To catch pedophiles, FBI is starting to distribute kiddie porn itself

[Anarchist420]

The FBI needs to be abolished right now and forever. They just murdered an unarmed civilian for fuck's sake.

 

[werepossum]

How many child pornography enthusiasts are not being caught and end up with more material, or worse, how many new child pornography enthusiasts are being created with the influx of child pornography that the FBI is spreading?

My guess is the convictions far outweigh the negative effects that this program has, otherwise the FBI wouldn't do it, but I would at least like some insight into the rationale.

The explanation back in the seventies was that by continuing the mailing list they got more purchasers to add to the list of previous purchasers. By busting these new posters, they discovered new providers & therefore more sources, the people actually molesting and exploiting the children. I think this would be true of the Internet as well. I can't specifically answer your questions as some pedophiles undoubtedly get material without getting caught, but apparently the FBI at least believes it is a net positive, as it has to be very unpleasant to work these sites.

 

[Nebor]

The FBI needs to be abolished right now and forever. They just murdered an unarmed civilian for fuck's sake.

To be fair, an FBI agent's force continuum is radically different than a local, county or state police officer. Failure to follow their instructions (armed or not) can result in the use of authorized deadly force, and the bureau will stand behind them. The agent involved in the Boston Marathon bomber's friend's shooting will undoubtedly walk away and disappear into another part of bureau.

 

[LumbergTech]

...Because it's not possible to view something...
-On accident
-For Research
-For Example
-Because someone else troll linked you (ala meatspin, goatse, etc..)



Anyone here who agrees that recording an IP that visited a site as a viable offense worthy of ANYTHING is a dumbass. You are the reason our rights are raped worse then poor innocent children.

Reported to authorities!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Is your name Pete?

I would hope the FBI is intelligent enough to be able to figure out whether an IP address is accidentally clicking through the site or actively searching and downloading pictures. I work in IT... don't know jack shit about web servers... but know enough I can generate precise logs to see what a visitor is doing.

And research? Really? You better find another research topic because that is no excuse.

What the fuck logs can you uncover? THIS IS A VISITOR TO A WEBSERVER. They don't have fucking logs of people's routers showing if they previously searched google for the site. What are you smoking? Let alone their mind, intentions, or anything of that sort.

Yet another retard liberal in line with the rest of the dumb fucks that can't do anything but say "YEH WELL IF U GOT NUTTIN TO HIDE THEN WHY YOU WORRYIN?!"

Fucking god you need help on an astronomical level.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Unlike you... I think child porn is one of the most heinous crimes out there. An IP address will ultimately equal a physical address. My ISP knows all about the cable modem in my house. So you get an address and seize the computers... tough shit for you if you were clicking through the site and downloading pictures.

Ok - now you're diving off a different subject. Another in which, you are still a closed-minded retard.

I will not disagree that anything non-consensual, rape, etc.. is disgusting. As is taking pictures of babies. But tell me this Captain Morality.

What defined your morals of an unacceptable picture to jerk off to? I'll tell you what - last week when you jerked off to that 17 year old in a 4chan thread that looked hot... did you turn yourself into the authorities afterwards?

This whole notion that 18 is a magical number that is set in minds of people with no notion of their own is disgusting. Seriously, we need a label maker to print "ROBOT" across your forehead.

 

[daveshel]

Law enforcement has been on a slippery slope since the first time somebody went under cover. Winning a criminal's confidence to betray him is immoral. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[rudder]

What the fuck logs can you uncover? THIS IS A VISITOR TO A WEBSERVER. They don't have fucking logs of people's routers showing if they previously searched google for the site. What are you smoking? Let alone their mind, intentions, or anything of that sort.

Yet another retard liberal in line with the rest of the dumb fucks that can't do anything but say "YEH WELL IF U GOT NUTTIN TO HIDE THEN WHY YOU WORRYIN?!"

Fucking god you need help on an astronomical level.

I need help? Your panties are in such a wad you cannot construct a sentence without the word fuck in it. Does this somehow empower you?

Judging by how easily you get bent, I will assume you do not have the intellect to discuss the technical details used to determine the difference between an accidental click to a website (that is probably not even indexed by search engines) and a deliberate activity to download child porn.

 

[rudder]

Ok - now you're diving off a different subject. Another in which, you are still a closed-minded retard.

I will not disagree that anything non-consensual, rape, etc.. is disgusting. As is taking pictures of babies. But tell me this Captain Morality.

What defined your morals of an unacceptable picture to jerk off to? I'll tell you what - last week when you jerked off to that 17 year old in a 4chan thread that looked hot... did you turn yourself into the authorities afterwards?

This whole notion that 18 is a magical number that is set in minds of people with no notion of their own is disgusting. Seriously, we need a label maker to print "ROBOT" across your forehead.

Apparently you took one too many hits off the crack pipe because that crap you are spouting off is way off track... I do not know how to reply. You lost me when you said that a discussion about child porn is diving off entirely into a different subject that was presented in the OP. I am provided the OP's link to the article for your convenience:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...n-to-nab-pedophiles-4552044.php#ixzz2UiHIhmim

 

[Exterous]

Unlike you... I think child porn is one of the most heinous crimes out there. An IP address will ultimately equal a physical address. My ISP knows all about the cable modem in my house. So you get an address and seize the computers... tough shit for you if you were clicking through the site and downloading pictures.

Now there can be people who go to a place of business anonymously and get some wi-fi. IF I own a business that provides wi-fi... you can be sure I would have some sort of filtering mechanism is place for liability purposes.

Plus the FBI can create an access list to the site and prevent those type of anonymous wi-fi connections.

If you have an unsecured wireless network out of your house.. you will get a quick expensive lesson on why it is important to secure your wireless. And yes, the FBI can probably determine if it was actually your computer or device in your home downloading the pictures or someone leeching.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996.html

Why don't you take a moment and climb down off of the jump to conclusions train. Please point out where I said this was not one of the most heinous crimes? I'll wait.


Oh - no where? OK.

The extent of the crimes does not excuse poor investigations or invasion of rights. All your link does is go to show that an IP address cannot and should not be used to link a person to a crime. I have 0 issues with it being used to start an investigation but one that should, in no way, be made public and merely treated as an unreliable initial report

Of course the FBI has ways to look through your computer once they get a hold of it. I'm pretty sure thats common knowledge but that would only encourage pedophiles to go looking for someone else' internet connection to use.

If you think only unsecured wireless networks are at risk and thats why this is ok you are truly ignorant on this issue. There are plenty of encryption methods that have been hacked. Then there was the huge number of routers from the big industry names (linksys, netgear etc) shipped with a WPS exploit allowing it to be hacked in minutes regardless of the type of encryption used. Didn't require any real work either. Simply download a file - double click and wait 2-3 minutes. Thats it. No 'hacking' skills required. The best part? Most of the manufactures refused to fix the issue even with a firmware update (maybe it couldn't be fixed though). No big issue was made in the news about it though so I'm sure thousands of homeowners have no idea they need to replace their otherwise perfectly working router to be safe

But maybe you have a point. A hack-proof network is pretty easy to setup. I mean, just look at the government. Tons of money and absolutely 0 news reports of military secrets being stolen. So simple!

you will get a quick expensive lesson on why it is important to secure your wireless.

Seems like a good case of guilty until you prove yourself innocent I guess....

 

[thraashman]

I'd say this is the same concept behind an undercover cop posing as a drug dealer (or purchaser) or a prostitute to catch criminals. It's just a good bit creepier.

 

[Darwin333]

Not in and of itself, no, but when you include the second part, that after the victims have already been victimized we can at least use that to take down those who abuse others, to stop it from happening again or at least reduce the number of people out there who would otherwise abuse is a good thing.

You aren't necessarily arresting abusers though, simply people that look at pictures of kids being abused.

I am on the fence on this one. The government argues in these cases that each time one of those pictures is downloaded its like the victim is "abused" again. If that is the case, and that IS what they argue, then why wouldn't that apply to the government?

 

[werepossum]

You aren't necessarily arresting abusers though, simply people that look at pictures of kids being abused.

I am on the fence on this one. The government argues in these cases that each time one of those pictures is downloaded its like the victim is "abused" again. If that is the case, and that IS what they argue, then why wouldn't that apply to the government?

'Cause you don't law the law. Same reason they cruise at 80MPH with a Big Gulp in one hand and a cell phone in the other on their way to give out tickets for going 70MPH and drinking/talking on a cell phone while driving.

This seems to me to be one of the less egregious examples of "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[her209]

Law enforcement has been on a slippery slope since the first time somebody went under cover. Winning a criminal's confidence to betray him is immoral. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What if you tried to expose the abuse and corruption that happens in law enforcement?

 

[blackangst1]

Agreed.

I admit I'm no legal expert but if the FBI was actively distributing (as opposed to what they seem to be doing here), couldn't that be classified as entrapment?

No. It only becomes entrapment if it is shown LEO enticed someone to do something illegal they otherwise wouldnt do.

For example, with cops posing as hookers to catch johns. Yes, it is illegal to troll the street offering services (solicitation). So the cop/hooker is already doing something that otherwise would be illegal. However, in sting cases its usually not the hooker who pushes the issue. Its the john asking about prices, what will you do, etc. Now, if a cop/hooker was in a club, and gets friendly with a patron who tells her "Sorry, Im married and Im not interested" and that cop/hooker continues to press him and finally gets him to agree, that could be seen as entrapment. The wiki article defines it as "In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#cite_note-1 In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability."

Now, if the FBI started a new website and published new pictures/video/whatever, that would be flirting with entrapment.

 

[daveshel]

Took me a while to find one of my favorite quotes from Tom Robbins:

"Hawaii once had a rat problem. Then, somebody hit upon a brilliant solution. Import mongooses from India. Mongooses would kill the rats. It worked. Mongooses did kill the rats. Mongooses also killed chickens, young pigs, birds, cats, dogs, and small children. There have been reports of mongooses attacking motorbikes, power lawn mowers, golf carts, and James Michener. In Hawaii now, there are as many mongooses as there once were rats. Hawaii has traded its rat problem for a mongoose problem. Hawaii was determined nothing like that would ever happen again.... Society had a crime problem. It hired cops to attack crime. Now society has a cop problem."

 

[rudder]

No. It only becomes entrapment if it is shown LEO enticed someone to do something illegal they otherwise wouldnt do.

...

Now, if the FBI started a new website and published new pictures/video/whatever, that would be flirting with entrapment.

The problem is people are treating this as a "ooops I accidently found a link and clicked through pages of child porn" scenario. I bet this is not the case. I highly doubt this website would even be indexed by search engines and more than likely its existence was probably spread by word of mouth. In other words one would have to seek out the site and not happen upon it accidentally. I could be wrong because I have never searched for a website containing child porn. Seeing that this site is hosted in the U.S. further convinces me that it is a word of mouth thing.

One of the difficulties in catching pedophiles is they do not go broadcasting their wares.

I agree with you and see no case for entrapment here.