 |
The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh
|
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.
Having a SWAT team pound your door down because you clicked on a link? I’ll say that’s a “novel investigative technique.” Give me a break!
The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images? They should have Rick-Rolled.
“Foot in the door” “Camel’s nose in the tent”
What next? Getting your door kicked in because you are suspected of downloading music? Then what, posting a comment about some politician?
Hillary:
“We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with [an uncensored internet], because there are all these competing values … Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?”
the internet god sure had a sense of humor
What? No Police State banner?
Good idea about the script kiddies … that could be lots of fun. I can think of several people that could use some up close and personal time with the FBI.
[You’re right. I included it. – ed.]
4,
They probably feel the same about you.
The cops are not a tool to use against people.
I should be outraged about this, but every now and then you just gotta sit down on the bench and let someone else be angry for a while…
I’ll be back and Monday, and I plan to be filled with rage at that time.
@Smartalix
The cops are not a tool to use against people.
Since when? Politicians and prosecutors do it all the time.
wow, i am *NEVER* going to click one of those tinyurl links again… someone could find one of those links and send everyone to it by using tinyurl and saying it’s any kind of site they want…
Its a hypothetical – – – – but – – – – until just now I could have seen myself clicking on such a link just to see if it “really was” what it claimed to be?
In a vacuum, I would have thought it was a setup for some kind of joke website like kiddies eating ice cream with Elmo or whatever.
Like that librarian of yesterdays news–if you look at the monitor to observe the kiddie porn the patron is viewing, haven’t YOU just looked at kiddie porn too? And if mere looking to confirm something, why wouldn’t casual surfers be doing the same thing as in to lodge a complaint? I would never lodge a complaint, but ==like I said.
Seem to me AS A MATTER OF LAW you ought to have to download a pic at least?
Anything else besides kiddie porn that has such draconian repercussions?
I totally agree Jim – I was already kinda sketched by the tiny url as they don’t show the actual address even using the trusty ole’ ‘right click / properties’. Seems ripe for abuse and here is a prime example of such.
Soooo, clicking on a link = raids by the FBI now??? wOw!, didn’t you used to have to, like, actually commit a crime for this to happen?
Did I not get the memo when this was changed or something?
I wonder how many people got raided because they clicked the link intending to report the site to the FBI.
So some old lady who doesn’t know how to secure her wi-fi network, will have some fbi goons bust down her door, put a gun to her head, just because someone “borrowed” her wi-fi to look at porn?
While I am glad they busted a few child pornographers, this is really scary.
I don’t think the creeps that clicked on the link are in trouble for clicking on the link, it just gives the FBI probable cause to kick in the door and search their house.
Back in my Usenet days, I used to have a program to automagically download pictures. Sometimes people would post kiddie porn in usenet posts. My program would dutifully download them, and I would have to delete them. I am just glad the Coppers weren’t so tech savvy back then. That would have been fun trying to explain to the wife. 🙂
Don
Click the link in the story to see what magical language the FBI used to entice the discriminating gentleman to use the hyperlink. I was going to quote it here, but it’s too disturbing. The FBI shouldn’t kick down your door if you click a link like that; your #@!$*%& head should just explode.
Here’s a question for someone more informed about the subject than I am: Does using a proxy ie http://proxy.org/ prevent the authorities from tracking back to you?
Now I am not asking this because I am interested in child porn, I find it repugnant. I am merely interested about privacy on the internet.
Crime thought is a crime.
So says Crime Thought Police.
I was always under the impression that “entrapment” is when you are placed in a situation where you have no choice but to break the law; not simply being presented with an opportunity to do so.
As far as tinyURL goes, the new beta version of FireFox wraps long URLs. Once it’s out of beta and most everyone has switched over, tinyURL won’t be needed any more.
Entrapment: A defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials.
Thats from my simple on-line dictionary still showing how close a question it can be. More legalistic words might be “enticing someone to do something they are not predisposed to do.” Just how many times you have to say “No Thank You” before the defense will work is an open question.
Still–before ever doing anything you should say “I don’t want to do this” as often as possible==just in case. Its kinda like the cops yelling “Search Warrant” or “Stop” after they shoot you. as in—what was said, when, and with what motive.
Leaving something of value on a car seat in plain view is supposed to be entrapment in some jurisdictions, even if the thief has to break the window to get to the item.
The US has a real goofball legal system, so what’s true one place is not necessarily true elsewhere. (Try arguing about the legality of hollow points with someone from Joy-zee.)
They are going nuts over in CNET about this.
Maybe someone should find out where the lawyers, cops, and judges live and poke around looking for open wireless connections from their houses?
Off topic, courts have ruled that someone turning around to see why someone is yelling “Police! Freeze!” behind them is making a hostile move and can therefore be shot “in self defense” by the cop. I’d love to see a video of someone pulling that behind a bunch of lawyers and legislators, and the look on their faces when they get informed that their lives could have been forfeit.
#21, being tricked, as your definition states, is quite different then presenting an opportunity and allowing the person to make the decision to act.
As I suggested, being put in a situation where you are forced to break the law, is different than putting out an enticement and letting you choose to or not.
#23–Sea Lawyer==I think we understand what each of us is saying. I’m just pointing out the law of entrapment is not as limited as you suggest although it may indeed be just that way in certain jurisdictions. It varies. I’d google for cases but who cares?
Cops enticing people into crime varies from a job well done to “entrapment.” I’d say all the click on a kiddie porn link should be thrown out due to vagueness and lack of intent plus lack of “possession” and not even get to the issue of entrapment which I don’t think would hold–people are “free” not to press the link.
How about a botnet designed to intercept all search requests from any gooberment IP address and re-direct it to these FBI honeypots? The amount of fun and joy you could spread using any number of variations on this theme could be immense.
Let the chaos FLOW!
Maybe someone could enslave a major ISP’s DNS servers and re-direct ALL access and traffic to the FBI honeypots. It just gets better, and better!
I look at this as a way to harass people. Drive by the house, crack the WEP in 60 seconds, click on a link and wait for the FBI to come kick down their door, confiscate almost everything from their house (computers, mail, etc). Try and argue in a court of technologically inept people that WEP can be cracked and that you had nothing to do with clicking on that link.
They wouldn’t get their computer back for months and the press would be showing their picture as a child pornographer, ruining their reputation, probably getting them fired, divorced, etc.
Makes me think twice about even having a wifi connection available.
#22, Philleep,
Leaving something of value on a car seat in plain view is supposed to be entrapment in some jurisdictions, even if the thief has to break the window to get to the item.
OK, please, WHICH jurisdiction?
Off topic, courts have ruled that someone turning around to see why someone is yelling “Police! Freeze!” behind them is making a hostile move and can therefore be shot “in self defense” by the cop.
Again, WHICH courts?
Geeze, don’t you wing nuts ever post truthful stuff?
#24, bobbo
I’d say all the click on a kiddie porn link should be thrown out due to vagueness and lack of intent plus lack of “possession” and not even get to the issue of entrapment which I don’t think would hold–people are “free” not to press the link.
Clicking the link shows intent to view the site knowing before hand what the link contains. That should not be a crime for, as you say, there was nothing there. BUT, the intent should be enough to gain a search warrant to search your computer hard drive for similar porn.
Clicking the link is the same as when police put out a bait car with the keys in the ignition. You don’t have to take the car, but if you do, you are going to jail. Even if the car has a kill switch so you can’t get far.
Says right in the article that there was no way to tell how anyone had come to the site, just that they had visited- so even random surfers could have been logged. Worse, the links are not exactly labeled “child porn here,” without the acompanying text, they’re completely ambiguous.
Jennifer,
No quite. The site was set up and posted solely as to trap pedophiles. The only notice of the site came from the FBI’s posting to pedophilliac boards. From the complaint, the accused knew exactly what he was doing by going to this site.
…Lauders, in an undercover capacity, logged into the “Ranchi” message board and created a posting that advertised a video of a four year-old female engaging in sexual activity with an adult male. The text of the posting read, “here is one of my favs – 4yo hc with dad(toddler, some oral, some anal) – supercute! Haven’t seen her on the board before – if anyone has anymore, PLEASE POST.” The posting directed individuals to go the following website links in order to download the video file: …
The files were named:
http://uploader … /4yo_suck.rar.html
http://uploader … /4yo_suck.rar.001
and similar.
The guy might have argued “Yes, he clicked on the link, but out of curiosity, not any pedophile urge.” He didn’t. He tried to claim that the sites were bogus when it was the attempt that was germane.