. thats crazy.. BUT it would work best if they did a full background check or investigate the people who click those links BEFORE they raid anybody's home.... However, I think... just a hunch here... that they might be getting more hits that they can possibly handle ...

From any perspective ... its scary shit...

I don't make up scenarios. Rather, I apply existing scenarios to this situation.

On 4chan, a while back, it was pretty popular to trick people into searching for "lolita" on a site which then produced a page that their illegal search had been recorded and that their information had been passed on to the FBI. At first, it was simply done by telling them to search for that site, later on people switched to url masking.

When honeypot links for the FBI were first mentioned in the news, quite a while back, there were hundreds of threads on 4chan hypothesizing about how best to find them and trick people into visiting them.

Some parts of the internet are filled with people who would consider it the ultimate prank to get a random stranger arrested for supposedly trying to download cp.

In cases like this, you HAVE to be aware of the fact that there are people out there who will abuse this if possible.

Just a few weeks ago, a kid got arrested over here for using his neighbors' unsecured wireless network to announce a school shooting. It was a "prank", of course. Had he known more about technology, his neighbors would be sitting in prison now because of his prank.

Yes and no they didnt:

'When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.'

Know what? If some sick fuck is willing to click a link claiming to have illegal shit, then fuck them!! Let them get what they fucking deserve for wanting to see whatever it was that they said it was

You raise very valid points and arguments, however that doesn't change the fact that the average "idiot" surfer might click on something because they say "Ahhh, NO WAY <click>" and then what ? Id guarantee, people seeing this on a regular forum (Not a pedophile forum) would assume it was some kinda joke, or link to something that's not actually child porn.

Lots of people are idiots, and curious... I don't see how this can be fair to the average 'tard, so many people could easily make this mistake. Not even taking into account those who find the link and change it's name.

Right now, you could change the link name, put it on a random forum in the "Off Topic" section with the post named "LOL :1orglaugh" with a few laughing smiley faces.. It'll get like, 50 clicks easy. And that's innocent people that could get screwed over from somebody else screwing with them (You know plenty of people would do something like that just for fun, we got a lot of sicko's around)

:2 cents:

VPN or proxy with Euro or Asian IP.

Problem solved.

Click away.

Actually I think they define entrapment as " convincing you to do something you would not NORMALLY do "

And as for no crime committed no law broken? Hell they convicted a man for murder and had NO BODY!

Is this link entrapment?...

http://www.break.com/geico/return-of-numa-numa-guy.html

like you really expect us to click that in lieu of this topic? :1orglaugh

I would NEVER EVER click a link that clearly advertises the content as CP. Not even in curiosity... those that do, well you need to get a morality check... and quick.

1. *.google.com -> go via tor
2. manually delete Google cookies once or twice a day to break the chain

Works for me. Google can GGF.

Wow, that would be a pretty hard document to call entrapment!

I remember they done these "honey pots" with hacking back in the old days. Setup a range of fbi computer with open ports, fake data, and let people hack their way in, it didn't take long till the hackers worked out the ip ranges the feds were using and then published them online, the funny thing is most of the honey pots would of probably been bots apart of a larger botnet setup on mum and dad pc's lol.

Yikes, just saw that 4yo image.

Yea, no getting out of that one. NO reason to click that shit.

Yet the idiots insist it is.

I still can't help wondering if their resources wouldn't be better used trying to infiltrate legitimate sites and producers of this stuff as opposed to fabricating the sties and picking up the scraps the way they do drug users as opposed to drug dealers (not that this is even a legit comparison).

I suspect they do both . . . just like they do with drugs and prostitution.

How do they define a "click"?
The IP is logged if some one is haplessly redirected..

Haha. Nice video. :thumbsup

Usa! Usa! Usa! Usa!

Use to be! Use to be! Use to be!

This is an example of the states going down hill.
It use to be that any one who even TALKED ABOUT thinking ch*ldren were sexy would be SHOT TO DEATH. Now, people can serve ten years at the push of a button? Yea, I hate ch*ld porn, and I think that this sounds dangerous as hell to innocent people.

Check out this awesome video:
http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh

well, baddog thinks when you arrest 100 people and 85 of them are actual pedos, then it's also justified to arrest those 15 innocent ones... and fuck up their family lifes or jobs...

Just as long as they log the referrer to avoid ppl getting 'pranked' into clicking that link, like that tiny url for instance. Busting real pedos, yea, fuck them. But busting innocent ppl that click on a tiny url and pretty much ruining their lives because some asstard thought it was funny, no.

If you've ever been rickrolled, then you've clicked on something that wasn't what you thought it was, which is pretty much every net user.

Fuck, I'm scared to click any tinyurls now. Even though I doubt you really linked to that shit. But still, you can't tell what's on the other side of that link unless you click it.

When I took a criminal law class, the professor taught it is better to have 100 guilty go free than a innocent man to be convicted of a crime .That has changed dramatically. its becoming more and more guilty until proven innocent.

The article states that there is no evidence that they logged the referrer.

Now, there is the issue of the two thumbnails. However, in the article it states that he visited a 4chan-related site. That means that in all likelihood, he also visited /b/ on 4chan. If you consider that trolls occasionally post cp there, and that IE automatically caches images, it's not very surprising that that would be on his computer. (note for the oblivious: no, 4chan is not a cp site - it's the second largest forum on the internet, with millions of visitors)

So, that leaves his ip in the logs of that FBI site. Url cloaking, iframes on a website or an insecure wireless connection could all explain that.

Now, is the guy actually guilty? Probably, yes. I'd say there's a 99% chance that he is guilty. What worries me, however, is the 1% chance that he isn't. If there was credible evidence on his HD, it would be different, but there wasn't. He got convicted based on two things, both of which could have happened without any criminal intent on his part.

A major problem in today's society is that judges, juries, law enforcement and attorneys are largely clueless when it comes to computers. A few months ago, I had the "pleasure" of explaining and showing Freenet to a professor specialized in IT law. He had never even heard of it before.