FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects

[quadriga]

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nl.e703

The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.

Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.

A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who's using an open wireless connection--and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.

[smoochez]

1. This is clearly entrapment

But as we saw today, when the State Department officials apparently stole Obama's passport, nobody is safe. Not even presidential candidates.

[Pavulon]

2. honeypots

used to trap assholes and morons for many years.

Sounds like a problem for those looking for pictures or vids of kiddie porn.

[wuushew]

3. That is just your opinion

By preventing hypothetical crime you are wasting actual money and man power from an agency that is stretched to the breaking point. Its a wonder than any crime at all gets solved by the FBI.

[WillowTree]

5. No "hypothetical" crime here.

Click the link, and the crime has been committed. Gotcha. At least in most states.

My guess is that a case might be made for entrapment, but that's about it.

[wuushew]

7. No there was no crime

No porn was on the other end. I hope they haul a toddler or non-English speaker in and explain to the court why they are wasting the public's dime trying to prove intent.

[Pavulon]

8. Cop in a mini skirt

peckerwood drives by and proposes $50 for a half and half. He is not really getting any but he made the offer.

Same deal here.

Pretty simple lesson for internet slime dont chase links that advertise kids having sex.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Not the same thing.

Because there is no proof that the person who clicked was really searching for that. Maybe it was cross-linked with legal "barely legal" porn, and he clicked without due deliberation. Maybe he saw it and decided to see if it was for real. Maybe he was trying to be a good citizen and intended to report the address to the FBI.

You don't know. They don't know.

It is clearly entrapment.

The FBI would be better served tracking down REAL sites and shutting THEM down, not worrying about some poor schmuck who like as not had no bad intentions in the first place. It's like busting pot smokers instead of smak dealers. A waste of time and energy that does nothing about the problem.

[Pavulon]

17. Please do not equate

dope smoking with kid porn infractions.

From articles on old cases these people dont do one thing. They are consumers.

It appears to be a tool in the tool box for the feds.

Obviously the people that create this and distribute it should be issued life destroying federal time. 20 years is a great start.

In Louisiana sex with a person 12 or under is a death penalty case.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. But that's exactly what I'm saying.

A simple click is not proof of anything. There are many reasons why someone would click on such a link, and a few of them may be perfectly innocent.

I'm not comparing dope smoking to indulging in kiddie porn. My comparison is in the chasing down of the lowest rung on the ladder instead of getting the dealers or purveyors. It's the lazy way of doing it and it does nothing to stop the problem (not that I think dope smoking is a problem - but that's a different discussion).

One thing it DOES do is greatly expand the government's power to bust down doors. And, of course, empower the puritans and morality police because, if I was wandering around a barely legal site, and connect to a link that looks like she's maybe 13 - no matter that it says 18 - am I to expect a knock at my door at 3AM? It would make me avoid ALL similar sites, legal or not, which is exactly what the thought police want.

There are more than 2 million people in prison today. At least half don't belong there. This will only increase the 'prison for pay' system.

[Pavulon]

39. All fine and good

people who produce child porn deserve to die. People who consume it deserve prison.

They are not targeting barely legal porn. They are not targeting people who stumble in.

They are looking for child porn. It does not need more description but is not what you are talking about.

They are targeting people who are consuming this in quantity or distributing it.

[usrbs]

44. There are too many innocent people that could be caught using this trick

As other posters have said, it could be clicked on by mistake, by a kid in the house, hell, even my cat walking across the keyboard may trigger a midnight FBI visit.

There are a lot of better ways that don't carry such a risk of false positives.

[Pavulon]

45. Do you have some stats to share

about how many makes up your to many assertion.

The FBI is not looking for false positives. They are looking for convictions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. And how do they get those convictions?

By busting down your door at 3AM, seizing your computer and everything on it, forcing you to put up bail, pay for a lawyer and MAYBE get your property back when they find nothing. All on the basis of a very meager suspicion, because of an errant click.

This is police state tactics.

This is the same police that cannot be bothered with tracking real, known pedophiles.

[Pavulon]

47. Well If they break down my door

they aren't finding pictures of preteen children being raped. Again they are not looking to waste time with errant clicks. They are looking for substantial cases that put people away for decades.

This is setting a deadfall for human filth.

People who consume child porn deserve a no knock warrant, concussion grenades, and zip ties.

They are not targeting an accidental click.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. True, they won't find those.

But you will pay thousands for a lawyer, lose your computer for six months, and spend years trying to convince your friends and acquaintences that you are NOT Chester the Molester.

And if the only criteria for your police state tactics is a click on a single website, they are NOT targetting, they are fishing.

And you damn well know it - you've just backed yourself into a totalitarian corner and can't figure out how to get out of it.

BTW, when they DO bust down your door in the middle of the night, are you going to take the pistol from your bedside table to defend yourself? Good way to wind up dead.

THAT is what happens with 'no-knock' busts.

[Occulus]

25. How about this?

There's a Firefox extension which allows you to see a preview of a page before actually clicking it. You simply mouse over a link, and the link pops up in the preview window.

In that case, you could simply do a Google search for a term contained on the page- porn-related or not- and Google would dutifully bring it up, you ACCIDENTALLY mouse over the popup mouse-over icon, and BAM! You're caught.

In that scenario, you don't have to click a thing or even enter a porn-related search.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. you nailed it!

there is so much automated in web browsing today that just THINKING about a topic might get you busted...ok, that's a little far, but you could not be more right about the apps that are intended to 'enhance' the browsing experience.

sP

[Pavulon]

37. I would bet this is not a primary charge.

IE you are not going to court on this one. However it is grounds for a warrant to search.

Again I dont think the feds are targeting people who hit one hyperlink.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. They made it against the law...

To attempt to get child porn, even if you do not receive it. That is the crux of their effort.

Of course, the creation of false links could be viewed as enticing a person into committing a crime. That would be entrapment. However, with our present court system...

[cynatnite]

16. Which didn't happen in this case from what they're saying...

"Claims of entrapment have been made in similar cases, but usually do not get very far," said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "The individuals who chose to log into the FBI sites appear to have had no pressure put upon them by the government...It is doubtful that the individuals could claim the government made them do something they weren't predisposed to doing or that the government overreached."

The outcome may be different, Saltzburg said, if the FBI had tried to encourage people to click on the link by including misleading statements suggesting the videos were legal or approved.

[Occulus]

26. Read my post; you don't even have to try anymore

Hell, you don't even have to be looking at porn anymore. And NO, I am NOT going to put my scenario to a test; that would be foolish.

This shit should scare everyone.

[LanternWaste]

34. Are we aware of anyone who has been indicted

Are we aware of anyone who has been indicted for using the page preview function?

[cynatnite]

11. Well, the guy in this case did a lot more than click on a link...

Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink; knowingly destroying a hard drive and a thumb drive by physically damaging them when the FBI agents were outside his home; obstructing an FBI investigation by destroying the devices; and possessing a hard drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible).

The judge threw out the third count and the jury found him not guilty of the second. But Vosburgh was convicted of the first and last counts, which included clicking on the FBI's illicit hyperlink.

In a legal brief filed on March 6, his attorney argued that the two thumbnails were in a hidden "thumbs.db" file automatically created by the Windows operating system. The brief said that there was no evidence that Vosburgh ever viewed the full-size images--which were not found on his hard drive--and the thumbnails could have been created by receiving an e-mail message, copying files, or innocently visiting a Web page.

From the FBI's perspective, clicking on the illicit hyperlink and having a thumbs.db file with illicit images are both serious crimes. Federal prosecutors wrote: "The jury found that defendant knew exactly what he was trying to obtain when he downloaded the hyperlinks on Agent Luder's Ranchi post. At trial, defendant suggested unrealistic, unlikely explanations as to how his computer was linked to the post. The jury saw through the smokes (sic) and mirrors, as should the court."

It depends on who you believe here.

[Pavulon]

15. I dont believe the yanker

who destroyed his kiddie port stash while the law was coming in..

What a tool.

[LanternWaste]

33. From what I understand...

From what I understand (at least in TX), merely attempting to access child pornography is a crime-- regardless of whether one is 'successful' or not.

[JackRiddler]

41. That's insane!

Anyone can click a link by mistake. The text of a link can be disguised or changed instantly. This is another new category of thought crime.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. And those who accidentally click on it

are just screwed I suppose.

[pitohui]

27. it sounds like a problem for anyone who has a teen boy in the house

it also sounds like a problem for anyone who has someone who doesn't like them

hmmm, i'm worried about an office rival showing me up on the job and getting my promotion, one day while he's out on a sales call, i slip into his office and use his computer to click on the child porn linky -- bye bye rival

i bet it happens all the time, considering the number of 50 something guys w. no priors getting arrested around here

one day we'll find out it's like the child care/mcmartin thing but it will be too late for the innocents, you don't get your 10 or 20 years of life back

[cynatnite]

6. Torn on this one...

maybe they see it as having probable cause to raid these homes to see if there is any other child pornography on the computers. I'm all for anything that keeps pedophiles away from kids.

At the same time I wonder how clear this kind of investigation is...whether it would amount to anything or just wind up snaring innocent people who happened to click on a link.

[quadriga]

22. And then there is Pete Townsend.

Didn't he get busted for visiting a site and then he claimed he was doing his "own investigation". Yeah right.

[aasleka]

10. I hate to say it but it isn't illegal to click on links purporting to be kiddie porn

Unless someone can show me where the law states that the words alone are violation of the law, and if that is the case then those who write about kiddie love are criminal,,, hmmm who wrote something about pipes and product? Maybe Stephanie Miller can help me remember?

[WillowTree]

19. It's called intent.

Even an attempt to access what one thinks is kiddie porn is a crime all by itself in most jurisdictions.

[aasleka]

20. So how is the government going to prove what someone was thinking?

How many times have you viewed a link that describes it's content as something other than wha it is? Also since it is illegal it could even be argued that the public would inherently believe it would not be available publicly as the isp would also be held liable.

This would be a field day at jury trial any lawyer should be able to cast at least some doubt about what their client was "thinking".

[pitohui]

29. how are they even going to prove what "someone" was sitting at the computer?

computers are not specially keyed so that they only work for one person

anyone in my home can use my computer, my house sitter, any of a zillion house guests, my katrina evacuee who still has a key, lots of people

[LanternWaste]

35. Intent is a major factor in many trials

Intent is a major factor in many trials. Intent can differentiate between manslaughter, man 1, man 2, man 3, etc. As far as I know, courts and juries who determine intent don't do it by reading anyone's minds, they do it by listening to both sides of the case and coming to the most reasonable conclusion available.

[DefenseLawyer]

28. It is doubtful anyone would be charged for "clicking the link"

rather, the act of clicking the link would be used as probable cause to get a search warrant to search the persons home and in it, his or her computer hard drive. Charges would be based on what was found in the search. That avoids the issues of entrapment and proving intent all together. The question would be whether the simple act of clicking a link would create probable cause to believe a person possessed child porn in his home, so as to validate the search warrant request. Seems very thin to me.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

30. might have been sloppy reporting but...it appears this person WAS

charged with just that ... from the article :

Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink; knowingly destroying a hard drive and a thumb drive by physically damaging them when the FBI agents were outside his home; obstructing an FBI investigation by destroying the devices; and possessing a hard drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible).

sP

[DefenseLawyer]

32. I did a little digging

It appears he was charged with "Attempting to Receive Child Pornography" which he did initiate by clicking on the bogus link, but the link led to an actual file which purported to contain child pornography, which it was alleged he had then attempted to download into his computer. The crime charged would be based on the attempted download, not the "click" or viewing of the web page accessed through the link. That could be proven forensically from his own computer and from ISP data.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. so...sloppy reporting it is...

i would think clicking the link would be a little too vague and too easy to accidentally do as kfgnally points out above (heck, you need not click anything). The attempted download...yes, THAT is a willful act...

Thanks for the checking that us cube hounds can't do...

sP

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. Gotta continue to fill up

those "for profit" prisons.:puke:

[cynatnite]

13. The last paragraph is the kicker to this whole article...

When asked what would stop the FBI from expanding its hyperlink sting operation, Harvey Silverglate, a longtime criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge, Mass. and author of a forthcoming book on the Justice Department, replied: "Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of 'entrapment,' and so expansive in their definition of 'probable cause,' there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit."

[aasleka]

21. Yeah, using this arguement you arrest anyone from insider trading to

drug trafficking. Just imagine what you could get people to click on?

[wuushew]

23. kick

:kick:

[Peace Teacher]

24. Great potential for abuse and entrapment.

[pitohui]

38. well it won't affect us, i mean, i've NEVER been rickrolled, NEVER clicked on a link i didn't want

actually i bet everyone in this thread has been rickrolled

we all click on links we think they're one thing and they're another thing

again, if you have even one person who doesn't like you, what a gift the FBI has just given them, find a way to ship the link to the person as an innocent looking link to something the person is actually interested in and their entire life is destroyed

[Pavulon]

40. They are not looking for a single hit

they are using this as probable cause to serve a warrant. If they serve a warrant and find nothing so be it. How is a life destroyed?

Like your power bill going up 300% will attract attention. So does this.

However these people tend to have thousands of images and videos.

[wuushew]

42. You really don't like weed do you

Thank Gawd high efficiency LED grow lamps were invented.

[aasleka]

43. So it would be bad to rename the fbi hyperlink Obama-clinton sex scandal and post it on freerepublic

?