FBI ran website sharing thousands of child porn images

[Sterben]

If possession and distribution of CP is illegal in most countries, why are they above the law? I understand shutting down sites upon discovery of them but, a bait and trap system, really? That must of been a awkward an awkward part of the meeting were a brave agent brings up that idea. "Does anyone have anything else?" Director says "I do sir" "What is it now agent Nukem?" He replies with a roll of the eyes. "Well, I found a big Child Porn site. I was gonna shut it down but, I had an idea. Let's keep it up and trap these sick fucks." The room goes quiet for moment, he gives the look of "Really, did you just say that out loud?" To Agent Nukem. "Well, most of what you suggest is complete shit but, I like this one. You Sir have balls of steel!"

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Then why, in this case, are they allowed to purvey real child porn? It is the analog of selling real drugs, insofar as 1) it is disseminating the moment of abuse of a minor, and 2) stoking the lurid desires of the pedophile.

That was the point of my post.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Since you're only willing to address the practical side of the point, perhaps you can answer this -- how much money did this operation cost?

When you're willing to address matters of principle, let me know.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So they kept the site opened for a small extended period of time, so what? Their intentions were not ill intended, they did identify a couple of users. As far as I can tell they did something to help their people, I don't know what's all the fuss is about.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So they kept the site opened for a small extended period of time, so what? Their intentions were not ill intended, they did identify a couple of users. As far as I can tell they did something to help their people, I don't know what's all the fuss is about.

It might have something to do with abiding by the laws you're enforcing. Perhaps you could expend a little mental energy on the issue, if it's not interrupting your 420?

[Divinity]

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?

Since you're only willing to address the practical side of the point, perhaps you can answer this -- how much money did this operation cost?

When you're willing to address matters of principle, let me know.

What principles?  If you think the government shouldn't run operations like this, then how efficient they are doesn't fucking matter.  If it caught 100,000, if you are against the idea in principle, it wouldn't matter because you'd still be against it.  If you're against the idea because of efficiency on the other hand, the questions remain.

[Aractus]

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.

That's not an acceptable excuse as there were no doubt many users who were well outside of the FBI's jurisdiction, therefore the FBI allowed access to child abuse material to people here in Australia, in European countries, etc.

[Joods]

Sounds like a classic case of "entrapment."

Doesn't sound anything like entrapment.  As my daughter-in-law (who is a defense attorney) says -- most people misunderstand what entrapment is.  Entrapment requires persuasion or coercion.  Just providing the opportunity is perfectly legal for law enforcement to do.  Otherwise sting operations and undercover police work and such would be fuck all useless.

Not quite. Years ago, in the state of Maryland, it was considered entrapment for a cop to shoot a radar gun from a hidden spot. I know because the cop who gave me a ticket back in 1992 for speeding, was no where to be seen and when I took it to court, he admitted that he was not in a location that was visible to oncoming cars. He got reprimanded by the judge and every person he pulled over that night, got their tickets dismissed. Hiding is not persuasion, nor is it coercion. It is entrapment to set up radar where the cop car is not visible from the road.

[Divinity]

Not quite. Years ago, in the state of Maryland, it was considered entrapment for a cop to shoot a radar gun from a hidden spot. I know because the cop who gave me a ticket back in 1992 for speeding, was no where to be seen and when I took it to court, he admitted that he was not in a location that was visible to oncoming cars. He got reprimanded by the judge and every person he pulled over that night, got their tickets dismissed. Hiding is not persuasion, nor is it coercion. It is entrapment to set up radar where the cop car is not visible from the road.

Uhh no.  Cops are not by any means required to be in a location that's visible to oncoming cars.  If you got off, it was either for some other reason, or the judge was fucking stupid.  

It's not entrapment at all to set up radar where the cop car is not visible from the road.  In fact it's perfectly legal for police to hide.  It's a tactic many police use.

[Jackalope]

It might be illegal in Maryland, but not anywhere around here.