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."
we need to stop and think about this. Because of the aversion to child porn and perverts, we may find ourselves agreeing with this tactic - a natural knee-jerk reaction.
But we need to realize this is the foot, the BIG foot, in the door of entrapment for many other areas - As it says, 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....add any crime you can think of.
They could expand the field of subjects at will...and wee-morning raids of SWAT Teams busting through your doors could become a very real event for many people...
I have visions of, in the not too distant future, people with unpaid parking tickets being the recipients of such raids.
Let the law do their own work and track down perps who go to actual child porn sites and grab them.
Indeed, why don't they also crack down on the perps that LIST them in the first place.
Then there's this: suppose one of your young kids, having NO idea of the possible consequences, clicks on a link? YOU will still be the one arrested and very probably go to jail and/or be listed on the sexual preditor sites - without any distinction between you and the child rapists/murderers/
The Gov't knows how to push buttons - If they started out with any other crime, like "How to rob a bank" and people got raided and arrested for being a "predisposed bank robber" = people would stop and think: "Say what?"
By starting out with an abhorrent subject, they know most people will say = "good. get 'em" without stopping to think once the precedent is set (is already) and accepted by the general public = they can add to the list of "predisposed crimes" = and make their arrest stats look really good...
WE are tottering on the edge of anarchy, folks. If this continues, the jails will be full of 'predisposed criminals' who never broke a law.
You and yours could easily be snared...
Good point. Identity thieves use this trick all the time to have you go to a site (their site) to confirm personal info usually about credit cards or bank accounts. Someone could send you a "patriotic site" or a Clinton or Obama joke site and it could turn out to be the "illegal to click on" FBI site.
Wait until they try this with gun porn.
As I understand it, they are not prosecuted for the click.
The click is used to get a search warrant. If actual child porn is then found, they are prosecuted for its possession. So presumably somebody who accidentally clicks on such a site but doesn’t actually have a collection of kiddie videos will be ok.
Unless they bring along their own stuff to “find.”
I know I have occasionally clicked something by accident. Not child porn, but some pretty unseemly stuff. You would not believe what can pop up when entering non-porn serach terms into Google Images with SafeSearch off.
Again, go to Professor Volokh’s blog. He explains how the program has safeguards built into it in order to prevent your hypothetical from happening.
LOL!
1000 feet, generally not. 300 feet, yes, if they have your password. If they are a sage, they may be able to anyway. They could probably grab your password and then use your connection. Good luck explaining that one.
Even worse, relabel the link to the FBI porno site as 'pictures of cute puppies'. Or how about building a webpage with a javascript 'onLoad' even that clicks the link to the porno site. This has gotten nuts.
As a programmer, I can see where many innocent people will be "tricked" into going to these sites. DNS hijacking and a host of redirection methods can easily bring innocents under the thumb of zealous prosecutors. This approach by the FBI should offend anyone who cherishes Liberty. It is astounding how many people believe the government is fill with people with good intentions. Our Founders rightfully warned us of the evils of government. Government is a necessary evil.
this idea by the FBI is as stupid as the SC ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. Our Liberty is constantly under assault by government busy bodies.
You’re coming off as a nut-job with your libertine comments. There are a number of valid questions on this matter and you spent a considerable amount of time on this tread call people names instead of addressing their concerns. Why don’t you pipe down until you grow up a bit.
If so, please click HERE to schedule a mandatory Government visit of your property regarding your firearms.
This is all just routine....thank you!
Knock off the personal attacks!
Liked the wireless , reckon I’d better do some studing.Thanks
We’ve got a wireless network set up here at the house,can folks 1000 ft.down the road connect,?
Yes, unless you have it protected with a password.
I don’t know this guy’s site. If you want folks to go there, then provide a link.
I tried googleing Eugene Volokh. I click the link and nothing happened. I hope it wasn’t a trick. Hello Mr. Fed really I was trying to read a blog. LOL
I see and who gets to decide on the validity of such? If one were defendant in such a case can the validity of the technology be challenged?
How does this tech identify WHO is operating the computer? Does this tech Identify hackers who hack into private wireless networks?
Knowing abit about how such works I would be very interested in just how the FBI identifies the person BEHIND the Keyboard.
Prosecuting for Physical evidence of Kiddie Porn Sickos I am all in favor of. Digital forms of such even if it is found on someone's computer I am leery of using as evidence being it is awfully easy to spoof someone into downloading pics when they just have to get the latest Brittany Spears screen saver or whatever else is used as bait by hackers.
Your assertions have so many holes in them that you don't even get points for righteousness!
Sorry but your attempt at justifying such is graded as: FAIL
Appreciate it,
Sounds like the movie “Minority Report.”
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.
