It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mageofzhalfir
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?


Here's a though. Infiltrate the trading rings and conduct focused surveillance of suspects over time until you've positively identified which people are actually involved in the ring, and then initiate simultaneous raids across the country once this awesome thing called reasonable doubt has actually been established. :-)


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


They all run risks. There's a big difference between, say, a 1% risk and a 15% risk though. A certain IP being identified as downloading one file, one time, does not give probable cause that any specific person committed a crime. It only shows that their computer or network was involved in the transfer of a file.

A certain computer or network being identified as downloading multiple files over the course of several weeks, all during times when the owner of said computer or network are known to be at home, is probable cause.

Even at that point, there's only enough evidence for further investigation to see if they were in fact downloading images, or if their computer or network were merely compromised, or any of the other numerous possibilities we've already presented are true. Then, if something turns up, the feds would have grounds for an arrest.

That's not what's happening here. Read the article, it plainly states that it went "Click link, answer door, kiss pavement, you're arrested."




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Doesn't change the fact that this FBI method is entrapment.


Its not entrapment according to your american government laws

Here's the legal definiton

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

No persuasion here. They created a link, the sick perverts thought (and obviously wanted) they were getting kiddie porn but instead they got what they deserved. They didnt have to click the link but they did and thats enough for a conviction. If there was a law enforcement officer there telling them to click the link then that would be entrapment. As far as the story goes, it looks like these guys clicked it out of their own free will. Better behind bars then on the street in my opinion

EDIT- Here's another extract from the law books

Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

www.lectlaw.com...


[edit on 26/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 



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


How about setting up a fake website where they have to set up an account, instead of just clicking a link. Seems to me if they were really interested in catching real pedophiles, that would have been the logical thing to do in the first place.

But from that we see that they are not really interested in that. They are interested in ushering in the final stages of the police-state in which they need little or no reason to come into your home and turn your life upside down. Just to make an example out of you in front of the rest of the sheep who sit there and pat eachother on the back saying, "yup, see, I knew that neighbor was up to no good."



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   


When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the sick, the so-called incurables,
I did not speak out;
because I was not mentally ill.

When they came for the Catholics,
I did not speak out;
because I was a Protestant.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

- attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


It doesn't have to be entrapment to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to be a guarantee that a warrant can't be put out for our arrest without probable cause.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


A click is probable cause. The odds are likely one percent or less that this link would be clicked for any other reason than for a perp looking at porn.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 




The odds are likely one percent or less that this link would be clicked for any other reason than for a perp looking at porn.


What formula have you used to render this approximation?

EDIT to add: If you bothered to read through the thread we have already fully explained the numerous pitfalls in which an innocent person might be swept up with this tactic.



[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Um, common sense?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 



Um, common sense?


Well, if you are not concerned about the accuracy of your own statistics, no wonder you aren't worried about the FBI being accurate either.

EDIT to add: It seems your sense has little in common with people who cherish freedom, and the US Constitution.

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


And I suppose you don't lose much sleep about pedophiles running around, either, eh? Because I tell you this is the best tool the FBI has. In answering what mattifikation earlier said, infiltration is not as easy as Hollywood would have you believe.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 


And yet, that's the effective method that the Feds have been using since kiddy porn found its way to the Internet, a method which often busts hundreds of criminals at a time.

Ah, and as for your assertion that less than 1% of the people attempting to view that video were there for some other reason...

Just what percentage of people who have viewed this video in the last year or so because they were looking for the "Never Gonna Give You Up" music video?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Dude, the invalidity of the theory that redirect links can "sound the alarm" was debunked earlier in thread. Pay attention. Also, infiltrating these rings takes lots of resources and manpower and is slow. We can't afford to give pedophiles more time.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 



And I suppose you don't lose much sleep about pedophiles running around, either, eh?


Not really no. I would be more concerned about the child-molesters.



Because I tell you this is the best tool the FBI has.


Then that's not really saying much. Their "best tool" has the lowest probability for a conviction, and the highest probability fro ruining the lives of innocent civilians who were target by hackers or other troublemakers. Not to mention the many other ways such a raid might be inadvertantly triggered by the unsuspecting innocnet civilian. No wonder no one trusts law-enforcement anymore.

EDIT to add: And you happen to know this is the "best tool" how? Are you an investigator? Have you ever worked with law-enforcement?


[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 



We can't afford to give pedophiles more time.


More time? Do you really think that even if they managed to eradicate such material from the web, that children would not be molested any more?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Surely you know the difference between pedophiles and kiddy porn.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 



Surely you know the difference between pedophiles and kiddy porn.


Indeed I do. And?

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mageofzhalfir
Dude, the invalidity of the theory that redirect links can "sound the alarm" was debunked earlier in thread.


No, it wasn't. It was merely shown that IF the feds were being honest, they COULD determine where the link-clickers came from. However, the original article clearly states that this information was not being recorded. Therefor, the issue of people being redirected can only be addressed by the Fourth Amendment violating searches and seizures. My suggestion? YOU pay attention.



Also, infiltrating these rings takes lots of resources and manpower and is slow. We can't afford to give pedophiles more time.


Ah, good point. Respecting our rights is expensive and takes too long, so let's just not frickin do it anymore. I like the way you think, man!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


I acknowledge that maybe one time out of 1,000 a mistake would be made. But there's nothing illegal about this method of law enforcement, and when you're dealing with pedophiles you have to go with the most efficient method.

Whether or not you'll admit it, this is it.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 




...and when you're dealing with pedophiles you have to go with the most efficient method.


What about people who are trying to get prescriptions from Canada? Are they open to such tactics as well?

EDIT to add: Pedophilia is not a crime.



[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 



We can't afford to give pedophiles more time.


More time? Do you really think that even if they managed to eradicate such material from the web, that children would not be molested any more?


It would slow down the distribution and shutdown exploitation of children quite dramatical;ly if it was taken off the web. How do you think paedophiles contact each other and share pornography? Its not by mail, thats for sure.

It would also make it harder for adults to pick up children or expose children to adult themes hopefully

Child molestation is never going to stop, especially with people carrying on about rights.....as far as I am concerned these pieces of sh*t have no rights. All you need to do is visit a victim who was sexually abused as a child, then maybe you would understand why the FBI goes to such lengths to catch these guys. Kiddie Porn is just one more step to acting on their urges



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join