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

Wether or not someone hacks your into your signal, you are legally responsible. In other words, if someone gets on your line, and clicks that link, it makes no difference weither or not you can "prove" that you are innocent by showing the contents of your computer.

Verizon Online Poilcy...

3.3 You agree that you are responsible for all use on your account, including any secondary accounts or sub-accounts registered to your primary account. You understand this means that you accept full liability and responsibility for the actions of anyone who uses the Service via your account, or any secondary accounts, with or without your permission. You also agree to use the Service only within the United States.

(bold enhancement for relevance.)

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Hmmm... Screw it let the ignorant fall. Its obvious that the ones that are at risk are the ones defending this . So let it continue. I don't know why i even try.

reply to post by DYepes

Maybe it would help if you went outide a bit and did experience the real world?

Wouldn't you like to know when I "went outside" and what I "experience. Perhaps you would like to install a camera in my shower too.

In my years of wearing a shield, I think I have enough real-world experience to support my opinions. What about yourself?

EDIT to add:

Could you explain it?

Knock knock Neo...





[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR


I'll bet Eliot Spitzer would have been all for this a few months ago.

EDIT to add: He was the one who put in the phone taps and implemented the measures that got him caught.

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by DYepes

I dont quite understand... is this supposed to be a joke of some sort? Could you explain it? Maybe it would help if you went outide a bit and did experience the real world?

Nope, you got it, it was humor

Dyepes I have experienced more world then you as is evident by our worldviews in general, but let's not go there eh?

Nothing else to say about matiffications list and my contributions to it?

Originally posted by DYepes
Watching a child being molested and enjoying it is not thought crime, it is a real crime. Attempting to watch a child being molested for your viewing pleasure is a crime. Stop the crimes, end the suffering.

I agree with you on this. I am not in agreement with some of the other members on this board that feel watching child porn (actively and intentionally) is less a crime then physically doing it. As I feel by watching child porn you are allowing the child porn industry to exist.

Doesn't change the fact that this FBI method is entrapment.

The Constitution was meant to guide our laws. It was written in a way that allowed it to be changed if need be, and its Second Amendment exists for the purpose of giving the populace the ability to defend their rights if the government attempted to take them away. That alone is evident that this country was founded on the idea that our rights are more important than our laws.

We have a right to our privacy. We have the right not to incriminate ourselves. We have the right to not being convicted of a crime unless evidence shows we are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - which this sting does not provide. We have the right not to be arrested without probable cause, which this sting also does not provide.

Honestly, I think we've already said (half of) all there is to say against this idiotic sting operation. Those in favor of the sting have addressed maybe a third of what we've said... over and over again... and have shown no interest (or maybe no ability?) in discussing the parts that completely discredit this "investigative technique."

Sadly, courts have already ruled in favor of those who think the law supersedes our rights. They have ruled that one click, one time, of one link, indicates a willful attempt to view the contents of that link, regardless of the fact that no evidence can ever be provided to show who clicked that link or where they clicked on the link from.

Police State: 1
Justice: 0

There is one positive side to all this though. Apparently, since our IP numbers are now accepted as positive identification by the government, we can now use them as ID to buy firearms.

Well this will continue to happen, and it will succeed, as it already has shown it has.

Ha, what are yall going to do to stop it, write your congressman

Just sit back and know that the scum will get theirs ok?

After all, its what ya been doing up until this point.

reply to post by DYepes


Your posts are nothing but trolling at this point.

It's sad to see that you get a kick out of innocent people getting imprisoned by this dictatorship.

A worthwhile response to your posts is useless.

[edit on 3/26/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Nope, you got it, it was humor

Shouldda let em squirm. I'll bet the computer desintegrator was already turned on and ready to go at the first knock.

You are falsely accusing your protectors of committing crimes that are not even proven. show me who has gone to prison innocently. If anyone is spitting diatribe aroudn here, its those claiming the FBI is about to commit some master plan to imprison the entire populace and have already begun doing so.

Could not be farther from the truth. You are severly misguided into how our Law enforcement agencies actually work apparantley, and prefer to indulge in the fictional projections of the entertainment world.

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Shouldda let em squirm. I'll bet the computer desintegrator was already turned on and ready to go at the first knock.

Hah! Yeah I know, sorry I was hestitant to say as I too wanted to instill some paranoia from that! Doh!

Originally posted by DYepes
You are falsely accusing your protectors of committing crimes that are not even proven

Could not be farther from the truth. You are severly misguided into how our Law enforcement agencies actually work apparantley, and prefer to indulge in the fictional projections of the entertainment world.

Here is a list of police officers charged for having large collections of child porn, and or raping and molesting children. Sorry for any repeat names:

www.adn.com...
i.abcnews.com...
www.nctimes.com...
www.nydailynews.com...
www.nydailynews.com...
www.brisbanetimes.com.au...
www.crime-research.org...
www.1010wins.com...
www.cbc.ca...
blogs.thenewstribune.com...
www.crime-research.org...
www.homelandstupidity.us...
www.whas11.com...
blogs.tampabay.com...
www.rrstar.com...
www.cbc.ca...

I am not at all trying to say that law enforcment is some diabolical child porn ring. I am just trying to show you Dyepes that it is you who is indulging in ficional projections about our "protectors"

I also just included cops. I can link to cases where judges were charge with similar

[edit on 063131p://26u34 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by DYepes
You are falsely accusing your protectors of committing crimes that are not even proven. show me who has gone to prison innocently. If anyone is spitting diatribe aroudn here, its those claiming the FBI is about to commit some master plan to imprison the entire populace and have already begun doing so.

Could not be farther from the truth. You are severly misguided into how our Law enforcement agencies actually work apparantley, and prefer to indulge in the fictional projections of the entertainment world.

1. That's creepy as hell when you call them "your protectors." I understand that's supposed to be their job but the way you say it, it just sounds cult-like. I wonder why?

2. "...that are not even proven. show me who has gone to prison innocenty." - Are you kidding me? You are. You're kidding me. You're jerking my chain just to see how long I'll keep playing your dumb game. That has to be it. Either that, or you honestly believe nobody has ever been falsely convicted of a crime.

3. Master crime to imprison the entire populace? Who the hell said that? We're just ticked off because the FBI's new sting operation makes the completely illogical conclusion that nobody's computer has ever downloaded a file they didn't want it to.

Anyways, let's try a different approach. Let's say somebody in a mask steals your car tonight and robs a bank with it, then returns it to your garage when they're done. And now, suppose a witness got your license plate numbers. Now do you see that just because something you own was used to commit a crime, it doesn't mean that you're the one that committed it?

reply to post by DYepes

You are severly misguided into how our Law enforcement agencies actually work apparantley, and prefer to indulge in the fictional projections of the entertainment world.

Please enlighten us to your expertise, because I happen to have direct experience with the law-enforcement community for many years. I also happen to have three uncles and a cousin who are LEO's a the present time. Not to mention that Criminal Justice was my major in college. So please, tell me how misguided I really am and what "fictional projections" I must be experiencing. :shk:

show me who has gone to prison innocently.

How could you possibly come up with such an ignorant and idiotic statement such as that? Please, you must tell me.

Here is the proof you seek oh innocent one.

www.innocenceproject.org...

reply to post by jackinthebox


Thank you for that link. It will definitely help the readers here see our point more clearly.

I'm sure our opponents on this thread will either not click on it, or act like they never read it when they realize how much further it damns their cause.

It's just a shame that the courts which allow this sorry excuse for "law enforcement" to continue will probably not stop in and read what we've had to say.

DYepes is right about one thing, this is how it is, and what are we going to do about it? There's really nothing we can do, except reflect sadly on how good life would be if the Fourth Amendment were still being enforced.

That, and as I'm doing, get drunk and try to forget about it. Eventually they'll cross the line and crush themselves.

reply to post by mattifikation


I don't think the opponents have answered THIS question: how, oh how, is one supposed to catch pedophiles if you don't do this?

Oh, and here's another.

Name a law enforcement method that DOESN'T run the risk of catching innocent people.

reply to post by HellHound63S


what powers granted to whom where what rofl your kiding me i missed all my slide by rights where did they put mine thats just low lol over rights of others woman omg your kidding right did you slip thru a time portal from another dimention that gives woman right to do what ever they want to do and get by with things rofl show me the way I missed all mine ?????rofl imao

reply to post by mageofzhalfir

how, oh how, is one supposed to catch pedophiles if you don't do this?

By working for a living.

Name a law enforcement method that DOESN'T run the risk of catching innocent people.

Let's just start with ones that don't shred up the Constitution.



[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Wow, I didn't expect an ignorant and puerile response like that. So...anyone got a real and MATURE answer?