FBI Posts Fake Hyperlinks To Trap Downloaders of Illegal Porn 767
mytrip brings us a story from news.com about an FBI operation in which agents posted hyperlinks which advertised child pornography, recorded the IP addresses of people who clicked the links, and then tracked them down and raided their homes. The article contains a fairly detailed description of how the operation progressed, and it raises questions about the legality and reliability of getting people to click "unlawful" hyperlinks. Quoting:
"With the logs revealing those allegedly incriminating IP addresses in hand, the FBI sent administrative subpoenas to the relevant Internet service provider to learn the identity of the person whose name was on the account--and then obtained search warrants for dawn raids. The search warrants authorized FBI agents to seize and remove any "computer-related" equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any "addressed correspondence" sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements, and credit card statements. While it might seem that merely clicking on a link wouldn't be enough to justify a search warrant, courts have ruled otherwise. On March 6, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Nevada agreed with a magistrate judge that the hyperlink-sting operation constituted sufficient probable cause to justify giving the FBI its search warrant."
Re:Entrapment? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Entrapment? (Score:4, Informative)
Not that that is my personal opinion, but the article points out that lawyers have said that this almost certainly is not entrapment. Apparently, the fbi is safe behind the argument that you clicked the link under your own will without unreasonable pressure from the government.
Re:Stating the obvious problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stating the obvious problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I could conduct stings for the fbi (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Entrapment? (Score:5, Informative)
There is absolutely NO repercussions to a judge who authorizes a search warrant on shoddy evidence. Law enforcement can literally *lie* to get the warrant and, even if you can prove they were lying, there isn't a venue to file your complaint. Even if they cause damage to your property, you can't sue... they had a valid warrant. About the only people you *can* file your complaint with is the FBI.. who will action it, around the 4th of never.
Re:the problem is ... he was into child porn (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Entrapment. (Score:5, Informative)
Jacobson v. United States (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
Doesn't meet Constitutional tests (Score:5, Informative)
I could have any number of computers on my Comcast connection. I could have open wi-fi and be serving Internet to my neighbors... it would show up as my IP.
This whole thing is a crock of shit.
Re:Entrapment? (Score:5, Informative)
No.
An example, off the top of my head - if I'm an undercover cop and I walk up to you on a shady street corner and ask if you're holding, and you sell me drugs, and I arrest you, if the evidence is sufficient to establish that you're a drug dealer independent of my initiating a drug sale transaction (e.g., you have other individually packaged quantities of drugs, I have corroborating witness testimony that has you dealing drugs, etc -- yes, this is character evidence, but an entrapment defense puts character in play and I can present it), guess what, even if you wouldn't have sold me drugs but for my request, it's not entrapment.
Oh, and no, asking "are you a cop," and my answer in the negative, doesn't constitute entrapment.
Re:Nice. (Score:2, Informative)
I would have to say that just seeing the link would be enough to report it. I personally would not need to see it to report it. And I have.
What if you get a link from spyware or carp like.. (Score:3, Informative)
Like how teacher faced jail that happened in class where the school did not keep there systems up to date.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1464355.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
http://billpstudios.blogspot.com/2007/01/have-spyware-go-to-jail-for-child-porn.html [blogspot.com]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Amero
Re:Stating the obvious problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The problem is (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html [boingboing.net]
http://www.connectsafely.org/articles--advice/commentaries---staff/teens-convictions-for--child-porn-upheld.html [connectsafely.org]
knock, knock, Gramps.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stating the obvious problem (Score:5, Informative)
It's one of those things where people started using the word without actually knowing what it means. Legally, it is not considered pedophilia. That's why statutory rape is on the books and is a different crime. I've had to take child protection courses for my work with the Boy Scouts. That's one of the definitions mentioned. Partly because they are two different categories of offenders and you need to look for different signs for each one.
Re:Stating the obvious problem (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How long until... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:5, Informative)
The "illegal hyperlink" was not in fact illegal - it was a harmless trap full of junk content. They didn't convict him because they found illegal browsing history on his computer - they convicted him because he clicked on their fake file.
The "child pornography" was a single thumbs.db file. You know, the low-res file with all the thumbnail pictures that XP makes for you automatically? At any time in the past, he could have accidentally downloaded pictures (from say a P2P program), deleted them without even viewing them. I find it hard to believe that he could be so good at covering his tracks, but he'd keep a single thumbs.db file around by accident.
At the very least, the first count should be overturned. I'm going to have to look at my pictures pretty closely and delete stuff - I know that I've accidentally downloaded some pretty fucked up stuff from usenet and P2P.
Mod parent up, +1 accurate (rare with entrapment) (Score:5, Informative)
Entrapment is only when the police encourage, cajole, and pressure you into committing a crime that you wouldn't otherwise have considered committing.
Every time I see a story on a sting like this people trot out the "entrapment!" argument. If things like this were entrapment, every sting operation, every undercover operation, etc. would all be invalidated. Clearly, the cops are permitted to put a fake hooker on a street corner and wait to be approached.
Re:Stating the obvious problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:3, Informative)
A search warrant needs the signature of a judge, and an oath by the officer involved as to the necessity of the warrant, what he's looking for, etc. This is an administrative subpoena, just needs the signature of the FBI agent needing to serve it.
I call bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
As for the courts treating your case, I doubt any of the judicial officials (be they judge or magistrate) who approved the warrant would preside over your civil case. They would have to recuse themselves.
And finally, this would not be entrapment since entrapment is inducing someone to commit a crime they would not have done had it not been for the enticement. In these cases, the FBI is going after people who are already looking for kiddie porn.
I cannot believe this shit gets modded up as, "informative."
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This article is perfect without pictures. (Score:3, Informative)
Lynx saved me from something about two girls and a cup that was put in as a prank.
Re:justification too low to enter someone's home (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:5, Informative)
So,fyi, the tfa says that the fbi link was advertising images of a 4 year old, and so it would seem that it falls squarely under the definition of cp.
Re:How exactly would I "keep a log"? (Score:3, Informative)
For example, here is a link to the manual of a popular wireless router (warning: PDF) http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DWRT54G_UG_WEB_20070529.pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1193775701174&ssbinary=true&lid=0703200349B02 [linksys.com]
On page 18 (PDF page 22), you can see a reference to the logs being kept. My Netgear works similarly. Then all you need to do is save those somewhere.
Layne
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:4, Informative)
For a real discussion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good use for a botnet (Score:1, Informative)
Pedophilia is not a type of porn.
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like this action will predominantly catch people who were specifically looking for child pornography and so searches will therefore find other material. However it is very disturbing that a HTTP GET can result in all your computers, much of your electronic gadgets and all your correspondence being impounded indefinitely. It sounds like it's way too easy for, inevitably, at least few innocent people to be massively inconvienced (potentially maliciously by 3rd parties).
A Steady Decline (Score:3, Informative)
It's the steady decline of the United States of America over a very long period of time. Both political parties are to blame. "Conservatives" tend to fear-monger and use their power to extend the power of the law in the moral sector, giving increased power to "law enforcement" agencies, and yes, sometimes (often, even) under false or stupid pretenses. "Liberals" tend to increase government programs to further a socialist agenda, which also leads to further increasing the power held by the government, although they tend to loosen "moral" law to give people a heightened sense of "freedom", while regulating things that true freedom requires, like business, property ownership, etc.
My intention is not to come across as an attack on either side. I admit I have a more "conservative" bias personally, but over the last few years my eyes have opened and I now disagree with most moral-law regulation, at least on the federal side. Personally, I believe that the lower you get on the scale (state - county - city), the more room there can and should be for moral-enforcement laws. (I'm just making it clear what my personal POV is in the hopes of making clear any bias with which I wrote the previous paragraph.)
One possible fix. [lp.org]
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:3, Informative)
Probable cause does not require "beyond a reasonable doubt". Probable cause means, "Do I have reason to believe that this person committed a crime?"
In this case, it is definitely yes.
Re:http://tinyurl.com/3yln (Score:3, Informative)
Link: http://tinyurl.com/preview.php [tinyurl.com]
Of course there are other "url shorteners." But while I don't click urls I don't trust, I can now safely click any Tinyurl link.
Re:I could conduct stings for the fbi (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For a real discussion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I would have read the article before replying (Score:3, Informative)
Enticing someone to do something they normally wouldn't do.