(from http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nefd.lede)
FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects
Screen snapshot: This now-defunct site is reportedly where an FBI undercover agent posted hyperlinks purporting to be illegal videos. Clicking the links brought a raid from the Feds.
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.
Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.
AUDIO
News.com daily podcast
Reporter Declan McCullagh talks about the FBI's
hyperlinking tactic for getting child porn suspects.
Download mp3 (6.36MB)
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.
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.
"The evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Vosburgh specifically intended to download child pornography, a necessary element of any 'attempt' offense," Vosburgh's attorney, Anna Durbin of Ardmore, Penn., wrote in a court filing that is attempting to overturn the jury verdict before her client is sentenced.
In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, Durbin added: "I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they've brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this."
Durbin did not want to be interviewed more extensively about the case because it is still pending; she's waiting for U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage to rule on her motion. Unless he agrees with her and overturns the jury verdict, Vosburgh--who has no prior criminal record--will be required to register as a sex offender for 15 years and will be effectively barred from continuing his work as a college instructor after his prison sentence ends.
How the hyperlink sting operation worked
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical" activity.
In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic."
Excerpt from an FBI affidavit filed in the Nevada case showing how the hyperlink-sting was conducted.
Some of the links, including the supposedly correct one, included the hostname uploader.sytes.net. Sytes.net is hosted by no-ip.com, which provides dynamic domain name service to customers for $15 a year.
When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.
With the logs revealing those allegedly incriminating IP addresses in hand, the FBI sent administrative subpoenas to the relevant Internet service provider to learn the identity of the person whose name was on the account--and then obtained search warrants for dawn raids.
Excerpt from FBI affidavit in Nevada case that shows visits to the hyperlink-sting site.
The search warrants authorized FBI agents to seize and remove any "computer-related" equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any "addressed correspondence" sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements, and credit card statements.
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 defendant in that case, Travis Carter, suggested that any of the neighbors could be using his wireless network. (The public defender's office even sent out an investigator who confirmed that dozens of homes were within Wi-Fi range.)
But 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."
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.
In the case of Vosburgh, the college instructor who lived in Media, Penn., his attorney has been left to argue that "no reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vosburgh himself attempted to download child pornography."
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."
And, as for the two thumbnail images, prosecutors argued (note that under federal child pornography law, the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" does not require that sex acts take place):
The first image depicted a pre-pubescent girl, fully naked, standing on one leg while the other leg was fully extended leaning on a desk, exposing her genitalia... The other image depicted four pre-pubescent fully naked girls sitting on a couch, with their legs spread apart, exposing their genitalia. Viewing this image, the jury could reasonably conclude that the four girls were posed in unnatural positions and the focal point of this picture was on their genitalia.... And, based on all this evidence, the jury found that the images were of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and certainly did not require a crystal clear resolution that defendant now claims was necessary, yet lacking.
Prosecutors also highlighted the fact that Vosburgh visited the "loli-chan" site, which has in the past featured a teenage Webcam girl holding up provocative signs (but without any nudity).
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."
32 comments:
I think that this is ridiculous. First, like we talked about in class, sometimes these people just network and talk to each other about whatever sick fantasies they have, they don't always act on it. But I think that will federal agents entering these chat rooms or forums or whatever that they're enticing these men, who aren't suspicious that it might be a trap, to click on a link for something they wouldn't normally search out on their own. If the government has started doing this with child porn, what could be next? If they're making illegal links, that means you could potentially do a google search and have something pop up and all of a sudden, your door is beaten down and you're being taken to jail. Also, like so many other things police do that are illegal (talk on their cell phone while driving and speed), why isn't the agent prosecuted for distribution of child pornography? This whole website thing is sketchy.
The beautiful thing about the American culture and judicial system is that we allow ourselves to use our own discretion. We decide whether or not we want to visit child pronography sites, and if you decide to do that and get caught the judge will use his own discretion as to what your intent actually was. I think this is a great way of snabbing predators. Of course not everyone who visits the site is doing so intentionally but I highly doubt they are all mistakes. It is apparent through your criminal history and what else could be found on your harddrive as to what your intent actually was. The decision is left to the discretion of the jury and the judges whom I have faith in to make the right and fair decisions. Constitutionally I feel this may be considered a loop hole but where in the constitution does it address the unlawful use of loopholes? In essence this sting is setting out to find those exploiting children and who is to say that that is wrong or against our rights. It was against the childrens rights to post nude pictures of them in the first place. This can be seen as the children getting their justice.
I must say i strongly agree with the previous comment. What the FBI did is a perfect way to catch some of these perverts. Like she said, police and judges can then used their own discretion to filter out which are dangerous and which ones are not or may have clicked "accidentally". Since cyber crimes are so difficult to detect i beleive that desperate measures sometimes must be taken. Some may argue that this is entrapment, however is these people are clicking on these links then it is most likely something that have done previously. If the FBI doesnt set up operations like this then what else are they suppose to do? How else are they going to be able to catch very dangerous criminals like these who are exploiting and harming young children?
Ashley G.
For the most part i'm all for it. Getting to know who these sick folks are and keeping an eye on them isn't a bad idea. However, if their is an open WiFi port in the area, is it the person who has the open connection the one being charged, or can they actually find the person whom used the open port and ensure they arrest the proper person? That portion of the article seemed a little sketchy to me. Other than that, if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person whom they have in custody is actually the one who commited the crime, then yes, I say do whatever it takes to stop child porn!
Veronica vaiciunas
It's hard to decide what I think on this, but I think it comes down to the fact that the FBI's intentions were good. It was not to clog up the criminal justice system any more than it already is. And we talked about in class that one doesn't "just happen;" one has to specifically seek it out. Though it seemed extreme that the FBI came to his house at 7am, what were they supposed to do? Send a note saying he has been warned and give a date for which they would show up? And it wasn't like they broke the door down unannouced either. I think overall if it was a bad idea, the FBI wouldn't waste their time "seeking out" this type of behavior. I think the rate of recidivism for offenders (not just those possessing porn) is probable cause enough to stop an incident before it happens.
I agree with all the statements that are favorable for the use of official discretion. The Courts have declared these internet operations legal and given the nature of the content I believe that law enforcers are justified in doing what ever is necessary. It was said already and in class that one doesn't just end up viewing the content of these sites. You would have to seek it out. An intensive back round investigation and search all of your belongings would be sufficient to determine your intent or if you regularly viewed this type of material. If these operations are conducted properly than I think they could be effective in catching kiddy porn enthusiasts, kind of like fishing .
The legal arguments that have been given, as well as the ones which are sure to arise, make this a very interesting topic. Looking at the issue of entrapment, I can see the risk the FBI takes in setting up a site to catch criminals. Its like that movie with tom cruise where they can see crimes taking place in the future, and they catch them before they occur. The internet is bringing us into a whole new realm of crime, as well as opening a whole new can of legal issues. I think there will be some judges which will view this as entrapment, even though the law states the intent or attempt is just as guilty. I can see how this site is meant to target certain individuals, and I also think the argument of privacy will be brought up soon as well. Does our government have the right to monitor our internet usage to the point of infringing on our privacy to actually make us commit the crime? Obviously I am not pro-pedophelia or child porn, but i think it will be interesting to see where the legal arguments take us regarding these type of crimes.
-Christina D.
I think that this situation is tricky. The intentions of the FBI are good but are they going too far? It seems obvious that most normal people would not be clicking on a website for child porn unless they have some desire for it but sometimes people click on things by accident. It may seem that the government is over stepping their boundaries by hacking into people's computers but in this case it may be necessary. Most people how are clicking on these sites are doing it because they are interested, which means they have probably done it previously. If this is the only way to catch all the pedophiles than so be it.
I agree, that the intentions of the FBI were definitely in the good. I understand their efforts to try to catch child molestors, etc. before the problems actually begin. But, I will say the entire website link idea is tricky. Our society is filled with plenty of perverts who never act on their fantasies. So is that fair to catch them in an act they never actually planned on committing? Also, I agree, what could the FBI be setting you up with next?
In response to the issue of FBI agents using fake hyperlinks to capture child pornography suspects, I find that officers are justified in their tactics and strategies. Child pornography is often very difficult to track because it is nearly impossible to regulate the internet. I believe that there are some unintended consequences to these fake postings, such as false imprisonment yet I find that the chances of capturing someone who honestly did not intend on downloading child porn are very slim. For example, in the case of the Professor Vosburgh, initially it appeared as though he was being falsely accused of accessing an internet link with the intent of viewing child pornography. Yet we come to find out later that he had explicit thumbnails of exposed females; and tried to destroy his hard-drive during the FBI raid. I will not dispute that there are some ethical issues involving these fake hyperlinks but once again, if an individual is truly innocent of the offenses he or she is being accused of, there is no way that the judge, jury, and prosecution will not be able to find that person completely guilty.
I agree that this is a good way to catch those predators who may be a risk to society. As discussed in class many people who visit these sites never end up seeking out victims though. I believe that once it has been discovered that a person visited these sites they should be investigated further to see how many times they actually visit sites such as these to determine how much of a threat to society they are.
This fake website business was made with good intentions but doesn't do anyone any good. The internet has been used as an outlet for people to talk about some desires they have that stray from the social norm. In doing so it keeps them from staying in line with social norms and not having to act on any impulses they have. By putting up sites such as this, people may be enticed and curious. I wouldn't want to be someone who wasn't paying attention to what they were clicking on and being busted by the FBI for downloading child porn or looking at sites that hosted such information. There are better ways to go about such investigations and instead of creating fake sites the authorities should focus more on those tha really do exist.
I think this is a great tactic being used because they catch them in the act. Now I wasnt wuite clear on if you could accidently come across this type of a link or if it was staged in such a way that you had to go out and search right for this content. If so, the proof is in the pudding. They were willing to click the link because they wanted to see the child porn. As a previous post discussed, it is in our hands - we use our discretion. People make that choice to view these sites or stay away from them as well. And since our soceity is filled with perverts that never act on their fantasies, how can we be sure which ones will and which ones wont? We need to attack it at the base level and I believe this is a great way to do so.
I can see an issue or two that should probably be addressed with it but on the whole I feel its a good idea. There really isnt any difference in doing something like this as compared to an undercover cop playing a hooker. You can always choose to walk or drive by the hooker, nobody is forcing you to stop and pay them to have sex with you. Thats something you freely choose on your own. The website is really no different. The FBI puts a link out there, they are telling you right up front that this is a child porn site. Nobody is forcing them to click on that link, they make that choice freely. Entrapment is not a valid defense in these cases. Personally I feel that anything that can potentially keep kids from being exploited and abused is fine with me. Those sick individuals who are into child porn know its a federal crime and the risks associated with downloading and viewing it.After they're caught they then whine about it being entrapment. My thought is if you know the risks, do it and are caught, have the balls to admit your wrong instead of trying to make excuses about why or if you did it. I feel no pity for them and they deserve what they get.
Lynda F.
This really isn't a breach of privacy or an intrusion on our rights as citizens. The internet allows many people the freedom to look at whatever they want, annonymously or not. The thing is, however, that the internet still falls under the laws that we as a society have created. Child pornography is considered fairly universally as a disgusting fetish, and as a society we link child pornography with pedophilia. As the internet is very difficult to regulate and since it has opened up a new medium for pediphiles, molesters, and kiddie porn lovers to satisfy their needs and make it easier for them to move along the continuum to attempting meetings with children, etc etc, it is not inconceivable that law enforcement agencies would try to regulate and enforce actual laws. It is illegal to have child porn. Whether you disagree with the law or not, it is a law. And, kiddie porn pop-ups don't fly onto your screen daily. Regular porn? Yes. But not kiddie porn, so if you click on a website boasting child porn, and try to navigate through the website instead of just x-ing out of it, it's pretty clear that you have intent to view child pornography. And viewing it on your computer means it will download to your computer. Which means you own it. Which is a crime.
Caitlyn Colburn
I think that the FBI has every right to post up websites. The FBI just doesnt go and search for people online. A person has to have intensions on commiting this act. Also like we talked about in class ive seen that tv show where the person is on the internet talking to the police thinking the persons a little girl. I think that the person deserves every charge the FBI gives them. The have intenses on doing something with the children so why not try and catch the person first before they cause any harm.
T.Elia
On the whole, this appears to be a good idea. I feel as though that there are certain boundaries however. Posting a link has to be done in such a way that it would have to be clicked on intentionally. If there is anyway that an innocent person could accidentally end up there, then in my opinion it is a waste of time to filter those people out. I feel as though the way that particular case was handled is wrong. The guy had two images in his hard drive, so he obviously is not a habitual child pornography enthusiast. It is very likely that those were an accident. What is especially difficult in this case is that this person has a lot to lose and his reputation is already on the line for simply being arrested. I feel that the FBI needs more evidence, and that the person should not be arrested based on the link alone, but rather after a search has turned up much more evidence. It is good however that the FBI is making more effort to catch child predators and exploiters for the safety of the children and I believe that measures such as these are necessary. It just needs a little bit more regulation.
On the whole, this appears to be a good idea. I feel as though that there are certain boundaries however. Posting a link has to be done in such a way that it would have to be clicked on intentionally. If there is anyway that an innocent person could accidentally end up there, then in my opinion it is a waste of time to filter those people out. I feel as though the way that particular case was handled is wrong. The guy had two images in his hard drive, so he obviously is not a habitual child pornography enthusiast. It is very likely that those were an accident. What is especially difficult in this case is that this person has a lot to lose and his reputation is already on the line for simply being arrested. I feel that the FBI needs more evidence, and that the person should not be arrested based on the link alone, but rather after a search has turned up much more evidence. It is good however that the FBI is making more effort to catch child predators and exploiters for the safety of the children and I believe that measures such as these are necessary. It just needs a little bit more regulation.
On the whole, this appears to be a good idea. I feel as though that there are certain boundaries however. Posting a link has to be done in such a way that it would have to be clicked on intentionally. If there is anyway that an innocent person could accidentally end up there, then in my opinion it is a waste of time to filter those people out. I feel as though the way that particular case was handled is wrong. The guy had two images in his hard drive, so he obviously is not a habitual child pornography enthusiast. It is very likely that those were an accident. What is especially difficult in this case is that this person has a lot to lose and his reputation is already on the line for simply being arrested. I feel that the FBI needs more evidence, and that the person should not be arrested based on the link alone, but rather after a search has turned up much more evidence. It is good however that the FBI is making more effort to catch child predators and exploiters for the safety of the children and I believe that measures such as these are necessary. It just needs a little bit more regulation.
I think this alone runs the risk of false positives with things such as viruses, wifi and network stealing. While I would say this could give probable cause to confiscate the computers in the household and such, if they don't find any other child porn but the thumbnails or whatever came up by clicking the hyperlink I think its a kind of weak prosecution. It seems like a somewhat good idea, it just needs some tweaking because right now I think its boarders on entrapment and has some problems.
I think that this is a good way to catch these predators. Like one of my fellow classmate said not everybody clicks on these links on purpose but most do. And just like our criminal justice system this might be the price we would have to pay to catch these predators. (incarcerting a small percentage of innocent people) As to the arguement that this is unfair because it is entrapment I would have normally agreed but being that it's online it makes it of a less intimate reaching to the person as oppose to actually going out and setting these people up, this site is there but people are not forced to click on these things. I guess the arguement could go both ways. You could also say that those people that are entraped in person aren't forced to do what they do either.
I believe this tactic being used by the FBI is a positive tool. Some may view it as entrapment...which can be argued either way...but I am willing to give up certain civil liberties to protect our children. There are so many perverted individuals out there...maybe not physically harming children...but have the potential to. The action of clicking on this ad shows a clear sexual interest in minors. There are loads of porn sites to get your rocks off but children should not be one. As others said we need to attack this issue, prosecute minor offenses to induce a great fear of getting caught. I really believe that is the way to help this problem.
I think that most people don't have too much of an issue with the way in which the government and police are using these deceptive techniques to catch pedophiles and charge them. Mostly due to the fact that there is a pretty universal negative opinion about pedophiles. I think legal issues, issues of entrapment and the sort may rise with these sort of proactive techniques on issues that aren't so universally disapproved of. For instance making fake torrent sites to catch people illegally downloading music, movies, applications ect. I'm sure many people do this and don't see themselves as a "criminal". People stand behind the FBI doing this for pedophiles but im not so sure they would if it began to branch out to other areas, you cant pick and choose what laws and tactics are allowed to be used on some group of people and not others
I think that viewing a video on the internet and having sex with a minor are two very different crimes. instead of takeing the time and effort to catch people who click a link they should be trying to catch people that actually victimize children. I am not a supporter of child pornography but going into a chatroom where people exchange pictures, many times without! reading the title, and sending fake pornography is on the border of what i feel law enforcement should be doing. If anything they should be trying to get people to send them illegal immages and nailing the producers who are the real criminals, instead of targeting consumers of these images.
I think the FBI creating a fake child pornography site and busting those who visit it may be somewhat unethical. People who visit these sites obviously have serious issues and need psychological help. However, like the last post said, viewing child pornograpy on the internet and actually committing illegal acts with a minor are two very different things. While personally I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who gets caught going to these sites, because it's illegal and not to mention morally wrong, I still find it to be a violation of privacy by the FBI. Instead I think law enforcement should focus on catching people who actually are seeking to take advantage of minors, as opposed to busting people for visiting a website.
I completely understand that the FBI wants to crack down on child pornography, but tricking people who click on fake links is not exactly the most productive way to do so. Although they may be able to catch some pedophiles through this method, the people who accidently click on the link should not be penalized for it. It is very difficult to regulate and eventually eliminate child pornography from the internet especially because it is found all over the world. There are several countries where child pornography and sex with minors is not a crime and some places where it is a norm. Hopefully the FBI can find other ways to limit the availability of child pornography and prosecute those who purchase it.
I think this is a great idea to catch online preditors or sick freaks who enjoy child pornography. There are definitaly some glitches that need to be worked out to ensure that there is reason beyond doubt that these individuals intended to click on the site. For anyone to argue that they "didn't know what they were clicking on" is ignorant. If the URL states as clear as day that it is a video of a 4 year old and her father, then ulness you want to see that, you probably wouldn't click on it. Trap or not, it gets the job done and I agree with Jaclyn that it can be proven whether or not these people intended to do so by searching their hard-drives for other evidence of child porn.
The legal specifications of entrapment are important here. The deviance is obvious, but it is deviance that is potentially dangerous to another person, a child no less, so the legality is important. Generally, courts tend to err on the side of caution and lean toward allowing law enforcement more room to act. This site's availability did not force anyone to click on it, it was an act which the individual in which would otherwise have engaged. Had the link not been fake, they would have clicked on it anyway for the specified purpose.
-Rose B.
I think that sting operations are the best and probably only successful method at this point for catching sexual predators. Sure one can find themselves accidentally clicking on arbitrary links, but if you're surfing the net and are found entering child pornography sites rather than regular adult porn sites, there's a major problem. I doubt for example, that I would get a link to a naked toddler masturbating with a stuffed elmo doll in his hand if I typed in anything starting with "xxx."
I wouldn't say that this is entrapment because no ones really being forced to do anything here. However, I am sure that someone could have come across this accidentally and was just curious to see what it was, or even send it to a friend as 'two girls one cup' kind of joke. I would think that maybe this link would be the first step in tracking these people and not having it be the first and final. If someone clicks on this link their activity should be monitored and not be automatically taken into custody by the FBI. B. Brown
I consider this a fully appropriate way to catch predators. While some might argue it is entrapment in a sense, the individual still knowingly violates a law. Most people who are active on the internet probably click a mouse hundreds of times a day, and it doesn't much feel like a crime. Unfortunately, law and law enforcement techniques have to keep pace with technology. If you click on a link advertising child pornography, and, just like any other crime, it can be proven that you did so with the intent of acquiring this illegal material, it is no different than if somebody on a street corner tried to sell you heroine and you accepted.
I think this website is a bit overboard. It's provoking these men to commit crimes who might not otherwise. When is our over privacy secure?
Post a Comment