Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CLICKING ON THE WRONG WEB SITE IS NOW A FEDERAL CRIME
UNDERNEWS ^ | March 20, 2008 | Declan McCullagh

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."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cnet; doj; fbi; internet; writsofassistance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-242 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum

Here is another problem with this scheme - Botnets - robot networks. Your computer is hijacked by a hacker and it becomes part of a network that you can’t control or may not even know about.

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/internet_botnet_threat_/2008/03/24/82567.html


221 posted on 03/25/2008 6:08:31 AM PDT by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
"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"

Arrest? Maybe you are confused by not having read the article. We are talking about a warrant to enter your house.

Get the facts straight THEN tell me how its OK.

The story states they get a warrant to enter your home if your IP address is used to click a link.

Now tell me, if someone spoofs your IP address and uses it to click the link and the FBI comes knocking are you going be happy about it?

When your neighbors find out the FBI is in YOUR house investigating Kiddie Porn are you going to just laugh it off?

222 posted on 03/25/2008 6:16:11 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
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.

If you read the story you'd know that is just what they are doing. They are walking into a court with this flimsy evidence and getting warrants to enter your home and confiscate your computer. And not a single illegal thing has been done.

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.

I'd suggest you are not following this closely at all.

223 posted on 03/25/2008 6:24:01 AM PDT by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
"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"

. I see, so if someone spoofs the system and steals a wireless connection to click the link and tries to download the file and the warrant gets filed and the door knocked on is a guy who never seen kiddie porn in his life let alone would even consider downloading such its all OK?

Do you realize how many unsecured networks are in operation in the USA?

Let me put it this way.

Are you OK with the FBI knocking on your door with a warrant for a Kiddie Porn Search because your neighbor claims you have some?

224 posted on 03/25/2008 6:24:40 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: ksen

You might want to consider using a real source for news.


225 posted on 03/25/2008 6:25:01 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
No offense, but that is anecdotal. House to house searches for guns would reduce gun crime.

Wrong again - turns out more guns mean LESS crime. The problem isn't guns, it's who has the guns. In "gun control" settings, criminals have guns - remember, they don't follow the rules. In that same "gun control" setting law biding people don't have guns. - And the power goes to the creeps, thugs and lowlifes.

Your story about the DA is bunk - sounds like it was made up by a criminal or a Hollywood writer. Or it's the kind of self serving bull that's fed to criminals to give them hope that in fact their crappy lives are not their fault - but just a random act of some powerful person.

It's silly...

Get your friend to name names - it's an urban myth (criminal version) at best.

226 posted on 03/25/2008 6:26:48 AM PDT by GOPJ (Remember your ABC's -- Anybody But Clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
You might want to consider using a real source for news.

Are you now going to suggest that this is not happening?

The guy mentioned in the story did not have a warrant served on him?

227 posted on 03/25/2008 6:27:18 AM PDT by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Maybe he was a pervert who was distributing child porn. They are always innocent. Just ask them. I knew of one guy who claimed a virus dowloaded all the child porn on his computer. Too bad he couldn’t explain how the virus burned all the porn to a CD and stashed the CD’s in a closet. Or how the virus sold some of the CD’s to a undercover cop.

Ye, innocent as a baby


228 posted on 03/25/2008 6:30:36 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998; lesser_satan
Perhaps you should examine the ins and outs of the issue before passing judgment.

Perhaps you might want to rephrase that. ;-)

229 posted on 03/25/2008 6:33:51 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
"I’ve got at least two on wireless all the time, and on occasion one other. I’m not into child porn so I’m not going to worry about it. If someone is slipping in from the side, the materials will be on their computer, not mine."

Yes, of course. However, if the Wireless network is Yours, the FBI will be knocking On YOUR door. Being that is where the trace will lead.

Imagine the fun as you explain away it all. What's that old saying about proving a negative?

Even if you are innocent, the FBI doesn't meekly knock on your door and say, "please excuse us for the inconvenience, but we would like to look at your hard drive, at your convenience, of course."

No, they come with guns pointing, kick in your door, and go through every book, drawer, closet, computer or anywhere you could hide child porn. They will haul off boxes and boxes of stuff to "investigate". They will take every CD, DVD, backup drives, any thing that a file could be backed up onto and they will see if anything is present or has been erased in the past.

That being said, if they have more proof than just someone's computer at a particular address accessed their website, then that's fine. This is what they should do.

Remember, if you or someone else goes to their site using your computer or identifying information, you are a pedophile and it is up to you to prove your innocence.

I hope you have lots of money, good lawyers, an understanding boss who won't fire you just because of the "seriousness of the charges"; a pastor, wife, your children, your parents your in-laws, etc, etc, who will believe you and not the government.

I can see incredible injustices being done to innocent people with one of the most onerous criminal charges imaginable. Even if they eventually don't charge you, there is still the cloud over your head that you may be a pedophile. People in your neighborhood will remember for a long time all those police cars parked in your driveway and on your lawn and the police hauling away boxes of your stuff.

Knowing computers, I can see how it could happen to one of us.

P.S. A neighbor of my in-laws was raided on child porn charges and a year later, he is still the talk of the neighborhood. (I think he was guilty, though)

230 posted on 03/25/2008 6:56:10 AM PDT by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
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.


"Wally carried out the dastardly plan he saw posted by someone named 'Mad Dawgg' on Free Republic. Fives months after Obama and McCain dropped out of the race in disgrace, President Hillary Clinton rewarded Wally with a few million dollars in a Swiss bank account and the Ambassadorship to France. One month after that, Wally finally had a French girlfriend whose last name was not 'jpg'. "

231 posted on 03/25/2008 7:01:21 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
A harmless prank, but suppose somebody wrote a link title like: "Click here for good rates on car insurance" but the URL is a kiddie porn link. Bet the rent somebody does that and someone gets lured in and clicks without looking. It could be a forum post, an email, a webpage or any other place.

Exactly. Which is why this cannot work.

Click here to see this post again

232 posted on 03/25/2008 7:04:52 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

>>Wrong again - turns out more guns mean LESS crime. The problem isn’t guns, it’s who has the guns.<<

We are on the same page with your first sentence. But I was, in fact, referring to “who has the guns” but trying to be breif. That is, when I was typing, I was thinking of searches in “the projects” and high gang activity neighborhoods. It IS about who has the guns, as you say.


233 posted on 03/25/2008 7:25:18 AM PDT by RobRoy (I'm confused. I mean, I THINK I am, but I'm not sure. But I could be wrong about that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
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.

Don't think our federal police agencies could ever abuse their power? Here are 2 CNN videos on a man who lent his perfectly legal AR-15 semi auto rifle to a friend. After friend shot 800 rounds through it, it malfunctioned and shot 3 rounds at a time. The owner of the AR-15 was arrested and convicted of "transferring a machine gun", a felony with up to 15 years in a federal penitentary.

The NRA site tells of recent Congressional hearings on the BATFE.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/14/tucker.government.guns.part.2.cnn?iref=videosearch

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=190

Yes, our own federal government can abuse us and innocent people DO go to jail.

234 posted on 03/25/2008 7:51:47 AM PDT by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
People in projects need guns to defend themselves - often against thuggy neighbors. They have bars on the windows to protect themselves too. Both are good.

Guns keep crime down. Innocent people don't have to be victims of thugs when they own a gun. - -

Some lowlife breaks into your home and threatens you and you can sweetly, legally, blow his brains out.

It's not guns that cause crime - criminals that cause crime. Want less crime? Have fewer criminals.

235 posted on 03/25/2008 9:39:32 AM PDT by GOPJ (Remember your ABC's -- Anybody But Clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

We’re hijacking the thread. Never mind.


236 posted on 03/25/2008 1:08:59 PM PDT by RobRoy (I'm confused. I mean, I THINK I am, but I'm not sure. But I could be wrong about that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher

I don’t understand. I said this has the potential for abuse meaning exactly what you said. They can turn the smallest thing into a crime. Where in the world did you get it that I agree with this?


237 posted on 03/25/2008 3:57:18 PM PDT by beckysueb (Pray for our troops , America, and President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I was doing an internet search the other day for something totally innocent. Can’t remember what is was—think it might have been a cake recipe—something related to my kid’s birthday party. Anyway, I got into some horrible website by innocently clicking a link that I thought was the information I was looking for. I don’t think it was anything illegal but from a moment’s glance I could tell it wasn’t what I had been looking for.


238 posted on 03/26/2008 11:20:46 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs
Plus; if I think you suck...I forward you a know FBI intrapment link...you click it your history.....give me a frigen break.....

Yes. Easy to mislabel the raid- triggering links. Most people don't check the URLs of links they click.

239 posted on 03/26/2008 2:40:16 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb

Be cool.

I didn’t.

I probably replied at the wrong point so it looked like it was directed at you.

CSSJR


240 posted on 03/31/2008 3:53:08 PM PDT by woodbutcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-242 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson