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."
As long as they meet their arrest quota, what do they care?
There is one simple rule to avoid entrapment. Never open an E-mail from someone whose name you don’t recognize, but send it to spam.
This is absolutely begging for abuse by law enforcement.
The program doesn’t work in that manner. Nice try. Perhaps you should examine the ins and outs of the issue before passing judgment.
Exactly.
Plus, the government now has an easy way to pick off political dissidents.
Too far for me...Forwarding someone to a bad link is very easy.
Of course links "can't be spoofed or disguised" right?
Click Here if you support the troops and Love the USA!
Get the picture now?
In what manner does it work, officer?
Typical libertine response. No, unlike you I support the FBI locking up pervs.
So the gov. is getting into the phishing business, right? sheesh...and to think our tax dollars are paying for this.
..and forwarding an innocent person to a bad website is easy. One line of html code and wham...you are nowvisiting uncle neal’s place.
So did Eliot Spitzer.
I read the article and posted based on the information presented therein. Perhaps you should enlighten all of us as to how it really works instead of insinuating that anybody here who disagrees with you is a pedo?
“Anyone screaming about this has to be into kiddie porn, because there is no other reason for one to be throwing a tantrum over it.”
You obviously have no understanding of the nature of the internet and how easy it would be for anyone to have the FBI beating down YOUR door for clicking this link.
Have fun in court.
Whatever you say, Mr. Spitzer.
HELP- I clicked the child porn image BY ACCIDENT!
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.