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."
A couple of years ago I was looking for a software patch file for an old game that was not supported any more.
I found a supposedly reputable site that maintained old patch files and such and when I clicked the link to my patch I got hijacked big time! It took me over seven hours of virus and registry sweeping to kill all the bad things that happened.
Answer: nothing."
To all: The force is strong in this one!
OMG! This isn’t even about buttons or ads. It is about HYPERLINKS!
Now this DOES scare the crap out of me. Imagine going to sites (like this thread) where the hyperlink has nothing to do with the text and you get used to that paradigm, and then you go to one of these sites and think it is a joke!!!
This is incredibly Orwellian.
Well FW88, I notice you conveniently jumped right over this assertion from someone who knows how to trap people. What say you?
Reason #212 why I have a wired and not wireless connection. They want to hijack this they have to physically clamp onto the wire.
>>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 would say less than 1% of those that click on them are “creeps”. The rest are guys in the privacy of their own home seeing the hyperlink and (maybe out of boredom) saying, “what the heck is this?”, or “Naw, that can’t really be what it looks like.” and clicking to see if it were true. What’s the harm, right?
It is like cameras at traffic lights. It just corsens everything. You always feel like you are being watched even if you “believe” you are doing nothing wrong. And now, even in your own home.
Just wow.
I was thinking the same thing but their are posters on this thread assuring us there are foolproof government safeguards in place!
Not to worry all is well!!!
Right?
Post #119 is code* to turn the most innocent site into a warrant to bust into your home. Enjoy!
*code has bugs in it - this isn’t the best code editor here and I whipped it up in about 180 seconds flat - best I leave it that way, anyone who can identify the bugs can recreate the whole thing themselves anyway
True. My neighbor asked me to set up her wireless network and when I turned everything on I found three unprotected networks nearby that had top signal strengths. Two of them were her next door neighbors.
I told them about what I found and about three months later as I went to fix a small problem with her system I found that none of them had secured their networks!
I run my home with Cat5 and run only wired hardware. I am paranoid but at least I am somewhat safe.
Gonna look into it,though I always knew (and proved it) that you can take a cordless phone with you , drive around , and find a dial tone , and make a phone call,for some reason did not think about this wireless,,gonna fix it or it’s going to be hard wired.Appreciate it Dawgg
I’ll bet the Chicoms use this technique.
THIS MAN WAS NOT ARRESTED FROM CONTENT FOUND AT HIS HOUSE ON A SEARCH WARRENT!
From the article:
Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes "attempts" to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.
And no, I'm not defending perverts.
My fingers tremble when I yell...
When I first setup my wireless network (never had worked with wireless at all at the time) I went through the steps with my desktop comp that is on the hardwired part of the network and programmed the wireless router. Then I fired up my brand new laptop and engaged the wireless system (using the fkeys) and was about to start setting up the wireless network connection when I noticed that it had already connected.
Curious as to how it did I surfed to Yahoo to make sure it had connected and got yahoo's page. I knew I had not entered any codes yet. So I started Checking. I had logged onto a neighbor's wireless across the street (who BTW is our School System's Superintendent < boggle >) because the "automatically connect to available networks" option was enabled.
I logged off and disabled the autoconnect until I got my security stuff entered, and fixed the priorities so it wouldn't log onto unsecured stuff without my asking it to.
Last year our school gives all the 7th and 8th grade students laptops with wireless they can use during the school year and even take home with them. She brings it home and shows me. I told her to being it to me later and I will enable it to hookup to our network. She tells me later no need she is using the schools wireless network (which is more than half a mile away). I check it ou and yep she is hooked into the Super's wireless. He still has not enabled any security and that was three years ago when I first found it.
Does not matter how you spell it,it’s what it is.And it ain’t what is being fought for.!!
I realized earlier as I was typing that I am on a work computer and including certain words that may cause a buzzer to go off somewhere so I immediately stopped typing and logged off.
But what crime did I really commit other than using a work computer to talk to other people? And I normally leave work a couple of hours ago...
OK now, lets take it to the next level.
We have now a man who has been directly linked to a computer with a cable inserted into his head and hooked to his brain. (google "cyberkinetics BrainGate Neural Interface System") Taking into account the rapid advance of technology how long before we hook up to the net with wireless chips implanted into our heads?
With precedence like this FBI program will "thought crime" be punishable with incarceration or worse?
Slippery slope is soooooo apropos here!
Before I click, are they 18 year old boobies, or 17 year old boobies?
I guess it all depends on who is responsible for deciding such things. Right now it seems you are probably guilty of something if a link is clicked and can be traced to your IP.
Comforting isn't it?
BTW does anyone else get an involuntary facial tic when reading the phrase "foolproof government safeguards" ???
I oppose this technique for reasons already stated. The net (I don’t mean the internet) is just too big, and its use necessarily ignores the personal catastrophe resulting from a 2 am no knock by LEOs dead set to search and seize someone who may be, a long way down nightmare road, determined to be not guilty.
It may not be entrapment, but it is dangerous.
Anyway, people need to rethink their relationships with their computers. I tell my kids to drive like a cop’s behind them. It appears that we should surf that way, too.
Also, it’s just another chip at privacy. The Man just starts with something the vast majority of people find disgusting, establishes the legality of the procedure, and then, inexorably, moves on to other less and less and less disgusting subjects. Last night my sister told me my attitude toward HRC was disgusting.
If you trust the government, especially in the privacy realm, you are quite naive. Gov’t is about, and has always been about, since time out of mind, obtaining, securing and controlling power. The more power it has, the more abusive it becomes. We knew this in 1787. We ignore it at our peril.
We have lost our collective notion of the presumption of innocence.
Cops can lie to you and that’s cool. It’s a crime for you to lie to cops.
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.