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: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox


EDIT to add: Pedophilia is not a crime.


Yeah but possesing child pornography is and so is molestation....and who do you think does thesee things.....

PAEDOPHILES....which is defined as an adult who is sexually attracted to children

And seriously....if you think there is nothing wrong about adults getting off on children in a sexual manner....than you got something in your head that is seriously screwed up




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Is it actually illegal to click on a link, any link regardless of what it says?

I'm not defending someone who clicks on a link that says 'child porn', or whatever, but they are making clicking the link the crime, not what was download which was nothing but garbage.


You actually had to do just that in order to get to this thread!



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mageofzhalfir
I tell you this is the best tool the FBI has.


Personally, I find it offensive that you would insult the F.B.I. in such a manner. This is akin to saying that they are no longer capable of, nor intelligent enough to to gather human intel by joining a group (such as the infamous N.A.M.B.L.A.), gathering contacts, and busting pedophiles who've actually committed a crime (not just someone who's clicked on a link with nothing there but an I.P. tracer).

You should be ashamed of yourself for denigrating the F.B.I. like this.


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


Yes, it was "debunked"; however, it was not disproved. Do you know what "debunk" means? It simply means to claim that something is false; no evidence or proof required. Sorry, but simply "debunking" something won't cut it here.

However, it is known that scripts can be written to redirect someone through a series of links by simply clicking one; and that one link can be easily masked, or accidentally clicked.


Originally posted by mageofzhalfir
Also, infiltrating these rings takes lots of resources and manpower and is slow.


I also find it highly disturbing that you seem to imply that catching pedophiles, dealing in kiddie porn, isn't worth additional resources such as manpower. Do you really care about catching kiddie porn offenders, and/or doing it right?

Personally, I feel it is worth the resources & manpower to catch verifiable criminals, and further avoid the possiblity ruining someone's life with a raid, and what could easily be false accusations of kiddie porn.

I also believe that the F.B.I. is fully capable of using legitimate investigatory measures without such a danger of encountering false positives.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mageofzhalfir
 


In this investigation, perhaps you're right in your estimate. Once this practice becomes widespread, you may find that kiddy porn downloaders will, upon download of a scrambled, unwatchable video, immediately recognize it as an FBI trap.

At which point in time, they could begin spamming out disguised links to the video in an attempt to flood the FBI's computer with a bunch of bogus hits.

Unfortunately for everyone in the U.S., this means that the FBI will be showing up at door after door after door of hapless spam victims and then carelessly ruining their lives by arresting them on kiddy porn charges. How thick do you have to be to not see the problem with that?

We're not saying that sting operations are inherently bad. We're saying this one is so inaccurate that, despite what the courts have ruled in their eagerness to put away pedophiles, it does not establish probable cause and - and here's the part you don't seem perceptive enough to get- IT DOES NOT, AT ANY POINT, EVER, IDENTIFY THE DOWNLOADER OF THE PORNOGRAPHY.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



It would slow down the distribution and shutdown exploitation of children quite dramatical;ly if it was taken off the web.


And that's fine, as long as it is not done at the expense of ruiing the lives of thousands of innocent people.



How do you think paedophiles contact each other and share pornography?


So, catcht the ones sending it. Or even the ones who are downloading it without any doubt. If they were really interested in catching these guys, they would be doing something more than just putting a dummy link out there that anyone could click on. At best, all this is going to accomplish is clogging up the system with innocent people, while the most serious offenders sit there and laugh because they know better than to fall for this, and have measures in place to protect themselves.



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


Completely seperate argument. Parents should be responsible for the safety of their own children.



Child molestation is never going to stop, especially with people carrying on about rights...


I wonder if there are child molesters in Communist China. From what I understand, the trade flourishes more readily there than here in the US.



...as far as I am concerned these pieces of sh*t have no rights.


And they'll be saying the same about you when your profile as the enemy of the state becomes the issue of the day. Are you honestly advocating abandoning our rights as Americans as a sacrifice on the altar of child-molesters?



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.


I know more about sexual abuse than you would ever care to.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



Yeah but possesing child pornography is and so is molestation....and who do you think does thesee things.....


Not just pedophiles I can tell you that.



And seriously....if you think there is nothing wrong about adults getting off on children in a sexual manner....than you got something in your head that is seriously screwed up


There is something very wrong with it, but the act is the crime, not the disease. You can't throw someone in jail for being addicted to heroin either.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
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


How much are you paid to sell out your fellow countrymen?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Oh, I'm suddenly seeing this as a potential set up for some darkly humorous irony. How sick will it be if, after the FBI has spent a fortune using this method to catch hundreds or thousands of people, somebody gets this case to the Supreme Court and it's ruled that one visit to a link doesn't constitute a willful attempt to download its contents? It's not far fetched considering, in the real world... IT DOESN'T.

And then all those pedo creeps will not only walk, but have grounds to sue the FBI for false arrests, all because the FBI was too lazy to do their investigation properly and most of America was too busy being manipulated by their hatred to demand that the government do something the right way.

I just hope that, if they all do get out, they move in next door to the insufferably naive fools who supported their unconstitutional arrests and not anywhere near me. Of course, double jeopardy will prevent them from being re-charged with the same crimes, so they'll either never offend again and stay free forever, or they will repeat their offenses and create more victims.

Wow, does it sound like a winning situation now?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

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

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.


Did you just now jump into this thread without having read the previous pages?

Because you are not addressing many many points. Check out Mattifications list on the prior page for some ideas.

There are many instances where it could have been clicked unintentionally or by accident altogether. Or... what if someone else clicks the link at your house without you knowing it. Do you really want to spend an entire day with the Feds showing your innocense, meanwhile your wife and kids are hearing you explain it all!..

Also, what if they worded the link as "young hot teen". Hell man i'll be honest that's usually the first ones I click!, but that's because I know through experience that's just fancy talk for "all women on this page are 18+ by law"

Apparently that might just change...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Do you really want to spend an entire day with the Feds showing your innocense...


Entire day nothin'! I've spent the better part of a year fighting charges that stemmed from my being beat up in front of witnesses.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

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

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.


Did you just now jump into this thread without having read the previous pages?

Because you are not addressing many many points. Check out Mattifications list on the prior page for some ideas.

There are many instances where it could have been clicked unintentionally or by accident altogether. Or... what if someone else clicks the link at your house without you knowing it. Do you really want to spend an entire day with the Feds showing your innocense, meanwhile your wife and kids are hearing you explain it all!..

Also, what if they worded the link as "young hot teen". Hell man i'll be honest that's usually the first ones I click!, but that's because I know through experience that's just fancy talk for "all women on this page are 18+ by law"

Apparently that might just change...


Yeah went back and had a look now...cheers for that


But still thought that the definition of entrapment was required. I can see the mistake that would be made, but then I think the next step would be to check the computers and any storage devices of these guys to see what their intentions were. If they were guilty of being after child porn then it is probable that they got some stuff stored somewhere



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeTheThird

How much are you paid to sell out your fellow countrymen?


Not sure how you infered that from his post, but I think you might have been out of line there..

He agrees with us that child porn is horrible. He is just not seeing the severity of how this method is infringing on our (the non-child abusers rights)



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Entire day nothin'! I've spent the better part of a year fighting charges that stemmed from my being beat up in front of witnesses.



Ahh ouch!
You got a thread on ATS about that?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



...but then I think the next step would be to check the computers and any storage devices of these guys to see what their intentions were.


Maybe we should just do away with all of our rights altogether, and let the FBI into our homes whenever they want to tear our house apart and check our computers for illegal porn.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Nah, I've talked about it here and there. Even posted pics somewhere here. I probably should do a thread on it though, huh.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
but then I think the next step would be to check the computers and any storage devices of these guys to see what their intentions were. If they were guilty of being after child porn then it is probable that they got some stuff stored somewhere


Fair enough aussie, but...

imagine you're at home with 'the fam' enjoying dinner and a family flick. *bang bang*... err wait this is a full armed raid man. More like *BANG BANG*..

See? Akward to say the least, no?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



...but then I think the next step would be to check the computers and any storage devices of these guys to see what their intentions were.


Maybe we should just do away with all of our rights altogether, and let the FBI into our homes whenever they want to tear our house apart and check our computers for illegal porn.


Say you did actually click on in by accident...would you not want the FBI to check your computer to clear your name?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Nah, I've talked about it here and there. Even posted pics somewhere here. I probably should do a thread on it though, huh.



I'm sure i'd enjoy reading it!



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



Say you did actually click on in by accident...would you not want the FBI to check your computer to clear your name?


Why the hell should I have to have my name "cleared" if I didn't commit any crime?!

EDIT to add: Innocent until proven guilty!


[edit on 3/27/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
but then I think the next step would be to check the computers and any storage devices of these guys to see what their intentions were. If they were guilty of being after child porn then it is probable that they got some stuff stored somewhere


Fair enough aussie, but...

imagine you're at home with 'the fam' enjoying dinner and a family flick. *bang bang*... err wait this is a full armed raid man. More like *BANG BANG*..

See? Akward to say the least, no?


Yeah look....I am just going to agree to disagree here. Obviously we got different opinions and this thread has gone on long enough. So lets stick to our own guns here.


And to that other bloke....I am not your countryman and that comment was uncalled for so



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join