FBI Exposed for Letting Child Predators Walk Free Just to Keep it's Hacking Tool a Secret

This is confusing to me.

The FBI and the DOJ are using specific techniques to help identify and gather evidence against suspected pedophiles. They’ll even infect a suspect’s computer with malware in order to gather evidence and an IP address. What they wont do, which seems to be the most counterproductive aspect of their investigations, is to disclose the actual methods used to secure a conviction.

Labeled “The Playpen,” the FBI’s kiddie porn sting operation on Friday saw the latest suspect to walk free. His name is Jay Michaud. His lawyer successfully argued in court that the FBI must turn over to his team of lawyers information regarding the Network Investigative Technique (NIT) it used to gather evidence on Mr. Michaud. The FBI said it would not turn over any information regarding NIT to the defense team, and the judge in the case, Judge Bryan then ruled all evidence gathered from NIT must be therefore suppressed.

Source

PDF: Download

Apparently, this is a common practice when the FBI is forced to choose between providing technical data related to the investigation or letting a suspect walk free. Does it really come down to whether the defense is smart enough to demand the NIT used?

The FBI is developing quite the reputation for dropping prosecutions in the face of challenges of its secret tools and techniques. The NDAs it hands out to every law enforcement agency seeking to purchase Stingrays not only tells them to obscure the device's use, but to let suspects walk if it seems some of this info might make its way into the courtroom.

The FBI argues that their questionable tactics (deploying malware, warrants that ignore jurisdictional limits, running child porn sites rather than shutting them down, etc.), are justified because of how terrible those that view and distribute the material can be.

The FBI still refuses to comply, even after the defense, the judge and the DOJ vow to protect as much of the NIT information as possible, even sealing specific documents and redacting any that are published.

During the trial, the FBI drew the criticism of the court which found it acted in an “outrageous” manner. The court then described the six ways the FBI acted recklessly in its evidence gathering against child porn suspects.

(1) The Government ignored the statute forbidding such conduct: “In any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography . . . shall remain in the care, custody and control of either the Government or the Court.” 18 U.S.C § 3509(m).

(2) The Government facilitated the continued availability of Website A, a site containing hundreds of child pornographic images for criminal users around the world.

(3) The Government, in fact, improved Website A’s technical functionality.

(4) The Government re-victimized hundreds of children by keeping Website A online.

(5) The Government used the child victims as bait to apprehend viewers of child pornography without informing the victims and without the victims’ permission—or that of their families.

(6) The Government’s actions placed any lawyer involved in jeopardy for violating ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4, and raise serious ethical and moral issues for counsel.

All this boils down to is that the FBI has a greater commitment to it’s secrecy than is does to protecting children. Some believe that the FBI themselves are guilty of aiding in the collection and distribution of material, while offering protection to elite pedophiles.

I also wouldn't doubt if the same NIT tactics are being used against ordinary Americans for reasons unknown. If the FBI are willing to let pedophiles walk for the sake of protecting the method used to bring them to justice, they must be hiding something worthwhile from the general public.

According to the court, “The only justification for the acts of the Government, as provided by counsel, is that the end justifies the means, or in the Government’s words, ‘Because those who create, obtain, trade, distribute and profit from the imagery of the rape and sexual exploitation of children have turned to Tor in an effort to hide their activities, the United States has been forced to employ creative means to unmask the individuals engaging in the destructive and heinous criminal conduct.’”

Again, this is slightly confusing. Why go through all the trouble of discovering, hijacking and improving a known pedophile website, then lure, track, infect and convict a pedophile, only to let them walk free when the defense asks to disclose the NIT information. What’s the point?

a reply to: eisegesis

A new loop hole discovered in the flawed justice system? or a corrupt FBI system?

Great find S&F

a reply to: eisegesis

As long as they are preventing these sick people from harming childen that is all that matter's, there method's are secondary in my opinion and should remain so because to tell how they do it would allow hackers and programmer's to create a method to counter it and of course the Child molesters would then obtain that somehow.

a reply to: eisegesis

Really interesting OP and deserves further study. My first question was, did they not disclose in part because they had uploaded to the suspects computer. Or could it pull someone in they don't want or can't allow to be exposed.

All in all, looks like you are doing something when in essence you set yourself up to lose.

Probably too cynical here.

Perhaps they see it as the act of publicly exposing these people for what they truly are via a lawsuit accomplishes their goal, while not revealing the details of the methods used?

When exposed to the light, these sick people will be tried in the court of public opinion after that point.....don't ya think? Just being accused, and having evidence produced does have some affect I would guess.

a reply to: Krakatoa

When exposed to the light, these sick people will be tried in the court of public opinion after that point.....don't ya think? Just being accused, and having evidence produced does have some affect I would guess.

I fail to understand your logic ..!

If these sickos can keep fondling kids wtf is the court of public opinion going to do to stop these predators? Now if the public could take the law into their own hands perhaps the court of public opinion has some use...

Other than that, this system to catch these predators is a farce and the loophole may very well be positioned like it is for a reason...

tl;dr the FBI is distributing and maintaining child pornography and making sure pedophiles stay out of jail.

a reply to: eisegesis

The FBI is developing quite the reputation for dropping prosecutions in the face of challenges of its secret tools and techniques. The NDAs it hands out to every law enforcement agency seeking to purchase Stingrays not only tells them to obscure the device's use, but to let suspects walk if it seems some of this info might make its way into the courtroom.

Part of Webs Braverman files may fit well to explain the real reason behind this . The tool may be to compromise high value targets and add them to the extortion of favors and or moneys . Giving up the tool in court would allow one to build the security needed to avoid falling into the kind of entrapment needed to create skeletons . just a though I had while reading your post ... ETA in the files Web talks about the CIA infiltrating the FBI using the FBI's counter terrorism branch .....

originally posted by: Krakatoa

When exposed to the light, these sick people will be tried in the court of public opinion after that point.....don't ya think? Just being accused, and having evidence produced does have some affect I would guess.

Well yes that may work.

Of course you have to throw away the entirety of the laws and safeguards of your Utopian society.

Well, sure, why not take the FBI's word for it and why bother with courts and innocent until proven guilty.

The big problem here is that if you can get control of someones computer you can download what is on it to your computer. You can also do the opposite but hey, law enforcement would never set a person up would they?

No of course not.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

But I suppose you don't care about that because .... it is for the children.

That is likely the reason they will not release how it is done ... because there is nothing to stop the FBI from planting the evidence and they have a hell of a lot of CP at their disposal.

Yes, they can wreck someones life with innuendo and accusations and never have to prove anything.

Tactics that used to be used by the Gestapo and KGB. Welcome to the new Utopian America.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

For the record, I do not agree or support that. Is it a thought experiment for the purpose of discussion. So, I recommend you .......

a reply to: eisegesis

Apparently, this is a common practice when the FBI is forced to choose between providing technical data related to the investigation or letting a suspect walk free. Does it really come down to whether the defense is smart enough to demand the NIT used?

Some questions I might ask are:

How often does this happen?

Why does the FBI still engage in this kind of activity knowing that their suspects could walk free?

And furthermore, if they are really concerned with the public knowing about their secret tech, why continually allow it to make headlines, especially under the pretense of a pedophile walking free?

Also, this part really bugs me:

(5) The Government used the child victims as bait to apprehend viewers of child pornography without informing the victims and without the victims’ permission—or that of their families.

(6) The Government’s actions placed any lawyer involved in jeopardy for violating ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4, and raise serious ethical and moral issues for counsel.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Who the hell is Francis?

P

yknow, any first day prosecutor knows you cant use evidence in court without providing the chain of custody and methods of obtaining said evidence.
........... off the hook and scott free because of double jeopardy.

makes you wonder

Maybe the methods they are using are not disclosed because they are not yet legal. Maybe they are using these cases to conduct a study which they can take to congress and say, "See, 43 people would've been convicted had this method been legalized at the time. Please legalize it so we can get these bastards."

A lot of maybes, sure, but I like looking for the conspiracy, lol.