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.

 

The FBI is soliciting nude pics of child porn and it is legal for them to do so????

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
At this point anyone anywhere with a laptop and 15 minutes can create fake pictures to use as a lure. As well there are plenty of agents online right now in chatrooms posing as young children to catch perps.

This is a tough call. Child porn is disgusting and has no place in my life, or anyones really. By posting up photos the FBI has confiscated they will catch people trying to look at them. Yes, they are criminals. But shouldn't the effort be on stopping the PRODUCERS?

How are you going to catch the producers if you are merely fishing for johns?

I think the OPs point, which one poster here clearly refuses to read or even try to understand, is that the FBI has many methods available to catch these people, using actual child porn pics might not be the answer.

the problem with that is........

These rings operate much like the piracy rings of the 80s & 90s. you don't get in unless you have something to offer.

So.....

If the FBI must use actual child porn, to get in and stamp out the entire ring, I'd have to side with the FBI. you can call it committing a crime to stop a crime, but that's how it works, like the people paid to actively search for child porn and remove it. They have to access it to see it, to remove it, and accessing it is a crime.

Rest assured, the FBI is not setting up a website you can get to. they are using this to get into the subculture and get at the real pervs. Looking at child porn is one thing, and should be a warning sign. Actually producing the stuff and ruining those kids lives, that should be punishable by death.

The child in the picture they used has already been abused and no one can change that, but by using that photo to get the people behind it, they might save some other child, and even 1 is enough for me.


edit on 2-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


No one should be above the law. Commiting a crime to trap a future criminal is 2x criminal in itself! Same goes for prostitution and drug stings. Twisted as he may be, the target was not commiting a crime until given access by the supplier/pimp/dealer, in this case the FBI. What the feds should do is, having contundent proof that the target is actively searching for whatever illegal thing it might be, trail him and bust him AND the dealer only when the criminal activity is taking place. If the feds are the dealers and busting (up to that point) not guilty citizens, then who busts the feds? For the feds/govt pr posters out there, i do not condone pedophilia and hope all those sickos are put in the nut house.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Bill, didn't mean to direct the reply to you. I'm posting through an ipod and the touchscreen can be a pain. My apologies.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Wow you really are an idiot. The FBI publishes most of the child porn on the internet, and you're DEFENDING them....? So you're saying you'd rather there be gigabytes of a naked children floating around just to catch one or 2 pedophiles, than try implementing different methods of tracking and eliminating those very images? You're probably one of those people who also think the CIA is doing a good thing by trafficking a huge amount of drugs to make profits, while at the same time locking people up for choosing to do them. Nice logic fool....



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


Like I said, the only people that are going to find that child porn are people LOOKING for child porn, these people operate in close nit circles and this is how to infiltrate the group. When you can take down a large group of these people and save children from these pedophiles it's a good thing.

They aren't just hosting sites that just anyone can accidentally join up or sign on to. It doesn't work like that, child porn isn't distributed like that, it's distributed through groups like old 8mm snuff films.

But no, just because the government is doing something about it instead of acknowledging that they are going after sick people that need to be taken off the street you are defending these sick people. Why defend people that are into trading child porn pictures to each other?

Not everything the government does is bad or is done for the wrong reasons.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by whatukno
 


Wow you really are an idiot. The FBI publishes most of the child porn on the internet, and you're DEFENDING them....?


This is not proven or even supported. It is simply a claim.


Originally posted by Raelsatu
So you're saying you'd rather there be gigabytes of a naked children floating around just to catch one or 2 pedophiles, than try implementing different methods of tracking and eliminating those very images?


Again..unsupported claim.


Originally posted by Raelsatu
You're probably one of those people who also think the CIA is doing a good thing by trafficking a huge amount of drugs to make profits


The CIA has trafficked in drugs in the past and is possibly doing so now. They did so to make a profit, not bust dealers.

A better analogy would be the DEA using confiscated drugs to bust drug dealers.

I understand the claim that this constitutes entrapment, but it is a faulty claim.

It is like claiming that a fish would never eat a minnow unless you put it on your hook.

The FBI is not out thier convincing folks that they should be looking at child porn, they are simply fishing on websites and places that these monsters troll...and I for one am glad they are doing it.

Whatukno is bright enough to understand that defenders on this thread likely know the basic facts I posted above and that leaves the question...then why are posters obfuscating facts, logic and legal interpretations to make a case that what the FBI is doing is immoral or illegal?

I will not accuse anyone here of being a child pornographer or molestor, but I will state I have seen them posting on ATS before..trying different tacts at defending thier sickness.

I will generously assume that most posters here haven't thought about it in detail and just wonder about the legality.

Not entrapment...not Illegal...not Immoral...rather just what I want our law enforcement to be focused on.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Star and Flag x15

It is absolutley disgusting, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart, dis-gus-ting

Yes we need to catch those child molestors! So a guy who looks at kiddies pics is a pedophile, yes we can all agree, they like children.
Then, what of the FBI guys who are distributing the pics, arnt they pedophiles also

This makes me sick.

The bottom line, the FBI uses naked photos of young children to catch other pedos on FBI child porn websites


And there are no pedos in the FBI


WTF


So basically the biggest child porn ring is the FBI themselves

edit on 2-3-2011 by Dr Cosma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Cosma

The bottom line, the FBI uses naked photos of young children to catch other pedos on FBI child porn websites



The FBI also uses middle eastern agents to pose as terroists and infiltrate extremists organizations in the USA. They then offer to supply bombs (complicated fakes) to would be bombers.

This does not make the FBI terrorists.

I have yet to see details on what material the FBI shares in order to lure these monsters into thier confidence.

Has anyone provided court records, legitimate reporting etc. which should be available... indicating that the FBI is sending pornographic images of children to these molestors?

Thus far that seems a glaring bit of unsupported BS that posters are willing to overlook.

The FBI can make due with a promise of an exchange...or advanced photoshopping to create the images...I see no reason why they would rely upon actual child pornography.


edit on 2-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
The FBI can make due with a promise of an exchange...or advanced photoshopping to create the images...I see no reason why they would rely upon actual child pornography.


edit on 2-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)


To my point...from the OP Article..




Over the next 2 1/2 years, Government investigators, through five fictitious organizations and a bogus pen pal, repeatedly contacted the defendant by mail, exploring his attitudes toward child pornography. The communications also contained disparaging remarks about the legitimacy and constitutionality of efforts to restrict the availability of sexually explicit material, and finally, offered the defendant the opportunity to order illegal child pornography.

Twenty-six months after the mailings to the defendant commenced, Government investigators sent him a brochure advertising photographs of young boys engaging in sex. At this time, the defendant placed an order that was never filled.


So seriously...WTF are some of you posters talikng about?

Again I will be generous and assume confusion...rather than willful ignoring of the facts in order to defend child molestors.

There is no evidence that images of child porn have been sent by the FBI
edit on 2-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed

Originally posted by whatukno
But the only people who WANT to view this material are people who are into kiddie porn. Don't you think that these people need to be found out for who they are and taken out of society?


No I don't think these people need to be taken out of society. Their brain chemistry is such that they are attracted to young children. So long as they are not directing this attraction toward real live children they are not hurting anyone.

I agree with outlawing child porn, but the producers and pushers should be the main targets of the FBI. However, it is bad policy to target yourself.
edit on 2-3-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: edit: removed double negative, it shouldn't be less easier to read now



They shouldn't be taken out of society? Are you kidding? You're right, their brain chemistry is such that they are attracted to children and this is the demand that leads to the creation of child porn and subsequent victimization of children. It is their sick minds that fuel the entire process of child abuse for the purpose of producing illegal child pornography. Without the sick minds' demand, there would be zero supply. I say throw every last one of them in federal prisons

Now some argue that computer-generated child pornography is somehow ok, but in my mind it only exacerbates the problem and would most likely lead to a stronger desire for the real thing...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer
 


I don't think they are creating anything but using already confiscated pictures to identify child porn rings. I don't see the problem. If you aren't looking for that stuff you aren't likely to find it. And you certainly aren't going to be downloading it if you don't want it.


again i am not sure. i sometimes wonder if this kind of thing is promoted on purpose to install a level of fear and control in people. if it is there then surely it is possible to come across it. there are also viruses that will download it onto your computer. a very easy way to hook someone up for a crime



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking

Now some argue that computer-generated child pornography is somehow ok, but in my mind it only exacerbates the problem and would most likely lead to a stronger desire for the real thing...


(1) The difference between child pronography and other pornography is that the child has been abused in order to create the material. The demand for such content drives the creation of the content and the abuse of children in "the real world".

(2) The whole it is just a chemical thing explaing child molestors. Why not psychological? And regardless, some serial killers are turned on by torture and killing. Chemical or Physchological the threat remains with these people in society.

(3) As is the case with numerous studies with Serial Killers with a sexual motivation...the material reinforces the fantasy and moves the predator toward action rather than sedate the drive.

These folks need to be taken out of society until a reliable cure can be found. Catastrophic suffering of innocent children is the natural result of such drives.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking
Without the sick minds' demand, there would be zero supply. I say throw every last one of them in federal prisons


reply to post by Hawking
 


I meant that people should not be taken out of society because of their thoughts. They should only face legal consequences for their actions. If their sole action is downloading some bits from the Internet, they have not harmed anyone. If you can argue that posting already created child porn is acceptable as the FBI is not producing it, then downloading already produced child porn is arguably just as harmless.


Now some argue that computer-generated child pornography is somehow ok, but in my mind it only exacerbates the problem and would most likely lead to a stronger desire for the real thing...


People also thought that widespread availability of pornography would increase the incidence of rape, however that is not the case and at least one major study has found the rate of rape decreases as porn availability increases. I only spent a few minutes searching, but I could not find a study regarding the rate of child sex abuse and the availability of child porn.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Don't you understand, the FBI is here to protect us? They are the greatest thing since sliced bread. No they don't all wear white socks. No, J.Edgar Hoover was not a cross dressing pervert, he just had a unique taste in off duty attire. Wild Bill Donovan didn't have a photo of Clyde Tolson and J. Edgar Hoover in a compromising position. These are the people that brought you "Waco" and "Ruby Ridge". They are the pinnacle of American Law Enforcement! I for one ,will not have their good name dragged into the dog #! You need a good ole fashion American reprogramming Comrade! Now move your gravy encrusted couch a little closer to your big screen TV. Yeh, pull the pork rinds from beneath your ass and get good and comfortable. Focus on the mind numbing garbage before you.....



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Nevermind this is obviously just one of those NAMBLA defending threads made by people who think that child porn is ok and that finding people who use child porn or investigating crimes in this country is somehow wrong. I think it's sick, I think that getting people who trade in child pornography off the streets is a good thing but obviously my attitude is the minority in this thread. Seems like the majority in this thread think that it's just fine for these sickos to be watching this stuff and trading this stuff and they don't think that law enforcement should do anything about it.


Your actually quite wrong. Everyone here is saying that child porn is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. I cant understand how that is missed after being stated in clear words. Do you honestly believe that the only way to catch someone whose watching it is to bait them? Do you honestly believe that the people watching it are worse than the people who produce it? The whole point ( at least what I got from it) of the post is that they should focus on shutting down the entire industry at the root instead of baiting (and giving people material to view) leafs (also read as people, sickos, pervs, ect) of the problem plant into going to jail...

If you really cared about how wrong child pornography was, you would want the material off of the internet completely, not just posted by regulated sources to catch viewers. The other problem is too, that as long as the FBI reproduces these files of illegality and disgust, there will be a small percentage of the general population that will watch it. So what im basically getting at, is that by keeping the material in existence at all, is actually helping people view the material (albeit for a short amount of time). Just go after the sources and there will be no material, and by extension there will be no sicko's ( or at the very least they will resort to creating their own, in which case they pop up on your radar if your looking for the creators of the material.)

edit on 2-3-2011 by derst1988 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Now that i think about it, i think this can be used in a wrong manner. I remember a thread here on ATS about a college student who was hit by one of these honeytraps, supposedly he was using limewire to download porn, probably typed in teen porn and we don't think about seeing underage children when we think of that. Anyway, he downloaded a file and realized it was child pornogrpahy..promptly deleted it and pretty much forgot about the whole thing until a year later when he was arrested and is facing jail for it. I do not think this is a good way to use these honey traps.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed



Now some argue that computer-generated child pornography is somehow ok, but in my mind it only exacerbates the problem and would most likely lead to a stronger desire for the real thing...


People also thought that widespread availability of pornography would increase the incidence of rape, however that is not the case and at least one major study has found the rate of rape decreases as porn availability increases. I only spent a few minutes searching, but I could not find a study regarding the rate of child sex abuse and the availability of child porn.


I meant "the real thing" as in real child pornography, sorry shoulda specified that



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by agentblue
 


But these are pictures that they have already confiscated from cases they have already prosecuted, it's not like they are taking the pictures themselves, they aren't re traumatizing anyone unless they are forcing kids to view there own pictures.

It's like using real drugs in a drug sting. or real women in a prostitute sting.

The question remains why don't you want law enforcement to be able to investigate and stop child porn peddlers and users?


Here let me post what the op had to say about an experience that he/sher had. And I quote.



My daughter was playing on a computer dress up game for brat dolls and a popup came on the screen and she clicked and it was a FBI child porn site that was linked. I was fu&kin pissed that they would link to a kids website and the FBI confirmed the pop up was their link when I reported it! I felt like they were the ones who were trying to poison my kids on a secure kid friendly site.



What part of this statement did you not understand. The FBI put a child porn link on the daughter's website. [SNIP]

I would be ticked and I would probably do more about it than the op. If this ever happens to me, I am contacting every news station and congressman in this darn country. This is absurd and I agree totally with boondock, it is the FBI's fault.
edit on 3-3-2011 by Gemwolf because: Mod Edit: Removed personal insult



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer
 


I don't think they are creating anything but using already confiscated pictures to identify child porn rings. I don't see the problem. If you aren't looking for that stuff you aren't likely to find it. And you certainly aren't going to be downloading it if you don't want it.



Originally posted by Billmeister

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer
 


I don't think they are creating anything but using already confiscated pictures to identify child porn rings. I don't see the problem. If you aren't looking for that stuff you aren't likely to find it. And you certainly aren't going to be downloading it if you don't want it.


And this, I tend to also agree with, which makes me somewhat of a fence-sitter, I concede.

If the material is made difficult to access, meaning that there is obvious intent to access and consume child pornography, then it is an effective tool to ensnare fans of this filth, and bring them to justice, is it not?

the Billmeister


This is what people don't seem to understand. I basically said this already in the thread, but I can understrand it might have been overlooked by some.

Now, say the FBI is using pictures/videos that have already been produced, and they are using them as bait to catch pedophiles. So pedophile bob downloads a video/picture, then be burns 20 copies of it. Then he trades/sells these pictures and videos to other pedophiles. Now you have a video/picture that may have only been seen by a few pedophiles before it was taken down, that is being reintroduced into the pedophiles sick trading underworld. Hopefully the guy that downloaded them will get caught and thrown i jail, but this won't stop the multiple copies he already made from expanding throughout the world.

That is the issue I have with it. A poor victim becoming the object of interest for these sickos all over again. We should not be supporting the FBI increase the amount of this porno out there.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 



[SNIP]


Probably can't deny the last one, but I have a hard time believing the OP's story of a child porn pop up in his kids game. Now to specify, I have a hard time believing the event actually took place. I am not suggesting that the OP surfs these kinds of sites and because of cookies in his browser he got this pop up. I am thinking that he made this story up to add credence to his take that the government is doing a bad thing.


I would be ticked and I would probably do more about it than the op. If this ever happens to me, I am contacting every news station and congressman in this darn country. This is absurd and I agree totally with boondock, it is the FBI's fault.


Yea, and you would have had to prove to those news outlets something, that the pop up was unsolicited. Because after all, you don't get pop ups like this unless the computer you are at has cookies for similar kinds of websites.


edit on 3/2/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by Gemwolf because: Mod Edit: Removed quoted insult




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join