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."
What you "believe" or "feel" has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. The law is the law. Only liberals think what they "feel" trumps facts.
But I don’t do game computer things either.
Seriously, I suck at all things computer. Even games. I did one computer game, a helicopter game and I did pretty good at that one, but I don’t click on things.
I have gone to sites about certain tv shows but that’s about it. And the helicopter game. And I always immediately delete emails from people I don’t know.
My husband said he had to go outside of our normal virus protection to fix it (whatever that means). Took him days and he’s computer smart, EE, etc. My computer was slow to stop, seriously. Freezing all the time. It was awful. thought we had to trash the computer.
And, I can barely do board games competently. I wouldn;t attempt them on the computer (except that helicopter game).
bump
Sorry but assertions written on paper about what possibly happened in CYBERSPACE still does not equal evidence of guilt. Especially when there is no direct evidence of anything other than somebody USED and IP address.
How about lets ask Richard Jewell about such things as trusting the FBI and Law Enforcement and they never even charged him remember.
Sorry but clicking links equating to criminal behavior is just too far down the slippery slope especially when there is no way to tell WHO is actually clicking those links. It is the very definition of a fishing expedition to get law enforcement inside a person's home/business and is ripe for all sorts of skulduggery.
Again your grade is: FAIL
>>Years ago a friend of mine was hit by a guy running a stop light - her 12 year old daughter sitting in the back seat has had at least 8 operations - and is now a young adult. Ask me if I care if some jerks’ life is “coarsened” by a camera - I don’t.<<
No offense, but that is anecdotal. House to house searches for guns would reduce gun crime. It doesn’t mean they can or should do it. Just because something may save lives does not mean it should be done.
We kill almost 50,000 people per year on our highways. I don’t see anyone suggesting we ban cars.
>> What you “believe” or “feel” has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. The law is the law. Only liberals think what they “feel” trumps facts.<<
My point is that nobody really knows all the laws. as one poster here said in another thread:
“I used to know an Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He told me that on his first day on the job, the US Attorney called him into his office and told him to look out the window. Below was a park and dozens of people were walking around. The US Attorney told my friend, ‘You see everyone in that park? They have all committed a federal crime. Your job is to decide who to prosecute.’”
I have believed that general concept since high school civics (1971). The way I worded it was that “if you are walking down the street, you are breaking a law. If “they” really want you, they will get you. The idea is to either not get too powerful, or have powerful friends when you do.
“You obviously have no understanding of the technical aspects of the program and how it works.”
And you do, I suppose. What makes you an authority on this subject. The way I see things, we are all in for a bit of “Future Shock”. There must be a lot of pervs in the FBI looking for the best in kiddie porn. They’ll be going for our firearms in this fashion next. Wait and see. Hitlery said it best, “We are going to take things away from you...”
I don't trust that any government program will work as advertised. But what do I know, I'm a libertine, right?
Yawn. It’s just another perv down the tubes.
How do you know he was the one doing the clicking?
Was there illegal child porn on his computer?
How do you know he was the one downloading child porn, if there was any?
Here’s the deal. There isn’t a shortage of perverts on the web and they are VERY VERY stupid. A friend of mine hunts them for the State Police in another state. They are self-documenting. If they are downloading child porn, they will provide the evidence to convict them.
There are so many easy targets, the cops don’t waste time with “possibles”. If you “accidenally” click on it, they aren’t going to kick down your door.
I see, how about if someone's sicko neighbor steals wireless internet and uses it to download kiddie porn. Whose door do they kick down?
What if a friend of your kids uses your computer connection to download sicko child porn? Whose door do they kick down?
What if a hacker drops a bot into your computer and uses it to download and store sicko child porn? Whose door do they kick down?
Sorry but the "home invasion" aspect of this type of law enforcement is a bit too much for sane people to tolerate.
There are so many easy targets, the cops don’t waste time with “possibles”. If you “accidenally” click on it, they aren’t going to kick down your door.
None of that answers the question: How do you know it was this guy that was doing the clicking and attempting to download . . . what? A file with nothing illegal in it?
So a guy clicks on a link, a file with nothing illegal in it starts to download on his computer and in a day or so the FBI is at his door, if not busting it down and taking his computer "downtown" so they can fish around in his hard drive?
Somehow that doesn't make me feel better about this abuse of government power.
No one. If you think the police have enough time to investigate hunches, you are nuts. It’s like focusing on people going 1 mile an hour over the speed limit on the Interstate. There are so many people driving 25 miles over the limit they don’t have time to worry about the people doing 1 mile over the limit.
They are not going to kick down your door because your IP Address showed up on a list. The pervert will gladly give his name and address for the chance to meet a minor. Watch “To Catch A Predator”. You will see how easy it is.
I doubt the FBI are using bots to download child porn onto people’s computers. That’s just fantasy.
“How do you know it was this guy that was doing the clicking and attempting to download “
Because he will contact the “minor” and try to arrange a meeting. Or he will distribute the porn to a bunch of people on the internet. That’s how they catch these people. Do you really think the FBI is going to walk into court with a flimsy case like that? please.
This idea that the FBI is going to kick down your door for accidentally clicking a link is silly. They have too many real cases to follow.
Who said anything about the FBI downloading bots?
And did you read the article?
They get a warrant to come knock on your door for the attempt at downloading kiddie porn, BUT HOW DO THE VERIFY WHO DID THE DOWNLOADING?
I say again: HOW DO THEY VERIFY WHO DID THE DOWNLOADING?
Here is a hint: There is NO WAY TO TELL!
Now do you see the problem? Someone can spoof a system so it looks like "Johnny Normal Citizen" is doing the downloading but it is actually a hacker doing the misdeed.
But with the above new program in place if such is the case then its Johnny Normal Citizen's door who gets knocked on and his computer's confiscated.
THEY DON'T. They don't use the downloading as evidence of a crime. It won't hold up in court. The perverts will not stop at just clicking the link. They will eventually hand the FBI the evidence to convict them. Geez, you people need to get out more. The FBI is not going to arrest everyone who clicks on a link and they don't have an infinite amount of agents watching every download on the internet.
....Third, why can’t the holy and pure see that this is unreasonable search. Clicking is not probable cause,,,downloading is.
First, I am also amused by those statements -- which is why I used such statements as one of two ridiculous extremes. The other extreme, of course, was the idea (apparently conveyed by the author of the article) that one errant click could result in a completely innocent victim being whisked away to the gulags for life.
Second, why can't those who see anyone not signing up for a lifetime membership in the ACLU over this as "the holy and pure" see that the probable cause (as somewhat clearly stated in the article) arises not from simply clicking but from actually downloading a file that purports to be kiddie porn.
As for the alarmism that somebody will cleverly disguise these links to look like something innocent to punk people into jail, if it is so easy for these pranksters to discover the links (without landing themselves in jail first) and incorporate them into their devious schemes, then the whole program would be completely ineffective as a sting operation aimed at kiddie porn users.
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.