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."
Thought crimes.
If you (or your kids) look at porn sites, how can you be sure your haven’t downloaded a 17 1/2 year old or just slightly under aged “child”?
Remember the Tracy Lords incident? She made all kinds of porn while she was underaged. When she became legal, she announced to the world her real age making all the copies of her movies she had participated in “child porn”.
I am NOT clicking on that link, lol.
Seriously, I have been sitting here nice as can be at this computer and accidentally clicked on something or not, and had tons of porn ads pop up. It hasn’t happened in a while.
About 5 or 6 months ago, my computer got some kind of virus. My husband insisted it was because I went to weird sites or clicked on something. And I hadn’t. He was finally able to fix it :)
I’ve got at least two on wireless all the time, and on occasion one other. I’m not into child porn so I’m not going to worry about it. If someone is slipping in from the side, the materials will be on their computer, not mine.
Yeah, pretty cool, eh? As programmers, with spoofing tactics and javascripts, we can arbitrarily send "innocent" people to prison with the click of a mouse.
Well, now that you've taken your broad brush to label anyone who sees the inherent danger in this and where it can lead - as perverts = well, speechless.
You'd probably fit right in as a brown-shirted block boss. - (I can 'stereotype" too...
you keep repeating going to this guys blog. I DON'T CARE about his reasoning. He is NOT GOD. Wow, so he has all these elegant, well reasoned statements about how "it cannot be abused." That's laughable. The real world is one of zealous prosecutors and over eager LEO abusing innocent citizens. This prof blog is absolutely irrelevant to how this FBI approach will be implemented. Tyranny is all around us and growing.
This whole idea may be as effective as vice enforcement, which isn’t.
good analogy
Yes, of course. However, if the Wireless network is Yours, the FBI will be knocking On YOUR door. Being that is where the trace will lead.
Imagine the fun as you explain away it all. What's that old saying about proving a negative?
Will the address show up to originate at this set-up,even though the stuff isn’t here.?
Retired , went fishing , lost track of what’s going on.But I ain’t complaining.Thanks,I’m going to study up on this,
I couldn’t agree more, but there isn’t much I can do about it other than shut down my wireless. If a guy really wants to, he can probably hack the wireless and even access some of my computers. I wouldn’t know how to do it, but I do believe there are folks out there who do.
“Will the address show up to originate at this set-up,even though the stuff isn’t here.?”
Most home routers perform a NAT (network address translation) from the home network to the address assigned to you by your ISP. So when the gov traces it down, the last address they will get to is your home router, cable modem, or whatever you have.
Thanks,I feel real cozy inside now,
1. For whatever reason -- be it a google search or an email or some other stimulus -- you click on a link to one of these fake kiddie porn sites and attempt to download what purports to be kiddie porn files. You are somewhat disappointed to find that the files contain gibberish and no actual kiddie porn. You consider filing a complaint with the FCC for false advertising on the part of the website operator, but think better of it before actually visiting the FCC website.
2. While you were attempting to open the file you downloaded from the fake kiddie porn site, the FBI was identifying you by your ip address and preparing a search warrant based on your downloading of what you believed to be a file containing kiddie porn.
3. The warrant is approved and then the FBI visits your house and seizes your computer.
4. Upon finding actual kiddie porn on your computer via a search supported by a warrant, the FBI prepares an indictment for whatever statutes were violated when you stored actual kiddie porn on your computer (or whatever other files you might have on the computer that become evidence of some other crime).
Assuming the authorities do not find any actual illegal files on your computer, there would be no prosecution because no actual crime was committed even though the authorities believe one was attempted.
The link URL is: "http://www.democraticunderground.com/"
A harmless prank, but suppose somebody wrote a link title like: "Click here for good rates on car insurance" but the URL is a kiddie porn link. Bet the rent somebody does that and someone gets lured in and clicks without looking. It could be a forum post, an email, a webpage or any other place.
It will show your address. I suspect that after the FBI runs into 95% false positives on this, they’ll have to wake up to the reality we’re already on to.
[I]”As I understand it, they are not prosecuted for the click.
The click is used to get a search warrant. If actual child porn is then found, they are prosecuted for its possession. So presumably somebody who accidentally clicks on such a site but doesn’t actually have a collection of kiddie videos will be ok.
Unless they bring along their own stuff to “find.”[/I]
Not to mention the possibility that they come in shooting and kill some of your family members as they bash down your door at 3:00 AM.
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.