Entrapment, or the Way of the Future?
 

FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects

Already one person has been tried and convicted through the use of this technique.

Although the motivations of the FBI are laudable, I have to object to their methodology. Beyond the potential entrapment issue, there are several problems with this: open wi-fi networks being a primary one. Secondly is the use of an URL-randomiser and hotlinking images to go to the new, innocuous URL.

The precedent it sets for using IP-address information for probable cause for a warrant is what is most frightening to me. In addition, despite the criminal nature of the attempt to download child pornography in the States, these links are no longer going to be a valid way of determining who is a paedophile; I'm willing to bet people will begin clicking on similar links simply because they weren't aware of what was on the other side.

In addition, there was another charge listed for possessing images of minors in a Thumbs.db cache; while it serves as evidence that the images were on the computer at one point, it gives no evidence that the defendant ever intended to view them, or even intended to download them.

Furthermore, the entire affair strikes me as requiring the defendant prove their innocence: while it hurts me to say it, even paedophiles are innocent until proven guilty.

In the end, I think the FBI has made a mistake with this tactic; it will soon cease to be valid, and I would be very surprised if the defendant's appeal went badly for him.

I for one am a little split about this... Yeah, it is a valid way to surpress the use of the web in this way. Sure.

But at the same time, i dont think that this alone should be enough to raid people or put them in jail. Maybe if it was more of a "Red Flag" system... where they get this as a reason to watch someone for a certain time period to see if the actually ARE pedophiles...

Well, on one hand I can see nothing legally wrong with this (if for no reason other than it being approved by the justice system, though that admittedly doesn't say much). It's not too much different from Rickrolling (FBIrolled?), except it's being done for an actual purpose.

On the other hand, there is no question in my mind that this whole idea is conceptually flawed.

It seems needlessly underhanded, too extreme a reaction for the... er, "crime", and doesn't look to be decisive enough to be legitimate. Not to mention easy to exploit for sinister purposes. Just imagine what would happen if the layman troll, for example, got ahold of this link and started distributing it on random websites? FBI Raids everywhere.

The problem with this, is if this sting operation somehow gets mixed into the search engines. I mean, I've accidentally run into some bad mojo, using the search terms TFClub (don't worry, I'm just linking you to what I was looking for, not what I found).

Anyway, it isn't the first time that I've had a WTF link from Google. I read the blurbs, but sometimes they're a little less than revealing, and aren't very helpful. And I tend to look for hard to find items, and typically open a lot of links in my search.

I'd like to think that they Government put enough care into preventing this from happening, but with our Government, I feel a bit meh. Also, I thought I'd read an article in the past 2 years, that the FBI can break into your house, snoop around & not tell you they've ever been there.

Also worrisome, it sets up a precedent for using IP addresses as a measure of guilt. Next up, MP3s & Emulation will be on the list and who knows what else. Not that those items aren't a tad hinky, but then again they've pretty much become engrained in internet culture.

SWB

There are a few things I find wrong with this, all of which you can read here on Techdirt. My main problem is no one checked the referred link. - How many people get rickroll'd, or get infected with AIM viruses from bots. What happens when someone sets up a bot or spammer with this link. I hope the FBI won't arrest everyone, but think of all the false positives and red flags they'd have to deal with.

It sounds way too easy for this to get buggered up and end up screwing over either the wrong people, or people who weren't really a threat to begin with. Anyway; Going out and buying child pornography is one thing, but no one should be able to raid my house just because I looked at something, no matter how sick and deranged it may be. I'd even be concerned with them being able to "flag" me over something so simple. It's far too general for them to use it as an excuse for anything invasive.

I'm not against child pornography because it's wrong to see it. I'm against it because it means that somewhere, children are being exploited in a really nasty way. This is attacking entirely the wrong aspect of it, and the method isn't likely to put much of a dent in the people who are actually supporting this industry.

This seems akin to arresting someone because he glanced at a prostitute. There just isn't enough there to merit a response.

At the very least, they should make people go through a phony purchase process before doing anything with it.

For some reason it seems to me that the FBI using these tactics shouldn't hold up in court, at least during a jury trial. If I were on the jury this evidence couldn't convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person on trial is the one who visited these sites, or visited with the intent of viewing kiddie porn.

How do we know they didn't click the link thinking it was something else, or in error? How do we know its even them and not someone else in the house?

I just don't think that its sufficient enough proof to convict someone. There's too many variables there for things to go horribly wrong. Believe me, I'm not defending pedophiles, but its not definitive enough evidence to risk putting away an innocent person IMHO.

Yep, that's called a "Sneak & Peek Warrant" and much more common thanks to the Patriot Act. If you google it, you'll get plenty of information.

Hence this funny little gem: http://carryabigsticker.com/index_politics.htm

I can understand concerns, but from what I can understand, clicking the link doesnt mean instant arrest, muy assumption is that they'd probably check your computer to see if you actually do have kiddie porn

All they found on his computer were two small images in the thumbs.db archive; there is no way to determine if he downloaded them intentionally or even looked at them at all.

As far as I can tell, the reasoning is as follows:

1. Clicking on the link is evidence of a crime (Attempt to Procure Child Pornography; it's a US offence, if not by that name).
2. Evidence of a crime secures a warrant.
3. Warrant secures thumbs.db
4. thumbs.db proves possession of child pornography.
5. Clicking on the link proves intent to possess that child pornography.

I agree wholeheartedly with Aanaren; we need more than this. We need images tucked away in a folder. We need caches of pornography sites. We need logs of chats found on his computer. Even if the baited link holds (Which I would have serious doubts about), there isn't enough subsequent evidence to have a legitimate conviction.

Which, again, is a baseless invasion of privacy. It may be legal, but whether or not it should be is what we're here to debate anyway.