Posted on 03/24/2008 2:16:11 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
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. . .
The implications of the FBI's hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography--and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages. The bureau could register the "unlawfulimages.com" domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on. . .
While it might seem that merely clicking on a link wouldn't be enough to justify a search warrant, courts have ruled otherwise. On March 6, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Nevada agreed with a magistrate judge that the hyperlink-sting operation constituted sufficient probable cause to justify giving the FBI its search warrant. . .
The magistrate judge ruled that even the possibilities of spoofing or other users of an open Wi-Fi connection "would not have negated a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of child pornography would be found on the premises to be searched." Translated, that means the search warrant was valid.
Entrapment: Not a defense So far, at least, attorneys defending the hyperlink-sting cases do not appear to have raised unlawful entrapment as a defense.
"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.". . .
Civil libertarians warn that anyone who clicks on a hyperlink advertising something illegal--perhaps found while Web browsing or received through e-mail--could face the same fate.
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."
Yeah, it was an accident. That’s it. I was doing “investigative work”.
Did anyone not see this coming?
It doesnt seem much dif from”I was thinking about entering that smut store” 1984 were here...
1. Click on “GOP.org/donations”
2. Name and IP address instantly registered at DNC HQ as a hate crime
3. Knocking on doors commences
4. Questioning begins with “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Conservative?”
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Plus; if I think you suck...I forward you a know FBI intrapment link...you click it your history.....give me a frigen break.....
Ping.
I would expect the same thing with NRA.org
I guess they are raiding a lot of public libraries and public schools.
How ‘bout the day a Hillary or Obama Justice Department decides to put this very website on its blacklist? To be followed by pre-dawn selective enforcement?
Can’t happen here, you say?
How can this be possible when you get sometimes unsolicited smutty spam. I never open it.
If you delete delete is it still in your mother board?
Anyone screaming about this has to be into kiddie porn, because there is no other reason for one to be throwing a tantrum over it.
I clicked on the link you provided but it just went to some weird porn site. /s
What if I hide the URL with another word or picture, and make someone click into it?
By the way, according to WiKi:
“Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed.”
And the only reason you'd own a gun is because you want to kill people.
This is just plain dumb. Hackers/Spammers/spoofers will have them investigating millions of innocent people in no time.
As long as they meet their arrest quota, what do they care?
There is one simple rule to avoid entrapment. Never open an E-mail from someone whose name you don’t recognize, but send it to spam.
This is absolutely begging for abuse by law enforcement.
The program doesn’t work in that manner. Nice try. Perhaps you should examine the ins and outs of the issue before passing judgment.
Exactly.
Plus, the government now has an easy way to pick off political dissidents.
Too far for me...Forwarding someone to a bad link is very easy.
Of course links "can't be spoofed or disguised" right?
Click Here if you support the troops and Love the USA!
Get the picture now?
...but I wasn’t interested in “illegal images” of that kind, so I didn’t speak out. Then they came for the folks who were interested in looking at design features for dangerous illegal nuclear weapons, but I wasn’t interested in “illegal images” of that kind, so I didn’t speak out. Then they came for the folks who wanted to look at pictures of dangerous illegal naked prostitutes but I wasn’t interested in “illegal images” of that kind, so I didn’t speak out. Then they came for the folks who were interested in looking at specs for dangerous illegal machine guns, but I wasn’t interested in “illegal images” of that kind, so I didn’t speak out. Then they came for the folks who were interested in viewing videos of dangerous people who burned the flag and criticized the police but I wasn’t interested in “illegal images” of that kind, so I didn’t speak out.
Then they came for me.
And there was nobody left to speak out for me.
In what manner does it work, officer?
Typical libertine response. No, unlike you I support the FBI locking up pervs.
So the gov. is getting into the phishing business, right? sheesh...and to think our tax dollars are paying for this.
..and forwarding an innocent person to a bad website is easy. One line of html code and wham...you are nowvisiting uncle neal’s place.
So did Eliot Spitzer.
I read the article and posted based on the information presented therein. Perhaps you should enlighten all of us as to how it really works instead of insinuating that anybody here who disagrees with you is a pedo?
“Anyone screaming about this has to be into kiddie porn, because there is no other reason for one to be throwing a tantrum over it.”
You obviously have no understanding of the nature of the internet and how easy it would be for anyone to have the FBI beating down YOUR door for clicking this link.
Have fun in court.
Whatever you say, Mr. Spitzer.
HELP- I clicked the child porn image BY ACCIDENT!
You obviously have no understanding of the technical aspects of the program and how it works.
Not only that but there is NO ACTUAL child PORN on the site so the prosecution is for intent?
Ah, juvenile antics. The retreat of libertines everywhere. How quaint.
I would be interested in what you think about Izzy’s and Maddawgg’s illustrations.
See post 29.
I'm just afraid of catching rabies from you.
MS-13 is turning half of America into a war zone, and they can spare agents for this shit? Are you kidding me?
Look to Post 12 to see a possible scenario.
Yeah, researching a book... I’m happy the FBI is on the job. Knowing who goes to these sites is a start - a start toward catching the creeps. Hats off to the FBI.
I am certainly not endorsing child porn or any other illegal activity, but there is no proof WHO actually clicked on the site. Like the article says, if you have an open WIFI connection, it could be a neighbor, someone parked near your house, or anyone.
What if your teenage daughter brings her boyfriend over to your house while you are out and HE uses your computer to access these sites? What if your 10 year old son who doesn’t know better access these sites? If you have a “family computer” in the den everyone in the house uses, who do they arrest? Everyone in the house, or do they just assume the adult male in the house is the guilty party?
What if you lend your laptop to someone? What if you use your personal laptop at work and a co-worker uses it during your lunch break to cruise kiddie porn? What about your work comuter? You really have no control over who uses it or doesn’t when your are not directly sitting in front of it.
Then there is the problem with sophisticated “hacker” types who could hijack and use your IP address (or whatever other identifying data is necessary). Someone in India could
steel your identity and are cruise these illegal sites under your name.
Try “PROVING YOUR INNOCENCE” in a court of law if the government doesn’t have to actually prove that YOU are guilty.
I think that the government should have to prove that a person committed a crime, not just show evidence that a machine was used (by someone) to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.