(January 21, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now if the FBI had sent people emails or posted adverts, people responding to those could claim entrapment.  But not if they had a computer full of earlier child porn.

Only if those emails were misleading.  For example if they said "Check THIS LINK OUT" and the Link led to Child pornography.  But if the ads or emails are clear what the link leads to, the best they could argue was clicking the link or advertisement accidentally.  If you're not predisposed to looking up child pornography, you're not going to click the link.

they took the "if you wanna catch a criminal, you gotta think like a criminal" to a whole new level

(January 21, 2016 at 4:55 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: The FBI break the law all the fucking time.

Of course.

(January 21, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Evie Wrote: So how exactly do they get away with it? I assumed different rules applied to the FBI (for the purpose of catching criminals) otherwise they'd go to prison like anyone else.

I don't understand how the FBI are allowed to do that, or how they even allow themselves to do that... when they're meant to fight crime how can they break the law themselves? It doesn't seem to make any sense, wtf. Is there some sort of weird FBI legal loophole that allows them to do this or something?

I don't know that there is a loophole, but if there is it ought to be shut. We Americans hold the view that allegedly, no one is above the law. Given the 0.0014% efficiency of the operation, the justification seems especially weak.

If you're going to violate the laws you set out to enforce, at least make a good show of it. From the numbers, it appears that the FBI has provided child porn to well over 99,000 viewers. Even from a practical standpoint, the operation doesn't seem justified, and that's not addressing the principle of the matter.

(January 21, 2016 at 5:31 pm)abaris Wrote: Frankly, I can't understand that blue eyed view on that matter.

If law enforcement just took down every site featuring child porn, what do you think would happen. In fact, it does happen, if that's the approach. So let's take this site down, oh look, another one just popped up out of nowhere. What's this? Another server in Taiwan just went active. Let's block it. Oh, could it be, that site in Kasachstan is doing the same?

They try to get to the contributors and that's not possible, just by taking down there temporary homebase, thereby sending out a warning they're already on the radar. It's based on international cooperation and observation. And, in fact, every year, there are major busts based on cooperation between the FBI, Europol and other international police organisations. They can't root it out, they never will be able to do that, since for one, it's to lucrative a business and secondly, not every country is willing to cooperate.

But they do catch some. Which wouldn't even happen if lock and repeat was the only approach.

What are the dangers of a government violating the laws it is tasked to enforce? I don't doubt that sting operations can be useful, but if, say, a drug officer is empowered to sell cocaine, at what level is the government responsible for overdoses arising from said sale? Those laws are in place for a reason. Is the reason now invalid because the intent is different?

(January 21, 2016 at 7:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't know that there is a loophole, but if there is it ought to be shut. We Americans hold the view that allegedly, no one is above the law. Given the 0.0014% efficiency of the operation, the justification seems especially weak.

If you're going to violate the laws you set out to enforce, at least make a good show of it. From the numbers, it appears that the FBI has provided child porn to well over 99,000 viewers. Even from a practical standpoint, the operation doesn't seem justified, and that's not addressing the principle of the matter.

From what I can tell from the Article (which isn't much), the FBI merely kept the site open and left it open for 13 days (after which time they shut it down).  During which time they had 100,000 viewers, and were only able to get the actual address for 1300 of them.  When they started the operation they had no idea how efficient it would be, or how many arrests they would be able to make.  We also have no idea how many arrests or the efficiency rate of other such operations that may have justified such an action.  We also have no idea how many of those were outside the jurisdiction of the FBI.  What one might see as unsuccessful, others might see as successful.  Bringing down 130 something out of 100,000 seems like a small drop in the ocean, but what if those 130 some people lead to taking down even more websites, which in turn leads to more arrests?

(January 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm)abaris Wrote: Did you read the whole article? Makes sense. The pictures were already up and they didn't upload any new stuff. They just hoped to get to the real identity of the registered users.

Well if you happen to be a cop, then of course it makes perfect sense. Would that happen to be you? True to the philosophy of Machiavelli, the end always justifies the means, right? Doesn't matter how many people you encourage to view online, already-produced child porn for the first time - who cares when you get to pound your chest at the end of the day, pretending you did something to "fight crime".  What about the child victims who were forced to pose for those pictures? You are exploiting them all over again, and they would be right to sue for that!

(January 21, 2016 at 7:37 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm)abaris Wrote: Did you read the whole article? Makes sense. The pictures were already up and they didn't upload any new stuff. They just hoped to get to the real identity of the registered users.

Well if you happen to be a cop, then of course it makes perfect sense. Would that happen to be you? True to the philosophy of Machiavelli, the end always justifies the means, right? Doesn't matter how many people you encourage to view online, already-produced child porn for the first time - who cares when you get to pound your chest at the end of the day, pretending you did something to "fight crime".  What about the child victims who were forced to pose for those pictures? You are exploiting them all over again, and they would be right to sue for that!

The FBI didn't encourage people to watch the porn as far as I'm aware.  They took over the site and just allowed it to run. I've viewed porn for years and I've never accidentally come remotely close stumbling accross viewing very young children in porn.  The situation, I'm guessing, with child porn is that the person accessing it pretty much knows what they're searching for without encouragement.

As for being sued it just makes me shake my head with disappointment that "SUE THEM" seems to be the first thought of people. Forget about punishing the individuals of the organization, changing protocols or anything actual productive, just subtract money from them and the problem will be resolved.  They aren't even a business, money is nothing to them, it's a government organization, their money is the tax payers money. 

I agree that keeping the pictures up raises some ethical questions.  But on the other hand the pictures were up there for a significant amount of time already, I personally think it would be difficult to argue that the pictures being up there for another 2 weeks caused the victims any significant distress.

(January 21, 2016 at 7:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 5:31 pm)abaris Wrote: Frankly, I can't understand that blue eyed view on that matter.

If law enforcement just took down every site featuring child porn, what do you think would happen. In fact, it does happen, if that's the approach. So let's take this site down, oh look, another one just popped up out of nowhere. What's this? Another server in Taiwan just went active. Let's block it. Oh, could it be, that site in Kasachstan is doing the same?

They try to get to the contributors and that's not possible, just by taking down there temporary homebase, thereby sending out a warning they're already on the radar. It's based on international cooperation and observation. And, in fact, every year, there are major busts based on cooperation between the FBI, Europol and other international police organisations. They can't root it out, they never will be able to do that, since for one, it's to lucrative a business and secondly, not every country is willing to cooperate.

But they do catch some. Which wouldn't even happen if lock and repeat was the only approach.

What are the dangers of a government violating the laws it is tasked to enforce? I don't doubt that sting operations can be useful, but if, say, a drug officer is empowered to sell cocaine, at what level is the government responsible for overdoses arising from said sale? Those laws are in place for a reason. Is the reason now invalid because the intent is different?

If a drug officer did sell cocaine and it resulted in an overdose I'd imagine it would be the responsibility of whichever organization allows a police officer to sell drugs.  It's my understanding that it's usually the undercover police who are buying the drugs and not selling it, and when they are selling it then it's fake drugs or they don't allow the person to leave and take the drugs.

(January 21, 2016 at 8:34 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 7:37 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Well if you happen to be a cop, then of course it makes perfect sense. Would that happen to be you? True to the philosophy of Machiavelli, the end always justifies the means, right? Doesn't matter how many people you encourage to view online, already-produced child porn for the first time - who cares when you get to pound your chest at the end of the day, pretending you did something to "fight crime".  What about the child victims who were forced to pose for those pictures? You are exploiting them all over again, and they would be right to sue for that!

The FBI didn't encourage people to watch the porn as far as I'm aware.  They took over the site and just allowed it to run. I've viewed porn for years and I've never accidentally come remotely close stumbling accross viewing very young children in porn.  The situation, I'm guessing, with child porn is that the person accessing it pretty much knows what they're searching for without encouragement.

As for being sued it just makes me shake my head with disappointment that "SUE THEM" seems to be the first thought of people. Forget about punishing the individuals of the organization, changing protocols or anything actual productive, just subtract money from them and the problem will be resolved.  They aren't even a business, money is nothing to them, it's a government organization, their money is the tax payers money. 

I agree that keeping the pictures up raises some ethical questions.  But on the other hand the pictures were up there for a significant amount of time already, I personally think it would be difficult to argue that the pictures being up there for another 2 weeks caused the victims any significant distress.

I watch porn too, through free directory sites, and I do get nervous wherever the so-called legitimate "teen" category is hard to avoid. You know some of those you stumble on aren't in truth >=18 years old! Any POS can upload the girl he banged, no questions asked, and it makes me sick when I can only doubt the clip I've just seen was in any way vetted for informed, adult consent.

(January 21, 2016 at 8:51 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 8:34 pm)paulpablo Wrote: The FBI didn't encourage people to watch the porn as far as I'm aware.  They took over the site and just allowed it to run. I've viewed porn for years and I've never accidentally come remotely close stumbling accross viewing very young children in porn.  The situation, I'm guessing, with child porn is that the person accessing it pretty much knows what they're searching for without encouragement.

As for being sued it just makes me shake my head with disappointment that "SUE THEM" seems to be the first thought of people. Forget about punishing the individuals of the organization, changing protocols or anything actual productive, just subtract money from them and the problem will be resolved.  They aren't even a business, money is nothing to them, it's a government organization, their money is the tax payers money. 

I agree that keeping the pictures up raises some ethical questions.  But on the other hand the pictures were up there for a significant amount of time already, I personally think it would be difficult to argue that the pictures being up there for another 2 weeks caused the victims any significant distress.

I watch porn too, through free directory sites, and I do get nervous wherever the so-called legitimate "teen" category is hard to avoid. You know some of those you stumble on aren't in truth >=18 years old! Any POS can upload the girl he banged, no questions asked, and it makes me sick when I can only doubt the clip I've just seen was in any way vetted for informed, adult consent.

True but if I understand correctly the children in this case were infants, like I said I've never stumbled across even a hint of porn involving infants in my years of watching porn.  I'm guessing it's something you have to try and look for.