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.