Entrapment isn't what most people think it is. An officer offering, for example, drugs or sex (including a price of those things) to someone is not
entrapment. Entrapment occurs when an officer hounds someone until they, in effect, go "If I buy some of your drugs, will you leave me alone?".
The problem isn't with pedophiles getting busted. The problem comes in when it is truly innocent people. If you get busted for drunk driving, and
are found not guilty, more than likely you are not going to be socially stigmatized and avoided. You think your neighbor is going to freak out about
you getting arrested for drunk driving? But what about child pornography? Do you think there might be some stigmatization going on merely with the
ACCUSATION? Entirely different concept.
I belong to a specific message board where direct links are not allowed. The only links that are allowed are TinyURL links. To the user that
suggested "right click on the link, and find out where it goes", I make the following challenge. Tell me where this link goes:
/2bpt57 Anyone? (BTW, it goes to this link, not that anyone would be interested politicalgraveyard.com...
The point is, I had to VISIT the link to discover where it went, having just did a search for the first example I could find. How hard would it be to
have that tinyurl go to someplace else? How easy would it be to drop tinyurls to websites that have some message I wish to shut down? How easy would
it be to have a link that says one thing, but goes somewhere else?
The problem people are talking about aren't when pedophiles are arrested for looking at kiddy porno. The problem is DO YOU TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT
ENOUGH TO NOT ABUSE THIS? I don't, and never will.
I am putting my mom on the internet for the first time in about 3 weeks. She is 76 years old. Do you think that during the first month or two she
might click on some links that a more savvy computer person would know to never touch? So, old granny clicks on a link marked "pictures of
hummingbirds", but in reality a person with a sick sense of "humor" has linked those words to the sites listed above (in a previous post). She
sees it, closes it, but here come the FBI kicking her door in.
How about spoofing e-mails? From anonymous hacker: E-mail looks like it comes from someone that targeted person regularly corresponds with: "hey
guy, here's a link where you can download those product proposals- Linktokiddyporn-disguisedaslinktoproposal". For any of those who think this is
implausible, I once did a practical joke on my brother-in-law's brother when I was working on their server that amounted to the same thing. (Edit:
Same, as in the same procedure, not same as in going to porn sites) Getting e-mail to look like it comes from someone it doesn't is TRIVIAL. As a
matter of fact, I do it all the time in my job, to test for open relays.
Do you think the FBI quietly investigates this kind of thing, to know if the person is actually guilty or not, or do you think they grab the local
news crew on the way to the "bust"?
Ever know someone found not guilty in a criminal jury? Congratulations, you have just met someone who was innocent, yet arrested anyway. I would
rather be FORMALLY CHARGED with a murder I didn't commit, then deal with the ramifications of being ACCUSED of child pornography by the police.
Doesn't this tell you that they should tread extremely lightly, and make absolutely sure that they know that the person is, in fact, a pedophile?
A little off-topic, but only slightly so: There was a guy from a nearby city who committed suicide because of allegations he was involved with a 14
year old girl. Whether he knew the girl's age or not, I do not know. But I DO know that my mom was MARRIED AND HAD MY OLDEST SISTER at 16. Back in
the 40s, when she was young, this wasn't shocking, or even unheard of. The point is, when police talk about child this, and child that, they never
differentiate between if a girl of 14 looks like a 20 year old, or a 12 year old. That makes a TON of difference. Since I was 13 or 14, I was always
mistaken for 18, 19, or 20. Now that I am older, I'm always thought to be much younger than what I am. For almost all of humankind's history,
girls of 14-16 years old were considered MARRIAGE MATERIAL. And most of the time, they married older men. (mid 20s to mid 30s). Granted, those
girls from those times had the mental maturity that most women today don't get until their mid 40s, but still. I get that the images were clearly
labeled as a pre-pubescent CHILD, and not as a girl that could be mistaken for a woman.
Which leads me to the point that other people have said. What if they are labeled as "teen videos" (meaning 18 or 19 year old women), but actually
point to those links? So, someone merely surfing "regular" porn, could in fact get something they don't want to see, all on the whims of some vile
person changing a URL.
What about re-directs? Hey, looking for how to make a new souffle? Check this link out: Oops, you were re-directed to kiddie porn, now the FBI is
going to bust down your door.
My point is not that they are doing this to catch child predators. I have no argument with that. My question is what are they doing to ensure that
someone that is strictly innocent does not have their name smeared because of redirects, tinyurls, mis-named links, and forged e-mails? Anything? If
they find illegal stuff on the computer, do they ever look for viruses/trojans for evidence of the PC being hi-hacked, or do they just assume the guy
Here's an interesting note. In our county, the judges regularly sentence child predators to light sentences. By God, though, don't get caught
driving drunk in our county! They'll release child molesters from the jail to make room for drunk drivers. No joke. (And before anyone
asks/accuses, no, I've never been arrested for DUI.)
For those of you so confident in our justice system, go sit in a courtroom for a couple of days. Watch as the first time offenders of relatively
small crimes get the book handed to them, while repeat offenders of serious crimes get relatively small and/or light sentences. It will open your
eyes as to whether it is actually about "justice" or not.
[edit on 24-3-2008 by sir_chancealot]