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: 20
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by just_julie
Ruining THEIR life?


Yes, their life.


Originally posted by just_julie
What about the kids who are getting abused??


Good question; what about them? A person who's been exonerated of kiddie porn charges has had nothing to do with the children who've been abused. Are you suggesting that one innocent person's life is worth more than another?




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


Or how about this hypothetical? A woman who was regularly abused as a child, accidentally clicks the link and gets carted off to jail for trying to access kiddie porn.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Or how about this hypothetical? A woman who was regularly abused as a child, accidentally clicks the link and gets carted off to jail for trying to access kiddie porn.


Good point.

In fact, she wouldn't even need to be carted off to jail. Just the accusation/raid would be enough to devastate the life she'd worked so hard to salvage.

Personally, I'd put it right up there with blaming a rape victim for being raped.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I believe the article said that the link was only up for a short time, like 40 minutes or so.

Chances of you KNOWING a link was an FBI trap and just happen to be hanging around on a given site that they put the link on (shame on you), and then for you to quickly devise a dramatic scheme to get your boss or a random neighbor falsely accused in the 40 minute window (assuming you saw it when it was posted) is probably not going to happen.

Plus, while yes it would be hell to be accused of something you didn't do... and to go through the process, the fact of the matter is it WASN'T that the user clicked on the link that got them into COURT... it was the child porn found on the computer that takes the person to court.

Had no child porn been found, yes the guy would have been a little uneasy and had the FBI notified local news media that the man was being investigated for it, with no proof otherwise, then that is wrong. But once they find it... tuff luck.

Have any of you ever watched COPS? I love the show... and they do sting operations all the time... and 99% of time, when someone comes up to a hooker or a hooker comes up to a guy that pulls over... one party or the other will ask, "Are you a cop?"

WHY do they ask this question? Because of the sting operations, and if the sting operations will keep those who may FLIRT with getting a hooker from doing so, then great... the sting is doing its job. Those who STILL GO to the hooker, KNOWING it could be a sting and obviously overly concerned to ask about it.... they need to be dealt with.

It's just a matter of time before your ISP is going to have to turn over who visits websites with illegal material, porn, drugs or otherwise. Surfing at home is no longer a private matter and quite honestly, never has been. It's just easy to assume that it is private.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I think that if it gives police a reason to do a raid on someones house its a good thing because who is really going to click a link that says "4 year old getting raped" or something disgusting like that who doesnt WANT TO SEE IT. If it gives the FBI reason to raid someones house, who knows what they will find in there. I am not saying one innocent life is worth more than another, but justice will be served to those who deserve it. ANYONE INVOLVED in child porn, whether they are making it OR watching it NEED TO BE JAILED. As long as there are people out there who want to watch it... there will be people willing to make it.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by just_julie
I think that if it gives police a reason to do a raid on someones house its a good thing because who is really going to click a link that says "4 year old getting raped" or something disgusting like that who doesnt WANT TO SEE IT.


Please read the thread. The link could be as innocent as "Fluffy Puppies: Click Here". Once someone finds an F.B.I. URL they can disguise the link however they want to.

Have you ever been "Rick-Rolled"? Ever clicked a link and ended up somewhere you didn't expect? These things happen all the time.

From the article:

Source
There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.



Originally posted by just_julie
I am not saying one innocent life is worth more than another, but justice will be served to those who deserve it.


And also to those who don't "deserve it". It seems you don't care that there's a severe possibility of justice not being served, and that more innocent lives will be ruined. This is a LAZY system, and it's ripe for abuse/misuse. :shk:

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
This sounds like an interesting way to lower the traffic of child porn freaks, but most will just fall for their trap, just because they are addicted to the stuff or worse were abused as kids themselves.

There is a problem with this however, there will be those that are smart enough to set up the click points so that innocent folks will be accident click on these sites not even knowing what they have done.

I had an insident where unwanted porn appreared when I clicked on a website that had to do with UFO's and then all of a sudden, I was confronted with stuff that I was not looking for.

If something like that happens, a lot of innocent people are going to be spending time trying to prove innocence. So unless the FBI has a means of knowing, then they are going to be wasting a lot of energy someday when a hoax of that sort starts taking place.




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ShortBus
 



I believe the article said that the link was only up for a short time, like 40 minutes or so.


Makes no difference, 40 mintes or 40 months. It is an abuse of power and will set a precedent to allow further abuses.

The rest of your points have already been rebuked in this thread.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by just_julie

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by gtirlad2
HAHA GOOD PHILOSOPHY. IM PRETTY SURE THAT IF SOMEONE ACCADENTLY CLICKED THE LINK AND THEY HAD NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ON THERE COMP, THEN THE FEDS COULDN'T DO #!


Again (as I mentioned at the top of this very page), except for ruining their life through the stigma of being plastered all over the 6 o'clock news for being the prime suspect in a kiddie porn raid. It wouldn't matter if they were exonerated. The damage would already be done.


P.S. Drop the caps lock, it's considered rude.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]



Ruining THEIR life? What about the kids who are getting abused?? They will never grow up and have a normal life... trust me, I know this. I can understand how it can be damaging for a person (IF THEY ARE TRULY INNOCENT) if they accidently came across the porn, or someone else was using their computer, but how long does the damage last?


This is completely irrelevant.

What about the kids?

If this is the only thing that matters, it would justify round the clock surveilence of every person.

Why don't we lock you up for child abuse until you prove you haven't harmed anyone? Why not, since we are doing it for the children?

How long the damage lasts is really none of your business to judge. Any length of time is long enough in a free society.

As a matter of fact, any person who is ignorant enough to give up their own rights, should be moved to a place that corresponds to their beliefs. Giving up your rights on a voluntary basis is damaging to those of us who would like to remain free.

Take your helpless children with you.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by just_julie
 



I think that if it gives police a reason to do a raid on someones house its a good thing...


Why even bother to have a reason then?

EDIT to add: And this isn't even a reaons anyway, this is an excuse, a poor one.



[edit on 3/27/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShortBus
It's just a matter of time before your ISP is going to have to turn over who visits websites with illegal material, porn, drugs or otherwise. Surfing at home is no longer a private matter and quite honestly, never has been. It's just easy to assume that it is private.


Indeed it isn't private but they should have good cause to look into your history. In my time i've visited some questionable sites, there was a chemistry site i used to love for example. None of the material there was illegal but some people posted information on volatile chemicals, in the current climate you would probably be called a terrorist just for reading that article, just for the sheer act of absorbing knowledge because of curiosity. The same knowledge that is taught in colleges and library books.

Internet privacy is very important, the old "nothing to hide nothing to fear" mantra is truly stupid online. Many people accidentily visit sites that they wouldn't like published with their web history. For example i only recently ended up on website advertising transvestite pornography. It was a pop up (my pop up blocker has now been changed). I can admit that happened to me, it's easy to happen to anyone. Now imagine your web history is made public and someone sees that, you would be labelled a pervert becuase people don't think up a resonable idea of how it happened.

Surfing at home should be a private matter unless the police suddenly find someone posting illegal material online, and i mean actual illegal material with illegal intent. Then the ISP's should publish the history to the police i agree.

The problem with the FBI sting has already been raked over a lot, it's easy to accidentily click a link, it's easy to have your computer hacked, it's easy to get lost along the winding path of the internet and end up in a back street you would rather not be in. This is especially true of children or new internet users.

Imagine this week you set up your gran with a new computer, hey she wants to be a silver surfer and good on her! You tell her about the internet, buy her a book, get her started with a demonstration. Feeling pleased with yourself and leaving her to it, later that day you get a phone call from your gran. Shes been slightly jarred by a pop up advertising all sorts of horrible pornography, she ended up being redirected to a page with some extreme fetishes, hey that's now in her web history, deviant old woman.

The FBI are using a very stupid method, instead they should design a site where someone has to enter a credit card, home address, birth date etc etc. I know that sounds far fetched but it has been done before and people fall for it. It would really reduce the chances of people being falsly accused.

Finally the FBI should be doing what they have always done to catch these people, they should penetrate the webrings. The FBI keeps a vast database of confiscated child pornography for this very reason. Paedophiles don't let anyone into these rings unless they have original pictures and videos, that is the paedophiles security check.

The FBI can use this and infiltrate a ring, slowly they can build a picture, a web of the entire operation. They can constantly get internet handles, ip addresses. They can then find that persons home address and put a direct intercept on their line whilst they watch the house. that way they can make sure they have their man/woman. It costs a lot of money, time and effor, but it does get the right people and it gets vast amounts of them all at once.

Destroying organised rings is the best idea, whilst websites do provide these sickening images and services the majority of this media (like all illicit media online) is sent directly between parties. It is sent in chat rooms, direct IP transfers using P2P clients with private non published, encrypted torrents. It is sent by email and even real world snail mail (agreements made online, addresses exchanged etc).

Infiltrate the rings is what i say.

EDIT

The websites hosting these things are better combatted by trying to get all countries to sign a charter making all ISP's agree that if a law enforcment body asks them to remove a site sharing child pornography that they will agree to instantly remove it from their servers.

Then let the FBI find the individual users by again infiltrating the organised rings.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I have said this before, but it seems that some people are not interested in denying ignorance and choose to spout propoganda instead, so I will say it again.

Why not set up a bait-site that which the perp has to create an account to access? Even for free. (It would have to be otherwise the bait would actually be criminal solicitation.) I would think that someone so desperate to view illegal porn would jump through all sort of hoops to get to it.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
So I just found something where they talk more about this.
Details about the operation, what they're looking for when they go through the computers, what's grounds for pressing charges, etc.

more]
link removed

[edit on 27/3/08 by masqua]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardT
 


Bad link, please fix. (Oh the irony.)



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by BiohazardT
 


Bad link, please fix. (Oh the irony.)


wonder how many people will click it.

did you?


(i actually want to just to see if they'll raid me. but then again i shouldn't chance it.....questionable files and such.)


(edit was just i forgot the n't in shouldn't)

[edit on 27-3-2008 by BiohazardT]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by BiohazardT
 


Bad link, please fix. (Oh the irony.)



He posted a link directly from the FBI affidavit (posted in the article).

He's attempting to get someone raided.

Edit:

Originally posted by BiohazardT
i actually want to just to see if they'll raid me.


By having someone else click the link?

You actually wanted to see if they'd raid a fellow ATS member by clicking your false link.

[edit on 3/27/08 by redmage]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


firstly, SHE. SHE. SHE!!!!
see:picture.

also, i did it for the lulz. also to prove that its not a direct and obvious crime to click the link.
because they dont track the referrer at all, anyone who clicks it from here is assumed to have clicked it from a vivid description of 4 year old sex.

good luck with your civil liberties, americans.

maybe the FBI should be more concerned with catching the people who make CP rather than those who look at it. or those who accidentally look at it, in many cases.

not to mention those who will now take the IP's of people they hate as proxies and then visit the site.


edited after you edited yours.
yes. i think that would be hilarious.
and then you could most likely PROVE TO THEM HOW STUPID THEY ARE by showing them this thread. then the whole god damn operation would be thrown into doubt and hopefully stopped.
you see, i would LOVE to show them how wrong they are.
but i would most likely get in a lot of # (as well as my friends) if my computer was searched.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by BiohazardT]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Child porn is terrible, but this is horrible too! Someone could be tricked into going to a site like this as a prank.... and end up arrested! Also, what if someone makes a virus that causes the site to pop up over and over again? What about accidental clicks (people who accidentally went to this trap instead of somewhere else) There are too many ways this could ruin an innocent person's life! I'm 100% against it!



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
As an ISP owner, I can see major problems with this approach:

1) Most IP's are assigned dynamically.

2) The widespread use of wireless is going to be an issue. It's been my experience that more users of wireless routers set them up without any
security than do. I've had several customers who've had their routers
hacked and password's changed so they can't get into them.

3) Windows, the predominate operating system for end users, is totally insecure. Between 10-20 million windows machines are infected with viruses that give someone the ability to do pretty much anything with the machine remotely.

This is going to result in a huge number of people being wrongly prosecuted and take resources away from dealing with people causing real harm.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiohazardT
reply to post by redmage
 


also, i did it for the lulz. also to prove that its not a direct and obvious crime to click the link.
because they dont track the referrer at all, anyone who clicks it from here is assumed to have clicked it from a vivid description of 4 year old sex.


Thank god i check where links are going before i click them, you thought this was funny? I hope if someone from ATS clicked that and gets raided that they sue you for doing this matey. You are quite disgusting.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join