FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects

[firefox]

URL: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nefd.pop


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.

Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him...

America has a history of morality policing (http://tinyurl.com/35w4cn) that has spanned four centuries, and many of the most dangerous abuses of power have been moralistic. Take the substance prohibitions of the 20s and 30s and today; prohibitions on interracial marriage; bans and raids related to the distribution of contraceptives, etc. Do we really need another thought-crime enforcement campaign?


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.


by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes. Anyone who would look for child porn needs to be caught and prosecuted. There is no place for child porn.

[AnnEsthesia]

And the fact that you would use Niemoller's quote in that context is rather offensive.

[ScareCrow]

Do you not realize how many people have wireless networks and are too ignorant to properly secure them? The wireless network I have here at home is secured and password protected but I have 5 more available to me from neighbors that are all open and very easy to use. How easy would it be for me to find one of those links using their wireless connection just so they get a visit from the FBI? When it comes to crime on the internet it can't always be so cut and dry.

I hope law enforcement continues to go after the perverts that would look at this stuff or actually try to meet up with these children. I just hope they are cautious enough to keep innocent people from being harmed in the process.

[AnnEsthesia]

Someone else's stupidity is not my problem. If you do not know how to secure your wireless network, then whatever is done on it is your problem. This is not a real compelling reason to not aggressively go after people who look at child porn.

[firefox]

I hope law enforcement continues to go after the perverts that would look at this stuff or actually try to meet up with these children. I just hope they are cautious enough to keep innocent people from being harmed in the process.


How confident are you in this? I'd wager that they will continue to FUBAR this as long as they can get away with it. After all, they have sovereign immunity and you don't ;)

[3.14]

Not sure how much I agree with this. . . I agree that child porn peddlers (or those that encourage it, for that matter) should be subject to harsh punishment. I also agree that the FBI should be thinking "out of the box" to trap these guys - some of these guys are quite adept at covering their tracks, and much like with terrorism, some special (and possible controversial) counter measures are needed.

I just don't know how THIS policy will help - I mean what if someone accidentally clicked on the link? Should that person be subject to scrutiny? In addition, the article doesn't mention how the links get sent out - does the FBI simply "spam" the Internet with these links? No telling how many people would recieve these links (and consequently, how many cyber -illiterate people would click on them)?

Personally, I think it would be better if they tried to shut down the child porn sites already in operation - and go from there rather than this way. . .

3.14

[Mia]

Often they are embedded in legal porn sites - many people have no idea what they are clicking on. An effort to get people truly seeking CP I fully support. Propping up conviction rates by snaring people intending to only follow links to legal porn, I do not.

The quote was very accurately used here. The hunt for sex offenders has become far beyond ridiculous. I guess it's too much trouble to catch the real ones, so they go after and brand for life easy marks that never did anything deserving of this.

More and more 18 year olds with their 15-16 year old gf's are getting put alongside true predators - their crime is labeled child molestation.

[3.14]

Often they are embedded in legal porn sites - many people have no idea what they are clicking on. An effort to get people truly seeking CP I fully support. Propping up conviction rates by snaring people intending to only follow links to legal porn, I do not.


If they do indeed do it that way (i.e. people have no idea WHAT they just clicked on), I fully agree - it's retarded, and borders on entrapment. . .However, without meaning to dispute what you are saying, would you happen to have a source showing that the FBI does indeed embed those links in legal porn sites in such a way that people don't know what they are clicking on? Again, not disputing what you are saying, but it just seems that the FBI wouldn't do something so blatantly stupid (and it would seem to put them at legal risk as well, if I am not mistaken). . .

But yes, it's become hard to catch the REAL child porn peddlers as they are becoming increasingly internet/firewall savvy - maybe this sort of thing gives them something to "show" for their efforts in trying to catch the real child porn peddlers?

3.14

[ScareCrow]

Someone else's stupidity is not my problem. If you do not know how to secure your wireless network, then whatever is done on it is your problem. This is not a real compelling reason to not aggressively go after people who look at child porn.


There are many intelligent people that are ignorant when it comes to computers who wouldn't have the first clue about securing a wireless network. Then even after securing a wireless network, it's not all that hard to hack into a secured wireless network unless the security is done by someone who really knows what they are doing and continuously watches the network. The security put in place on most wireless networks is more of an inconvenience than a prevention method, just like locks on a door. Any idiot with time to spare can download a few free tools and start using your wireless connection to do whatever they please, even if you have secured it, unless you watch closely.

I'll even offer you a couple of links to some of the freeware that does just this as proof that it's not that hard to break through.
http://airsnort.shmoo.com/
http://www.kismetwireless.net/
I'm not saying it's impossible to secure your network, I have a wireless network at home that nobody is going to crack unless they get into my house, I'm just saying that the average Joe will have no clue how to do so. I'm willing to bet that there are even a few people on this site who have a wireless network that would be easily hacked into.

[Elrathin]

Often they are embedded in legal porn sites - many people have no idea what they are clicking on. An effort to get people truly seeking CP I fully support. Propping up conviction rates by snaring people intending to only follow links to legal porn, I do not.


It's more than that. Imagine that you see a sign on the street that says buy cheap illegal drugs here, then you follow that sign that says again, by cheap illegal drugs here, and on and on and on until you finally get to some door the cops are waiting behind. It becomes less of an "accident" getting to these tripped sites and evident you are actually looking for child porn.

It's not like you just click one url on a legal porn site and then have the police knocking on your door.

[Mia]

Often they are embedded in legal porn sites - many people have no idea what they are clicking on. An effort to get people truly seeking CP I fully support. Propping up conviction rates by snaring people intending to only follow links to legal porn, I do not.


If they do indeed do it that way (i.e. people have no idea WHAT they just clicked on), I fully agree - it's retarded, and borders on entrapment. . .However, without meaning to dispute what you are saying, would you happen to have a source showing that the FBI does indeed embed those links in legal porn sites in such a way that people don't know what they are clicking on? Again, not disputing what you are saying, but it just seems that the FBI wouldn't do something so blatantly stupid (and it would seem to put them at legal risk as well, if I am not mistaken). . .

But yes, it's become hard to catch the REAL child porn peddlers as they are becoming increasingly internet/firewall savvy - maybe this sort of thing gives them something to "show" for their efforts in trying to catch the real child porn peddlers?

3.14


From the article: 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.



Where do you think these links are placed? Legal porn is the most likely spot, no? I mean, they're not in places like here.

I do not have any proof that people are clicking on them not knowing what they are - it's just common sense (to me) that people get caught up following links and don't study them to see 'is this one to something I'd rather not see/is illegal?'

I don't look at porn - the only way I can relate is I go on you tube or Google, seeking one thing. 10 other things pop up that are similar. Sometimes I click on them because they seem interesting.

It would literally never occur to me something could be illegal. Why would it be allowed to be there id it is?

Since it's a public site accessible to everyone, to me that's like wondering which books in the library are not OK to pick up, ya know?

[3.14]

Someone else's stupidity is not my problem. If you do not know how to secure your wireless network, then whatever is done on it is your problem. This is not a real compelling reason to not aggressively go after people who look at child porn.


There are many intelligent people that are ignorant when it comes to computers who wouldn't have the first clue about securing a wireless network. Then even after securing a wireless network, it's not all that hard to hack into a secured wireless network unless the security is done by someone who really knows what they are doing and continuously watches the network. The security put in place on most wireless networks is more of an inconvenience than a prevention method, just like locks on a door. Any idiot with time to spare can download a few free tools and start using your wireless connection to do whatever they please, even if you have secured it, unless you watch closely.

I'll even offer you a couple of links to some of the freeware that does just this as proof that it's not that hard to break through.
http://airsnort.shmoo.com/
http://www.kismetwireless.net/
I'm not saying it's impossible to secure your network, I have a wireless network at home that nobody is going to crack unless they get into my house, I'm just saying that the average Joe will have no clue how to do so. I'm willing to bet that there are even a few people on this site who have a wireless network that would be easily hacked into.


Thanks for the most informative response. I'm now motivated to go check out my wireless network at home - it's technically "insecure", but, one has to enter in a computer's serial number for it to work on that computer. Not sure if that can be bypassed or not, but food for thought anyway!

3.14

[3.14]

From the article: 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.



Where do you think these links are placed? Legal porn is the most likely spot, no? I mean, they're not in places like here.

I do not have any proof that people are clicking on them not knowing what they are - it's just common sense (to me) that people get caught up following links and don't study them to see 'is this one to something I'd rather not see/is illegal?'


Oh, I wasn't asking for proof of what you wrote in your second paragraph - just curious to see if there was any actual documentation showing that the FBI did indeed place those links on sites containing legal porn. The reason I asked is that it would amount to entrapment (at least in my book) to "hide" those links on a page (even if it wasn't a page containing legal porn).

I don't know if legal porn sites are the only place to hide those links - I guess they could if the site owners gave them permission, but I doubt a lot of them would. . . The article isn't too clear on where the hyperlinks are posted either. Perhaps the FBI has some "fake" sites up with those links, and those sites show up when searching for child porn in search engines?

I mean - the way I see it, if there is a clear sign on the Internet directing one to child porn, and one clicks on it, then the intentions of that person are clear. However, if the person doesn't even KNOW what he/she is clicking on, arresting them on the basis that they were looking for child porn (or searching their houses, or whatever) because they clicked something they didnt even KNOW about it is nothing short of stupid. :)

3.14

[Drocket]

There's so many problems with this plan, its amazing. In addition to the already-mentioned possibility of having your wireless router used by someone nearby, there's also the very real possibility of having your PC used as a relay via virus. The number of 'zombie PCs' as they're called range up into the millions by some estimates. I can't wait until some 80 year old grandmother gets thrown in the slammer because she installed an "Important Firewall Update!!!!" that she received via email... (and actually, malware has actually been found on newly-shipped systems by different manufacturers, so even being suckered into clicking a link isn't necessary.)

Then you have the possibility of someone sending the link to other people by telling them its something else. The good old goatse.cx trick, basically. Its like being Rick Rolled, except you're going to prison for 40 years. Yay!

Its nice they're trying to catch child pornographers and all, but this isn't a good plan.

[Mia]

There's so many problems with this plan, its amazing. In addition to the already-mentioned possibility of having your wireless router used by someone nearby, there's also the very real possibility of having your PC used as a relay via virus. The number of 'zombie PCs' as they're called range up into the millions by some estimates. I can't wait until some 80 year old grandmother gets thrown in the slammer because she installed an "Important Firewall Update!!!!" that she received via email... (and actually, malware has actually been found on newly-shipped systems by different manufacturers, so even being suckered into clicking a link isn't necessary.)

Then you have the possibility of someone sending the link to other people by telling them its something else. The good old goatse.cx trick, basically. Its like being Rick Rolled, except you're going to prison for 40 years. Yay!

Its nice they're trying to catch child pornographers and all, but this isn't a good plan.






When I was new to the internet, and before yahoo got better security I guess, I clicked on anything! LOL, I was excited to get emails. Some of them purported to be something else, and up would come nasty porn. I do not think any of it was illegal, but I do not know for sure. The page I SAW wasn't, but there can be embedded images, or had I scrolled down to see the rest of the pics they might have been. But it wouldn't have mattered if I had scrolled or not. If they had appeared on my computer, and they were illegal, that would be enough to prosecute me.






Oh, I wasn't asking for proof of what you wrote in your second paragraph - just curious to see if there was any actual documentation showing that the FBI did indeed place those links on sites containing legal porn. The reason I asked is that it would amount to entrapment (at least in my book) to "hide" those links on a page (even if it wasn't a page containing legal porn).

I don't know if legal porn sites are the only place to hide those links - I guess they could if the site owners gave them permission, but I doubt a lot of them would. . . The article isn't too clear on where the hyperlinks are posted either. Perhaps the FBI has some "fake" sites up with those links, and those sites show up when searching for child porn in search engines?

I mean - the way I see it, if there is a clear sign on the Internet directing one to child porn, and one clicks on it, then the intentions of that person are clear. However, if the person doesn't even KNOW what he/she is clicking on, arresting them on the basis that they were looking for child porn (or searching their houses, or whatever) because they clicked something they didnt even KNOW about it is nothing short of stupid. :)

3.14


Sorry, no I don't have any - but I think that's the most likely spot to put them. I don't think they are 'hidden' so much as possibly unclear to the un-trained, scrutinizing eye. For instance, on here I say 'hey check out this video, it's funny'! It says httpchildwhatever.org, but you don't read all that, you just trust me and click on my link.

As far as legal porn sites allowing it, they don't have to participate. The FBI can put up their own legal porn site and put in their hyper links to the CP.

I completely agree if the signs are clear 'here's a link to child porn' then too bad. 'Watch this - 5 year old being raped!' That's pretty clear :fight:

[Mia]

From the article: 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.



Where do you think these links are placed? Legal porn is the most likely spot, no? I mean, they're not in places like here.

I do not have any proof that people are clicking on them not knowing what they are - it's just common sense (to me) that people get caught up following links and don't study them to see 'is this one to something I'd rather not see/is illegal?'


Oh, I wasn't asking for proof of what you wrote in your second paragraph - just curious to see if there was any actual documentation showing that the FBI did indeed place those links on sites containing legal porn. The reason I asked is that it would amount to entrapment (at least in my book) to "hide" those links on a page (even if it wasn't a page containing legal porn).

I don't know if legal porn sites are the only place to hide those links - I guess they could if the site owners gave them permission, but I doubt a lot of them would. . . The article isn't too clear on where the hyperlinks are posted either. Perhaps the FBI has some "fake" sites up with those links, and those sites show up when searching for child porn in search engines?

I mean - the way I see it, if there is a clear sign on the Internet directing one to child porn, and one clicks on it, then the intentions of that person are clear. However, if the person doesn't even KNOW what he/she is clicking on, arresting them on the basis that they were looking for child porn (or searching their houses, or whatever) because they clicked something they didnt even KNOW about it is nothing short of stupid. :)

3.14


Sorry, no I don't have any - but I think that's the most likely spot to put them. I don't think they are 'hidden' so much as unclear to the un-trained, scrutinizing eye. For instance, on here I say 'hey check out this video, it's funny'! It says httpchildwhatever.org, but you don't read all that, you just trust me and click on my link.

As far as legal porn sites allowing it, they don't have to participate. The FBI can put up their own legal porn site and put in their hyper links to the CP.

I completely agree if the signs are clear 'here's a link to child porn' then too bad. 'Watch this - 5 year old being raped!' That's pretty clear :fight: