FBI Sets up Fake Child Porn Links That if Clicked Trigger Armed Raids on Users

FBI Sets up Fake Child Porn Links That if Clicked Trigger Armed Raids on Users

www.news.com

The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.

Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Vosburgh's lawyer said, "I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they've brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this."


Sounds like that show Bait Car,where police rig up a car and track people who steal it, only this is way better!!

You could argue that someone who might not otherwise steal a car would succumb to the temptation of a hot ride with the keys in the ignition; you can't argue that if somebody clicks on a kiddie porn link, that's exactly what they're looking for.


www.news.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Good for the FBI. Who in their right mind as an adult would want to watch kiddie porn. I hope they catch everyone who clicks it and find out they are perverts. I know curiosity gets the best of some and they may click to just see, but to click to just see kiddie porn is bad enough in my book. It's like that guy who sets up underage girls on forums and invite them over to the girls house while the parents are away. All those guys who came and were arrested knew it was wrong and have seen the show before. Just plain crazy people who would do anything to satisfy their perversion.

reply to post by Master_Wii


Hasn't the FBI ever heard of self-incrimination?

No probably not. They're not familiar with many laws these days.

Underage does not mean kiddie. 17 years old is underage. The amount of underage sex that happens in this country is mind boggling. Pretty much no one is prosecuted.

Now the FBI is taking a hint from "To Catch a Predator." Wow.

I'm shocked, just shocked.

Regardless of child porn being wrong, immoral, or illegal, we do have laws in this country to protect people from self-incrimination. Its called the FIFTH AMENDMENT.

I plead da fif. Fiffff.

Originally posted by Master_Wii
you can't argue that if somebody clicks on a kiddie porn link, that's exactly what they're looking for.

What if it was a mistake? I have friends who would go to the school library, enter homosexual pornography sites, then minimize the window. An unsuspecting user would walk up to that, only to hear two men going at it.

Just because someone clicks on a child porn link does not mean they meant to. Who knows what kind of dirty tricks the FBI is going to resort to.

I could see links being hidden in perfectly legal sites just to fill their quotas.

You've heard of a quota haven't you?

THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK

You should have seen what i saw when i clicked on Google images the other day looking for an "attractive Brunette" avatar!!!!!:
Sometimes you get a lot more than you want, unbenounced to me or you.

I should sue Google for making me look at a vagina. I dont know how old it was, but its hard to tell.

Courts have found in the past that, and I'm going to steal the theme from the Cnet discussion, IPs aren't IDs.

Judges(s) involved usually stupid and/or don't understand technology. Juries aren't too bright either. You would hope that normal citizens would be more tech savvy in 2008 but most people wouldn't even know what an IP is if you asked.



....... that two images of nude underage girls in suggestive poses were found on the HDD and or USB drive(s) that he attempted to destroy as the Feds apporoached his home.

Were it not for that (images & attempted destruction), I don't see how the case would have stuck. Seems he would have to have the files that he supposedly clicked on within his possession. Please correct me if I am wrong.

But then, just look at the RIAA, seems that an IP address is all that is needed for positive identification in the legal system. In my own opninon, that isn't right considering how many ways that scenario can go wrong.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Master_Wii]

reply to post by dgtempe


Ha! ha! ha1 lol! sorry I can't help it! That's too funny! Sue google for making you look at a vagina!

Sorry, I'm still laughing! I could see people making a mistake and clicking the wrong button. I wonder if they do a background kind of check to see if you've done this before or not?

This sets a very dangerous precedent. They are charging people for intent. No child porn is ever obtained or ever even existed to be accessed (except for in all those FBI archives... the Government has the biggest collection of child porn on the planet). There's a few users on this board that could be charged with intent to commit genocide if this precedent takes hold. Gotta love thought-crime.

Child porn and terrorism... two of the most successful boogey-man campaigns to strip people of their liberty and destroy the lives of the innocent.

Let's see how long it takes for someone (anon) to find these links, then copy them but instead use a text like 'funny dog video'. That'll keep fbi busy for awhile.

reply to post by apc


Thats the scary part, especially when real child porn be named differently that is supposedly innocent like chocolate or something. How I know...books from the library. The librarian looked at me with suspicion when I was checking out the books for research on transnational child pornography for the class. But I looked at her back when the library had the books on the shelf anyways.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Crap!
I was going to say that!
As a reward you have to get flashed by your camera 10 times in a row!

(Scandinavians think alike....)

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Honestly, if I saw a link to 'hot naked teen', I am most likely going to click on it.

reply to post by hikix


Somehow I think FBI is targeting people who look at porn of individuals younger than teens.

reply to post by hikix


Perhaps there should be a rule where they put a more detailed title to the link as to how old the teen is instead of being vague as to teen.

reply to post by chromatico



oh ok, yeah those people need to be raided then....... BUTTTTT, if one of those links happens to be clicked accidentally......

I think there should be a time limit, like if you spend more then 2 minutes looking at it, then you obviously are into kiddie porn. If you click the link once, and quickly hit back on your browser, it could just be a mistake.

reply to post by chromatico


The FBI is looking for people looking at images of minors which is sevenTEEN and under.

reply to post by deltaboy


Well, sure, but if you want to take these cases to trial and win, you'll focus on the really scummy people. Oh, and to someone else, it's borderline impossible to click on a porn link by accident.

Uhh... my computer clicks on stuff all the time that I didn't intend to click on.
Usually because my hand grazes the touchpad on this laptop.

Thats crazy Get people who's brains are deprived of blood and throw the keyword 'pr0nz' out there.

Everyone knows when the video ends that faster you get to the next page the better lol.. and I probably have a homo cookie or too to prove it

EDIT: Laptop touchpads were mentioned... Even though I might me 'computer savvy' and have master the 'double click', I can't control one of those things and they hide little hidden buttons and whatnot lol.
Touchpads FTW?

EDIT 2(or 5, ill never tell): I wonder how many people have accidentally clicked don this thread looking for something else on google haha.. I bet theres at least a %

[edit on 3/23/2008 by Bumr055]

[edit on 3/23/2008 by Bumr055]