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."
I am also skeptical. At the same time, I wonder what some of those who object most vociferously to this program (but probably unwilling to even research the details of the program beyond even this somewhat poorly written article) would have to say about the gov’t programs to intercept/eavesdrop on telephone conversations between known international terrorist phone numbers and domestic phone numbers, or about the monitoring of foreign banking transactions of known or suspected terrorist organizations.
Rule 41. Search and Seizure
(a) Scope and Definitions.
(1) Scope. This rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seizure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances.
(2) Definitions. The following definitions apply under this rule:
(A) "Property" includes documents, books, papers, any other tangible objects, and information.
(B) "Daytime" means the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. according to local time.
(C) "Federal law enforcement officer" means a government agent (other than an attorney for the government) who is engaged in enforcing the criminal laws and is within any category of officers authorized by the Attorney General to request a search warrant.
(D) "Domestic terrorism" and "international terrorism" have the meanings set out in 18 USC § 2331.
(E) "Tracking device" has the meaning set out in 18 USC § 3117(b).
Issuing the Warrant.
(1) In General. The magistrate judge or a judge of a state court of record must issue the warrant to an officer authorized to execute it.
(2) Contents of the Warrant. The warrant must identify the person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seized, and designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned. The warrant must command the officer to:
(A) execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than 10 days;
(B) execute the warrant during the daytime, unless the judge for good causeexpressly authorizes execution at another time; and
(C) return the warrant to the magistrate judge designated in the warrant.
One more thing Dawg ,this porn crap is just that and will be treated as such,,a rapid response team will be knocking if someone is looking into , say , how to make a certain type of bomb,ect..,and if it happens at 2-4AM,someone will wind up dead,and that’s fact ,depending on who you are .
I know this thread is about porn,though I asked about this here wireless setup.
...... allow me to inform you that you are an idiot.
You're welcome.
especially if you rename the link to “ free power tools” or something like that
Yeah, because you are so well informed as to the exact intricacies of the FBI hyper-link program. </sarcasm>
Its a bit scary when you get to the reality that a hacker can destroy an unsuspecting internet user's life without much effort at all.
Be it phishing for identity theft or hacking financial files or malicious virus insertion or the newer trends of stealing wireless and using it for nefarious dealings on the net, it can destroy a normal person in a matter of minutes.
And now the FBI is taking the threat to a new level with "Operation Mindcrime." Percieved intent gets them in the door with a "legal" warrant?
Wow, color me "uber paranoid" now!
But in the meantime, your computer is gone for several months - (hope you don't depend on it for income) - and you have spend big bucks on a lawyer, if you're smart, - and you spend many sleepless nights = if you aren't so naive as to think the law is so honest and above board, everything will - eventually - turn out OK...oh, and then there's the friends, family and neighbors thing...
If this kind of 'thought crime' is allowed to continue, we will - in the not too distant future - learn what it was like for citizens who lived under Communist Russia
I think the words "slippery Slope" apply here!
Your RealID papers, please... comrade.
Well anyone knowing a little html can make a link to look different from what you think you're getting. The phisher sites do this to get user names and passwords.
I don’t think that this a workable plan. Too many variables to manage.
I am amused by the statements here that you have nothing to worry about if there is no porn on your computer....that all they will do is enter your home with a search warrant and seize your computer and then return it when they are through digging in it.
First, since when is it of no consequence that the cops enter your house and go through all of your private papers and business????
Second, who has a computer that does not have something private on it, even if it is only his bank account and stock investments?
Third, why can’t the holy and pure see that this is unreasonable search. Clicking is not probable cause,,,downloading is.
Last, I have a new Logitech mouse and when I use it with linux, which I am now, it occasionally gets very sensitive and will click when I don’t intend for it to. For instance, when looking at the weather, it will occasionally click on one of the ads as I pass over it to go to another part of the forecast. So far, I have not been able to adjust the sensitivity to the point that I can cure this.
So accidental, highjack, phish or whatever, this is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard of.
My sig:
If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.
That's sneaky. How does one do that?
True. But there are safeguards built into the FBI program to prevent this from happening.
“Wow, color me “uber paranoid” now!”
You ,too,!!!, must be something going around.
Left electronics alittle while back and have’nt kept up,hated programming,Gonna figure out what I can do, (besides checking my line of fire)
If I had seen your post, which you posted while I was writing mine, I would not have posted because you said it so much better.
By the way, while trying to copy your name, my mouse did its thing and attempted to take me to your page. So it is that easy to get trapped.
Yours was a very good post.
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.