FBI agents lured suspects using fake child porn hyperlinks

[Aabidano]

CNET has uncovered an unusual and controversial investigative technique in which FBI agents post hyperlinks that purport to lead to illegal videos of minors having sex and then raid the homes of people who click on them.

The links directed users to a secret, government-controlled server that had no illegal images on them. But that hasn't stopped FBI agents from staging armed raids on the homes of at least three individuals alleged to have clicked on the links, according to the story.

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.

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.

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/21 ... ake_links/

The hyperlinks the FBI is using as a lure are pretty clearly advertised as kiddie porn, I can't see that as entrapment at all. What does concern me is someone linking these sites via tinyurl, or someone setting an image from one of the honey pots up as an image source in a unrelated page with lots of search attractive keywords.

Yet another reason to secure your wireless router

I'd think monitoring people after the initial positive hit would be easier, cheaper and more effective. Catching someone who distributes them would seem far more important.

[Fairweather Pure]

As a frequent porn surfer, I don't like this. Usually I'm multi-tasking, watching a movie, listening to music, or playing video games while slowly clicking around looking for some hot porn, many times on my laptop sitting next to me or vice versa. I click often and blindly. It just creeps me out and makes me feel like I really better watch my porno surfing more.

The man can get your ass for anything they want, anytime they want. The thing is if you're busted for kiddie porn, it takes it to a whole new level. That's an accusation that shouldn't be leveled lightly or made easier.

Did you know porn star Tracy Lords made almost 20 movies, covering almost 3 years of work in the porn industry when she was underage? If you have a clip or even a screen cap from one of those flicks, your ass has kiddie porn and can be nailed. That kind of stuff creeps me out too. Well, not that I or most actually keep porn on thier computers anymore. Still, it's freaky stuff. You could have pics of underage girls and never know it. Just to be safe, I regulate myself to masturbating only to hairy women over the age of 50. It's the only way to be safe, and I consider it a grueling exercise for my imagination.

[Nick]

How exactly is this not entrapment?

[Boogahz]

How exactly is this not entrapment?

I "think" that entrapment would have been hiding it as a link to something else entirely. If I remember correctly, entrapment would be making the person do something they would not have ordinarilly done.

[Winnow]

This seems like bullshit to me.

If they want to bust people, make it a pay site or actually catch someone downloading illegal pornography. No matter what text says, there's freedom to read it. If you pay to use a site that is soliciting child pornography very clearly in the user agreement, you have a great case....well better case, stolen CCs, stolen wireless bandwidth, etc etc.

Another reason to use encrypt the partition (with TrueCrypt) you download stuff from the internet to. You never know what you're going to get so best to have it in an encrypted folder until you can take a look and figure it out for yourself.

[Acies]

How exactly is this not entrapment?

I "think" that entrapment would have been hiding it as a link to something else entirely. If I remember correctly, entrapment would be making the person do something they would not have ordinarilly done.

"Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed"

This being said, I think it covers the ass of those who might accidentally click on the material in their quest for legal porn, but not those who go looking for kiddie porn.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Yeah, as long as they do not try to press charges on someone who accidentally clicked the link, it should be ok. But, just presenting the links themselves could be enough to make some people a little curious. It may not hold up in court, as it could be argued that without the links those people would have never even considered looking at those sites. A pay site makes much more sense. If you are willing to pay to see the pictures, then it was probably more than impulse. Of course, some people throw money around like crazy, but its harder to defend if you payed to see it.

[masteen]

But raiding people's houses if they access their website? Don't these idiots know how the Internet works? Fuck, if /btards or goons got hold of this before the FBI shut down that trap site, this could have been the new rickroll. Only instead of bad 80's pop, it's jack booted thugs busting down your door at 5 AM.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

I kiddieporned you!!!!

[miir]

Yet another reason to secure your wireless router

Or not.
If your router is open, they have no way to proove that it was you....

[Winnow]

Yet another reason to secure your wireless router

Or not.
If your router is open, they have no way to proove that it was you....

There was another discussion here about a law making open routers the router owners responsibility no matter what traffic passed through it. I don't think it's an actual law yet though.

[Funkmasterr]

Yet another reason to secure your wireless router

Or not.
If your router is open, they have no way to proove that it was you....

There was another discussion here about a law making open routers the router owners responsibility no matter what traffic passed through it. I don't think it's an actual law yet though.

That's absurd. So your average idiot who doesn't know anything about their router other than the fact that they paid some IT guy to come plug it in for them is supposed to monitor traffic and possible security breaches on their network? Give me a break.

[Noysyrump]

I recently read a report on this very topic, wait I think i have the address Here. Anyways, they discuss the validity of the afformentioned rigomoral of the implied validation.


...



Good thing that was Kittie Porn and not Kiddie Porn eh? Suckers, Teh FBI is after JOOO!~