It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:04 AM
In case it was missed this is the post given on the forum.

Tell me how someone is not meaning to click those links? They are clearly labeled. As for those saying it can be done accidentally or you could be misguided due to them not being labeled right, well there is a great part of your defense. Your hard drive will be able to show where you got the links and how they were labeled. If they were not labeled properly (meaning so that anyone can tell what they might be) they cannot prove intent.

Clicking on a link that says 4yo_sucking looks pretty clear even more so given the posting that came with it.


posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:06 AM

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by LadyInRed

In that case, the FBI wouldn't have sufficient evidence to convict you. There's nothing to worry about.

I know people have tried to explain the point here to you but I have to try because you are still missing it.

So you wouldn't mind, if you were accidentally re-routed to the FBI website, the FBI coming over to your house and forcibly searching your property?
You could live without your computer for awhile while they take their time to search your HDD? You could live with the doubt of family, neighbours, boss?
You wouldn't mind going through the court system to prove your innocence when it should never have been questioned in the first place?
You know once accused you are never completely free of that accusation, even if you were found not guilty? People will still be suspicious of you.

It's lazy police work, instead of going out and investigating the real perpetrators of child pornography they just sit on their asses and wait for the perv, or not, come to them. Oh well if some innocent people get caught up in the mess along the way?..

And yes we do all sound the same because we are the ones making it's not group think it's observation, and the ability to see and reason why this is not the way to do police work.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by Raist

Perhaps the wording was enticing. Maybe this person accidentally got to the site, was intrigued, and clicked. Never looked at it before, just for some reason clicked it.

That's the definition of entrapment. Normally, he/she might have just closed the window, but due to the trap, the person did something he/she isn't inclined to do.

The actual article does a good job detailing the ways it could be exploited. Sending mass emails, for instance.

You said:

I allude to the asking for such emails to be sent by the FBI because they are not going to just send them for no reason. And if I got an email from the FBI without expecting one I would be highly suspicious of it being a fraudulent email and delete it.

I used to work for Earthlink. Do you have any idea how many people get fraudulent emails, and in turn, give out their SS number and credit card information?

Now imagine how many people could think the link was a joke sent by their friend through email?


Imagine if someone found out there was an FBI mole on the site, and posted the link on forums as a funny movie.

The list goes on of ways this is entrapment, and can be abused.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:11 AM

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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.

I wonder if this would work? Name it something like..."special FBI information you should see" or "debunking 9/11". Something that would entice most FBI, cops and highly right wing nuts to look.

But, seriously, what if your curious teenager happens to be looking at this? Is it illegal for teenagers to look at teenage porn?

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by Raist

At that point you mention your friend was over and he gets questioned also. Proper questioning will make finding which of the two of you is guilty much easier.

You seem to have an abundance of faith in a system that you openly admit jails innocents. I would rather see a hundred guilty walking the streets than see one innocent imprisoned.

Innocence can be easier to prove as long as there are not multiple hits on your PC of child porn.

Guilty until proven innocent is it now?

I am not going to argue about the person you know but that seems as if there might have been more on the PC than is being let on...Question is though why went he got to the site did he click on “a few pics”?

This probably what did him in, the "few pics." But I still don't see that as any proof of a deviant nature. He was probably shocked by what he saw, and wanted to verify that it was not anomalous as well. Everyone looks at a bad car wreck.

Most people would not click on any pics if they came to such a site. Simply by clicking on the images he placed himself in a bad situation.

Obviously, but unknowingly, and without a perverted intent. He actually showed his wife what he had found, and she was in danger of being charged as well. Clicking on the images was the only way he could have possibly verified that such material was indeed available on the internet.

Had he went to the site and closed it out without clicking on the images he would have been better off, less chance of them showing intent in his case.

But he did have intent, just not a deviant intent.

Now had he found the sites and reported them to the police at that time and explained the situation things would not have come to that more than likely.

If I remember correctly, he did report it to the local police at the time, but they had no cyber-crimes unit to follow up on his claim.

They do after all have to prove that you intended to view child porn, actively perused child porn by searching for it, and either succeeded in the crime of failed.

In this case, the subject of this thread, no such distinctions are made. Click the link and go to jail, simple as that.

[edit on 3/24/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:16 AM
Great to hear all the freedom oriented responses! Yes keep it up! Freedom is the answer to curbbing child porn, both by giveing freedom to daddys to shoot child abusers, and by making prostitution leagal to keep such impulses to a minimum, and also by making men realize it will be thier own fault if they are shot by a little girl's daddy, so they better chop it off or find a way to get thier jollies off a real woman.

Also, how sad is it that so many men are so afraid of the obsurd leagal powers granted to women over and above that of men, that they seek little girls, who aren't mean enough yet to abuse those powers? Freedom and true equality are the answers, not legal welfair for women who are smart enough, and good enough, to be treated equaly with men by the law.

Also sad to see how many are willing to just trust that the FBI won't abuse thier powers, its why we are in trouble. You who support these actions of the FBI, will deserve just what you get when your a felon in a prison camp awaiting the gas chambers and ovens, sorry. If you would like NOT to deserve this gruesome fate (wether or not it is now avoidable), please get a clue and stop tradeing freedom for saftey, thank you.

Its wrong, its bad, its a frame job waiting to happen, we need to stand against these things, even if we loose, at least then we really won't deserve it when they come to OUR doors. Freedom was made hard by design, it costs alot of time and effort and human sacrifice in blood sweat and tears, and a real bargain at twice the price!

Anyone else get flashbacks of John Titor? Maybe its just because so many of the things he predicted are in the news right now. I'm a time traveler too you know?
Ya, and I predict you can kiss your freedoms goodbye in 09, unless we all write in Ron Paul, or enact the revolution clause.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Raist
Your hard drive will be able to show where you got the links and how they were labeled.

Sure it will. A week later, you'll be completely cleared in the crime. A week after the papers have already run the headline, "Local man's computer seized in child porn sting" with your bright, smiling picture under it.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by Raist

If you borrowed my car and a cart hit it leaving a scratch or dent and you didn’t tell me I would be expectedly mad and I would be asking you to pay for the damage. To not tell someone what you are planning to do or have done with their property is nothing more than rude.

Agreed. Should you go to prison for my rudeness, my mistake, or even my crime?

I allude to the asking for such emails to be sent by the FBI because they are not going to just send them for no reason.

Why would someone ask the FBI to send them illegal material? If you are talking about doing this unknowingly, there still is a problem. We have no way of knowing if the FBI sent it to a person, that perhaps solicited young but legal sites. I personally would find that tasteless, but not illegal. And certainly not so for a person of that age.

And if I got an email from the FBI without expecting one I would be highly suspicious of it being a fraudulent email and delete it.

I don't think that FBI puts their identity on these links.

Again I think heavily about the safety of myself and also my computer.

Aparrently it has become a crime not to.

When they drag me out and fail to prove that I am criminal and they have caused some form of harm in my life they will face a lawsuit and I am sure it would be easy to find civil rights groups to back that lawsuit if their evidence was not valid.

Once again you seem to place an inordinant amount of faith in a flawed system. You would not recover any damages, I can practically guarantee that. People who are beaten by police and falsely arrested rarely recover monetary compensation, even if they have hospital bills as a result. A suspected sex offender would get no such vindication. I don't think you yourself would grant such an award if you were sitting on the jury.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:29 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

Again if the link is not fully labeled as it was in the post given they cannot prove intent.

With intent you are showing that you wish to commit the crime. With attempt which was what the man in the article was charged with he went two steps further. He took actions to download the files by clicking the links, and he failed because he was sent to the FBI site saying the site he was looking for was closed. With the three searching for the child porn (intent), the act of clicking the links (this is a substantial step toward the crime), and failing in the crime is how he got attempt. Intent alone is not enough to charge a person.

I don’t know about you but I have never sent anyone a link that I have not clicked on myself. Also reading a link like that would make me wonder what kind of garbage was being sent to me and I would toss it out. If the link was not properly labeled they could not prove intent there for they cannot prove a crime. This is the sort of crime that would require purposeful intent or specific intent.

If that type of wording is enticing enough for someone to click it with the rest of the description given than they are not far from downloading real child porn anyway. So by your logic you often click on things labeled similarly just to see what it is about (not referring to child porn)? To clarify you would click a link that had something you considered extremely disgusting (not disgusting in yuck but in complete and utter contempt disgust) just to see it anyway? If not why if it is so normal?


posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:33 AM
ok i need everyones email i am going to send u a mass email with tinyurl report links mwhahaha. I need to find more of these and get people to click on em from yahoo and stuff.

oh evil fun funny tho.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by Raist

You can't think in terms of "You and I" when it comes to people. No, I don't click on random links without first seeing what the site is. Some people do. Some people have no idea how to work computers, they just barely get by (ie. AOL).

How can you claim to know their intent in that situation? Perhaps someone could feel they are being a good samaritan. They figured, "Wow this is sick. If it's real, I need to report this".

So they click to see if it is real, the site pops up blocked, and they go on with their lives. The extenuating circumstances are endless.

Also, again, that clip was clearly enticing the reader. This is called entrapment.

Ever watch cops? Notice how the officer never intigates the conversation? More importantly, notice that the officer does not bring up what he/she will do, how good they are at it, or anything that could cause the suspect to agree?

What would happen if we allowed the same sort of sexual advertising to go on in streets by police? How many men do you think would get nabbed by police when they have a woman walking around saying, "I'll %#%@ you for $10 and I have $*%^#%, it's so hot" (in essance what the videos posted said).

There would be men who had never participated in getting prostitutes, and who never planned to, being basically tricked into it. That is entrapment by definition.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:54 AM
Wow, I'm not for child porn or anything but I've accidentally clicked on plenty of banners and ads in my day. I'd hate be cruising the 'net, accidentally click something that I shouldn't have and then be welcomed by the FBI breaking down my door. This is obviously a bad way of trying to stop internet child porn...

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by Raist

Stop conveniently ignoring the fact that the investigation alone - you know, the part where they raid someone's property to look for child pornography - is both the part where they would discover that you were innocent, and the only thing that has to happen to ruin a person's life.

By the time your hard drive contents showed that you didn't have criminal intent, you'd already be up crap creek. Sure, you'd have a paddle, but not until after you hit the waterfall.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by jackinthebox

In response to both of your posts.

I see a system that is letting the innocent people get out because they have been wrongly imprisoned. I never said it was perfect, nor did I say that those without guaranteed proof should be jailed. But clicking on a link in a post that is clearly labeled child porn gives plenty of proof toward committing a crime.

I never said one was guilty until proven innocent either. My statement of innocence can be proven with your pc seemed pretty clear but I’ll try again. They cannot prove you had intent to commit the crime as long as you hard drive is your witness. Your hard drive is the best witness you have in such an event of your innocence.

I never said you might not be arrested either, but unless they can prove intent they really can’t convict you either. You may be charged but those will be dropped it will not take long for a defense attorney to ask them to prove the intent or drop the charges. People get charged with things daily much of the time they are guilty but not enough evidence is there to convict them, thus charges are dropped and plenty of guilty men go free. They do not have to charge you for 24 hours either, during this time they can investigate and you can contact a lawyer. Rather innocent or guilty being arrested for such a thing you would want a lawyer there ASAP.

I will not go to jail for your actions as there is no proof that I committed the crime. But if you get into a wreck with my car you are the one that will be in trouble. Run a red light and get caught on camera if it can see your face I can fight the ticket.

I never said you would be asking the FBI to send you illegal images or videos. You would need to ask for the stuff from someone and have them send it if they are undercover then you’re in trouble if not you are safe for now.

Protecting yourself and your computer might not be a crime but it is stupid not to do. Think of your computer like your house or car. Would you just leave either of those open for just anyone to use? In today’s world your computer is almost an extension of yourself. You can tell a lot about a person by what is on the hard drive.

Also if I were on a jury and was asked to rule in favor of a lawsuit over such a charge and the person was proven to be innocent I most certainly would award them money. You cannot expect a system to charge people with such things and not pay some monetary value based on it. I have seen a large number of times people winning money over damages done. Civil court is full of trials like this and people win, in most cases it is settled outside of court.


posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by mattifikation


And it would be abused to no end. That's why it can't be allowed online, just as it is not allowed on the streets.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:03 AM
Thinking about this from another angle. What if it's not about catching pervs but just getting more info and names in their data banks? The more info they have on people the easier it is to investigate crimes and connect people to them.

For example where I live they often have prostitute stings and they use the same Asian cop a lot, I've seen it in action a few times. But they don't actually prosecute or even arrest the perps. They take finger prints, photograph them, and take their personal information, from the back of a van, and let them go. The cases are dropped when they reach court because it's entrapment. But they still have all your information, whether actually guilty of a crime or not, which is what I think the point is.

To law enforcement we are all criminals, just some of us haven't been caught yet.

[edit on 24/3/2008 by ANOK]

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by mattifikation

So then you could say this with any investigation. Hence it being called investigation. Investigation does not mean guilt it means suspect.

I never said that being under investigation would not suck as I am sure it would. I have been arrested and investigated (though not for child porn) and know it sucks. But the thing is I was able to show where I stood in innocence or guilt.

But clicking a link that is labeled as child porn is what would get you into the situation of the FBI knocking on your door and arresting you. Most likely you will not be charged until they absolutely have to, by this time you have spoken to a lawyer and they have checked your hard drive. Those that do computer forensics are pretty fast at searching a hard drive.

That and you will most likely be bonded out, you get that money back as well as long as you don’t skip town.


posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:18 AM
It is entirely possible to click on undesireable sites by accident. It I was browsing for some Hentai (Cartoon.) And I was opening a bunch of windows at what looked even remotely appealing. After a few minutes I started closing out of some of the windows I didn't even get to, and saw some sick stuff on one of the windows. The thing is that site was probbably opened for like a minute and a half. But it took me .03 seconds to close out of it once I saw it. Owell seems like a few unlucky non sickos might get in trouble.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:21 AM
reply to post by Sublime620

If you think that clip is enticing to anyone who would not normally be searching for child porn then we don’t need to go back and forth any longer but just agree to disagree. That clip was clear on what it had to offer.

As for anyone finding it and wanting to report it, there is no reason to look if you think it might be real. If it is then the links and those who posted them will be looked for. If not they will toss them off to the side and go about their normal business.

It is hard to entrap when it is clearly labeled. Either you are entering to look or you leave and report your findings. It is not like they are sending it out to people, that would be entrapment. No this is in an area that people must search for and come to. They then must see the link and act on it or not.

Another example for you though. If a drug dealer comes to me and offers drug and I buy and get arrested that is entrapment. If I go searching for a drug dealer and buy drugs and get arrested that is not. The difference is the searching for or it being brought to you. In this case you would be searching for child porn, see the links and click them believing there was child porn at the end of it.


posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by Raist

I think you're really missing the obvious potential for abuse with this.
I could right now put a link in this post, or a pic, or a Youtube video, that you would innocently click and take you right to any of those FBI links. You don't need to be a hacker to do that, it just takes some basics computer knowledge. Anyone who has created their own website should be able to do it.

I personally don't want a visit from the FBI for something I clicked on innocently, whether I should 'know better' or not. How many Youtube vids do you check before you click play? I know that's a far fetched example, but this idea has obviously been implemented by someone who really didn't think it through enough or are not very internet savy. It's not hard to hide or spoof your IP addy. Anyone really dealing with a lot of illegal content is gonna be using a proxy at least. So they're only gonna catch small fish with this idea and the problem of child abuse will continue unhindered.

They need to do real police work, lazy bastards!

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in