Break the law to enforce the law.

[Woodruff]

No one was saying that the FBI did actually break the law in this case. Historically there are plenty of cases where the government does things that ordinary citizens are not permitted to do. When patches says "break the law" to enforce the law, he's really referring to such cases, where the law allows the government to do something that an ordinary citizen would be punished for.

I would like to see where the law specifies that it's ok for the FBI to run a child pornography activity.

On entrapment:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... 9-11-world

Good information. But it didn't really clarify things. In fact, if anything, it muddied the waters in my mind. If the website was not "available", then the individuals who accessed it after the FBI took it over factually would not have been able to access it if they hadn't taken it down. That's unavoidable. The crime literally could not have happened. Seems like pretty strong inducement to me.

As well, that whole page seemed like one huge excuse for the Patriot Act, which is a disgusting thing in and of itself.

RE: the underlined, since substitutes for CP exist and are just as easily downloadable, then I can't agree with that sentence. The crime of downloading CP would've happened regardless of the FBI's website.

No, it can't BE PROVEN that it would have happened regardless of the FBI's website. It certainly could not have happened AT THAT SITE. The FBI was an accessory to the crime, at the very least.

[Woodruff]

We still have some of our rights, it's just that few people exersice them (most people just put up with it), and that's tragically understandable because our schools do not teach those things anymore, and sometimes even get in trouble when they do.

Oh good Lord, why do you keep saying these idiotic things? You take one example of something and try to pretend that it's some widespread abuse. It isn't, Phatscotty. Get out in the real world, away from one-sided websites like The Blame. Learn something. Educate yourself.

Hell, I PERSONALLY teach the Constitution over the course of a full quarter every school year, as does every AFJROTC instructor for their first-year classes. Never mind the Civics and Government&Politics classes.

[john9blue]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

That's actually a painfully ridiculous comparison to make. Did it make sense when you typed it?

this really is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot of the things our government does.

That's terrible reasoning.

hey woody, i'm not sure that you're aware of how to debate people.

generally you will want to include REASONS why somebody is wrong, instead of just saying "you're wrong".

i know that baseless assertions have become a trend on the forums lately, because we have all become intellectually lazy and circlejerky, but try to rise above the bullshit... you can do it if you try

[Haggis_McMutton]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

I don't know enough about the law to say whether it's illegal or not (and I don't really care enough to research it). All I've said has been under the assumption that it is illegal for the government to keep a CP distribution website running.

Your examples are pretty iffy though. All of those examples pretty much involve the cops carrying the illegal goods to storage. What we're talking about here is continuing the activity that a citizen was jailed for. So a better analogy would be a cop seizing drugs and then continuing to sell them on the corner as to ID the druggies. (and actually going through with selling the drugs, not just pretending). I'm assuming this would be illegal.

you guys seem shocked that the government would actually do something like this, perhaps because you actually had faith in the goodness of government in the first place, unlike me. this really is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot of the things our government does.

I'm not shocked, and what you expect of government is irrelevant.
Are you saying that because the government behaved badly in the past you're giving them a free pass on this? How does that make any sense?
If you're disappointed with the government past actions why the hell are you defending this action which you also seem to disagree with?

It's like a problem kid punching another kid in the face and you arguing he shouldn't be reprimanded because "this is nothing, last week he stabbed a kid".

[BigBallinStalin]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

I don't know enough about the law to say whether it's illegal or not (and I don't really care enough to research it). All I've said has been under the assumption that it is illegal for the government to keep a CP distribution website running.

Your examples are pretty iffy though. All of those examples pretty much involve the cops carrying the illegal goods to storage. What we're talking about here is continuing the activity that a citizen was jailed for. So a better analogy would be a cop seizing drugs and then continuing to sell them on the corner as to ID the druggies. (and actually going through with selling the drugs, not just pretending). I'm assuming this would be illegal.

It isn't if the cop is working undercover.

[Woodruff]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

That's actually a painfully ridiculous comparison to make. Did it make sense when you typed it?

this really is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot of the things our government does.

That's terrible reasoning.

hey woody, i'm not sure that you're aware of how to debate people.
generally you will want to include REASONS why somebody is wrong, instead of just saying "you're wrong".

I guess I was hoping you'd be able to see for yourself why your arguments were so poor. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

To help you rise from the murk of irrationality here you go...

Your comparison was ridiculous because it is not against the law for a police officer to secure proof in an investigation and it would be irrational to expect them to be able to carry out an investigation and provide evidence for prosecution without having secured that proof. As opposed to actually running an operation to CREATE the evidence themselves. The two things are incredibly different scenarios.

Your last statement was terrible reasoning because it is akin to saying "Well, they already suck, so does it really matter if they suck some more in a different way"? Talk about handing over your freedoms...

Hopefully, with this new information in hand, your intellect can reason out in the future to be able to see for yourself why you're being such a fucking ignoramus.

[john9blue]

hey woody, i'm not sure that you're aware of how to debate people.
generally you will want to include REASONS why somebody is wrong, instead of just saying "you're wrong".

I guess I was hoping you'd be able to see for yourself why your arguments were so poor. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

To help you rise from the murk of irrationality here you go...

Your comparison was ridiculous because it is not against the law for a police officer to secure proof in an investigation and it would be irrational to expect them to be able to carry out an investigation and provide evidence for prosecution without having secured that proof. As opposed to actually running an operation to CREATE the evidence themselves. The two things are incredibly different scenarios.

Your last statement was terrible reasoning because it is akin to saying "Well, they already suck, so does it really matter if they suck some more in a different way"? Talk about handing over your freedoms...

Hopefully, with this new information in hand, your intellect can reason out in the future to be able to see for yourself why you're being such a fucking ignoramus.

the government did not create anything. no CP was produced by them during the time they ran the website, and they did not create any new criminals. wtf are you talking about?

they ran the website for the exact reason you stated: to secure proof against the criminals in order to prosecute them. did you read the article? they didn't have sufficient identifying information when they seized the website.

i'd hate to call you of all people out for not reading or comprehending the one article in the OP that started this whole debate... that would be too deliciously ironic...

also, my last statement was an attempt to put this situation into perspective, since so many people are having an emotional reaction to it, as often happens with pedophilia, for whatever reason. i'm not making any excuses for the government.

[john9blue]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

I don't know enough about the law to say whether it's illegal or not (and I don't really care enough to research it). All I've said has been under the assumption that it is illegal for the government to keep a CP distribution website running.

Your examples are pretty iffy though. All of those examples pretty much involve the cops carrying the illegal goods to storage. What we're talking about here is continuing the activity that a citizen was jailed for. So a better analogy would be a cop seizing drugs and then continuing to sell them on the corner as to ID the druggies. (and actually going through with selling the drugs, not just pretending). I'm assuming this would be illegal.

It isn't if the cop is working undercover.

exactly... this is essentially an undercover operation carried out by a group instead of an individual. things like this are common among law enforcement.

[Woodruff]

hey woody, i'm not sure that you're aware of how to debate people.
generally you will want to include REASONS why somebody is wrong, instead of just saying "you're wrong".

I guess I was hoping you'd be able to see for yourself why your arguments were so poor. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

To help you rise from the murk of irrationality here you go...

Your comparison was ridiculous because it is not against the law for a police officer to secure proof in an investigation and it would be irrational to expect them to be able to carry out an investigation and provide evidence for prosecution without having secured that proof. As opposed to actually running an operation to CREATE the evidence themselves. The two things are incredibly different scenarios.

Your last statement was terrible reasoning because it is akin to saying "Well, they already suck, so does it really matter if they suck some more in a different way"? Talk about handing over your freedoms...

Hopefully, with this new information in hand, your intellect can reason out in the future to be able to see for yourself why you're being such a fucking ignoramus.

the government did not create anything. no CP was produced by them during the time they ran the website

I didn't say they did. Would you like to try to build a different strawman to rail against or would you like to address what I actually said?

and they did not create any new criminals.

Do you know that was the case? Do you know that no new CP was uploaded to the site during that time? Do you know that no first-time interest in CP didn't arrive at that site during that time? I'm very curious at these presumptions on your part.

they ran the website for the exact reason you stated: to secure proof against the criminals in order to prosecute them. did you read the article? they didn't have sufficient identifying information when they seized the website.

Sounds like tough luck to me. They should've done a better job of investigation then. Frankly, I find it stunning that a group with the computer skills of the FBI (and I am familiar with them) would be unable to hack and backtrace user accounts. In fact, I know very well better that they can and quite often do. So I find that argument pretty flimsy.

i'd hate to call you of all people out for not reading or comprehending the one article in the OP that started this whole debate... that would be too deliciously ironic...

Well you could certainly continue to create strawmen instead of dealing with the points that I have raised. That's probably your best bet at this point. But then you couldn't pretend to have your gotcha moment, so I suppose that doesn't interest you.

also, my last statement was an attempt to put this situation into perspective, since so many people are having an emotional reaction to it, as often happens with pedophilia, for whatever reason. i'm not making any excuses for the government.

That really doesn't help it any.

[Woodruff]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

I don't know enough about the law to say whether it's illegal or not (and I don't really care enough to research it). All I've said has been under the assumption that it is illegal for the government to keep a CP distribution website running.

Your examples are pretty iffy though. All of those examples pretty much involve the cops carrying the illegal goods to storage. What we're talking about here is continuing the activity that a citizen was jailed for. So a better analogy would be a cop seizing drugs and then continuing to sell them on the corner as to ID the druggies. (and actually going through with selling the drugs, not just pretending). I'm assuming this would be illegal.

It isn't if the cop is working undercover.

exactly... this is essentially an undercover operation carried out by a group instead of an individual. things like this are common among law enforcement.

"The blue wall" is a common thing in law enforcement. That doesn't mean it's a good thing nor something we shouldn't be railing against.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait, so what's your position, Woodruff/Haggis?

Is undercover ops acceptable? If not, then in what circumstances and why?

[Woodruff]

Wait, so what's your position, Woodruff/Haggis?

Is undercover ops acceptable? If not, then in what circumstances and why?

It depends on the type of undercover operations. Once the line is crossed into actively breaking the law, that individual is a criminal and should be treated as one. The ends do not justify the means.

[john9blue]

I guess I was hoping you'd be able to see for yourself why your arguments were so poor. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

To help you rise from the murk of irrationality here you go...

Your comparison was ridiculous because it is not against the law for a police officer to secure proof in an investigation and it would be irrational to expect them to be able to carry out an investigation and provide evidence for prosecution without having secured that proof. As opposed to actually running an operation to CREATE the evidence themselves. The two things are incredibly different scenarios.

Your last statement was terrible reasoning because it is akin to saying "Well, they already suck, so does it really matter if they suck some more in a different way"? Talk about handing over your freedoms...

Hopefully, with this new information in hand, your intellect can reason out in the future to be able to see for yourself why you're being such a fucking ignoramus.

the government did not create anything. no CP was produced by them during the time they ran the website

I didn't say they did. Would you like to try to build a different strawman to rail against or would you like to address what I actually said?

um... you put the word "CREATE" in capital letters. not sure if trolling or illiterate...

and they did not create any new criminals.

Do you know that was the case? Do you know that no new CP was uploaded to the site during that time? Do you know that no first-time interest in CP didn't arrive at that site during that time? I'm very curious at these presumptions on your part.

no, but i very much doubt that the number created was higher than the number caught.

they ran the website for the exact reason you stated: to secure proof against the criminals in order to prosecute them. did you read the article? they didn't have sufficient identifying information when they seized the website.

Sounds like tough luck to me. They should've done a better job of investigation then. Frankly, I find it stunning that a group with the computer skills of the FBI (and I am familiar with them) would be unable to hack and backtrace user accounts. In fact, I know very well better that they can and quite often do. So I find that argument pretty flimsy.

well, that's the information we are given. if you don't believe it, then you should find a way to convince me otherwise, because as of now i have no reason to disbelieve what the article says.

i'd hate to call you of all people out for not reading or comprehending the one article in the OP that started this whole debate... that would be too deliciously ironic...

Well you could certainly continue to create strawmen instead of dealing with the points that I have raised. That's probably your best bet at this point. But then you couldn't pretend to have your gotcha moment, so I suppose that doesn't interest you.

one man's strawman is a smarter man's valid metaphor, i suppose.

It depends on the type of undercover operations. Once the line is crossed into actively breaking the law, that individual is a criminal and should be treated as one. The ends do not justify the means.

aaand this is where we disagree, like i said when i started posting in this thread. i believe in consequentialism and you believe in deontology.

[Woodruff]

I guess I was hoping you'd be able to see for yourself why your arguments were so poor. I suppose I gave you too much credit.

To help you rise from the murk of irrationality here you go...

Your comparison was ridiculous because it is not against the law for a police officer to secure proof in an investigation and it would be irrational to expect them to be able to carry out an investigation and provide evidence for prosecution without having secured that proof. As opposed to actually running an operation to CREATE the evidence themselves. The two things are incredibly different scenarios.

Your last statement was terrible reasoning because it is akin to saying "Well, they already suck, so does it really matter if they suck some more in a different way"? Talk about handing over your freedoms...

Hopefully, with this new information in hand, your intellect can reason out in the future to be able to see for yourself why you're being such a fucking ignoramus.

the government did not create anything. no CP was produced by them during the time they ran the website

I didn't say they did. Would you like to try to build a different strawman to rail against or would you like to address what I actually said?

um... you put the word "CREATE" in capital letters. not sure if trolling or illiterate...

Ah, I lost track of the argument, so my apology on that. Because of the way things were quoted, I was thinking you were referring to the FBI actually uploading CP to the site themselves (which I obviously have not said). This is pretty simple, to be honest. If the FBI had taken down the website rather than leaving it available, the opportunity for someone to access that site would not exist. Therefore, they created that opportunity once it was past the point where they could take the website down rather than maintaining it.

and they did not create any new criminals.

Do you know that was the case? Do you know that no new CP was uploaded to the site during that time? Do you know that no first-time interest in CP didn't arrive at that site during that time? I'm very curious at these presumptions on your part.

no, but i very much doubt that the number created was higher than the number caught.

I'm not sure what you mean there, to be honest. It seems like you're saying that the number of accounts on the site that were created was less than or equal to the number of accounts that resulted in an arrest. I find that unlikely, simply from a numbers standpoint...unless you think they were able to arrest every single account on the site. Did I misunderstand what you were referring to?

they ran the website for the exact reason you stated: to secure proof against the criminals in order to prosecute them. did you read the article? they didn't have sufficient identifying information when they seized the website.

Sounds like tough luck to me. They should've done a better job of investigation then. Frankly, I find it stunning that a group with the computer skills of the FBI (and I am familiar with them) would be unable to hack and backtrace user accounts. In fact, I know very well better that they can and quite often do. So I find that argument pretty flimsy.

well, that's the information we are given. if you don't believe it, then you should find a way to convince me otherwise, because as of now i have no reason to disbelieve what the article says.

The training necessary to do such a thing is part of the training for every single network administrator in the Air Force. I know this, because I taught parts of it in my time down at Keesler. Obviously, some individuals' skills become much greater than others, due to personal desire and interest. But the fact is that these skills are not some hidden resource that very few individuals have. It's not necessarily easy, and it can be time-consuming (relatively speaking), certainly. But due to the way computers work, it's not a particularly specialized skill in general.

i'd hate to call you of all people out for not reading or comprehending the one article in the OP that started this whole debate... that would be too deliciously ironic...

Well you could certainly continue to create strawmen instead of dealing with the points that I have raised. That's probably your best bet at this point. But then you couldn't pretend to have your gotcha moment, so I suppose that doesn't interest you.

one man's strawman is a smarter man's valid metaphor, i suppose.

That doesn't even make basic sense.

[AndyDufresne]

I've been running under cover ops here on CC for a couple of years.


--Andy

[patches70]

Wait, so what's your position, Woodruff/Haggis?

Is undercover ops acceptable? If not, then in what circumstances and why?

In well thought out and competent under cover ops, any illegal substances or products are strictly controlled. The drugs used will be recovered, the stolen merchandise returned and so on. Innocents will not be harmed or involved at all.

Look at Fast and Furious. Talk about a debacle. The guns being run were not controlled, the ATF had no idea where the weapons went. Also, hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least one American were murdered as a direct result of a horribly conceived undercover operation that should have never taken place.
The ATF should face criminal negligence charges at the least for what happened. They are responsible for those deaths. And for what? Good intentions? How many people would it be allowable to be killed to capture one drug lord?

With the FBI's CP distribution site, which as of this moment has caught no one. How many pedophiles need to be captured to even out the damage done to all the children whose images were uploaded, shared and traded? Harm was done to each and every one of those children, so how many children does one think it's all right to harm to capture a single pedophile? How many children should be harmed to capture 5,600?

[Metsfanmax]

How many pedophiles need to be captured to even out the damage done to all the children whose images were uploaded, shared and traded? Harm was done to each and every one of those children...

Was harm done by the FBI in not immediately taking down the site but letting it stay up for a couple more weeks? If so, how much harm was done? It's not as though the FBI made new images available to people, they just didn't make existing ones unavailable. Could one not possibly make the case that the minimal additional harm in keeping the site online could be justified in catching criminals?

[patches70]

no, but i very much doubt that the number created was higher than the number caught.

Since the FBI operation has resulted in a single arrest over a month ago and that person was not charged with any crimes nor any CP found, I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

It is possible I suppose that the FBI is lying with their public statements that they couldn't identify any of the people who wre using the site, I know I'd lie about that information. It also seems likely that the FBI won't be able to actually use any of the information gathered in their op either as a defendant's lawyer will have a field day with this and argue entrapment which could well work (I don't know).
The suspects identified though gives the FBI the beginning to gather information on those suspects and find evidence legally and through traditional avenues in this regard.
As stated from what we know, the FBI has never done this type of investigation before and I doubt they'll ever do it again or if they do they'll make sure no one ever finds out about it as it's unethical, immoral and technically illegal, not to mention they are harming innocent people in the same way that they send CP's to prison for.

It still comes down to how many children you think can be justifiable harmed for the ends you wish to accomplish.

[patches70]

Was harm done by the FBI in not immediately taking down the site but letting it stay up for a couple more weeks? If so, how much harm was done? It's not as though the FBI made new images available to people, they just didn't make existing ones unavailable. Could one not possibly make the case that the minimal additional harm in keeping the site online could be justified in catching criminals?

First off, how much harm was done? Why don't you ask the prosecutors of the original owner of the site? He was arrested and charged with CP and will likely be convicted and sent to prison. How much harm did he do to get a sentence between 5 to 40 years in prison?

It's not as though the FBI made new images available to people, they just didn't make existing ones unavailable.

And this isn't a true characterization. I would hope the FBI wouldn't have created any new images themselves nor do I believe they did. But the facts revealed by the FBI was that in the first week some 7,000 new images were uploaded and traded between the members of the site and over 10,000 images through the course of the whole operation. That's 10,000 images that wouldn't have been traded or shared on that site and each image is a form of abuse, according to the law, for which one can go to prison for a very long time.


You can't call the trading of images "minimal harm" as that is not at all how it is characterized by the prosecutors, judges or law enforcement when they find and arrest CP's. It is a serious crime. But it's not serious because the FBI did it? There is no difference. The only difference is the reasons for committing the crime. The harm done to the victims is exactly the same if it's done by CP's or the FBI.

[Metsfanmax]

You can't call the trading of images "minimal harm" as that is not at all how it is characterized by the prosecutors, judges or law enforcement when they find and arrest CP's. It is a serious crime. But it's not serious because the FBI did it? There is no difference. The only difference is the reasons for committing the crime. The harm done to the victims is exactly the same if it's done by CP's or the FBI.

I explained earlier in the thread why there's a significant difference between the two scenarios. Reposting here for your convenience.

I figured it was just a matter of time before someone came ITT and said no harm was done by the FBI anyway, which completely undermines the entire legal basis for going after Child Pornographers in the first place!

I do not think this conclusion follows. One could reasonably construct a legal basis for prosecuting those who traffic in child pornography on the basis that these people are creating a demand for a harmful product, and should therefore be punished, as letting them continue demanding the child pornography means there will be more child pornography. The moral wrong was committed when someone engaged in a sex act with a child (and filmed it), and not prosecuting those who create demand for these types of acts most likely means that these acts will continue. But the FBI's distribution of child pornography has the opposite effect: it is used to decrease the demand for child pornography, by catching or scaring away those who would view it. Even if the FBI is unsuccessful in prosecuting this way, I imagine there is still some deterrence effect, now that people know they might be watching child pornography on a trap website.

I concede that if you consider each viewing of child pornography as a unique moral harm inflicted against the child, that this argument may not sway you. But I don't see it as a productive way to engage the problem of child pornography, as it leads to absurdities. For example, should the judge in a trial refuse to watch the child pornography? Should the jury refuse, and the prosecution? Clearly there are some instances where viewing the child pornography is necessary for achieving a greater good.

[john9blue]

Do you know that was the case? Do you know that no new CP was uploaded to the site during that time? Do you know that no first-time interest in CP didn't arrive at that site during that time? I'm very curious at these presumptions on your part.

no, but i very much doubt that the number created was higher than the number caught.

I'm not sure what you mean there, to be honest. It seems like you're saying that the number of accounts on the site that were created was less than or equal to the number of accounts that resulted in an arrest. I find that unlikely, simply from a numbers standpoint...unless you think they were able to arrest every single account on the site. Did I misunderstand what you were referring to?

the number of new offenders created during the 2 week period was less than the number of offenders caught during those 2 weeks. so (assuming that removing an offender is equal to creating an offender) leaving the site running for those 2 weeks generates a net positive result.

Sounds like tough luck to me. They should've done a better job of investigation then. Frankly, I find it stunning that a group with the computer skills of the FBI (and I am familiar with them) would be unable to hack and backtrace user accounts. In fact, I know very well better that they can and quite often do. So I find that argument pretty flimsy.

well, that's the information we are given. if you don't believe it, then you should find a way to convince me otherwise, because as of now i have no reason to disbelieve what the article says.

The training necessary to do such a thing is part of the training for every single network administrator in the Air Force. I know this, because I taught parts of it in my time down at Keesler. Obviously, some individuals' skills become much greater than others, due to personal desire and interest. But the fact is that these skills are not some hidden resource that very few individuals have. It's not necessarily easy, and it can be time-consuming (relatively speaking), certainly. But due to the way computers work, it's not a particularly specialized skill in general.

i'm no sysadmin myself (at least not yet ) but there are two options here:

- they genuinely were not able to access the records and needed the two weeks to do so

- they were able to access the records, but they all conspired to pretend they couldn't access the records, and ran the site for an extra 2 weeks for shits and giggles.

i don't have the hacking expertise that the collective technological mind of the FBI does, and i see no reason for them to lie, so i'm willing to admit ignorance on this one and defer to their assessment of the situation.

[patches70]

the number of new offenders created during the 2 week period was less than the number of offenders caught during those 2 weeks. so (assuming that removing an offender is equal to creating an offender) leaving the site running for those 2 weeks generates a net positive result.

Not sure how you can say that.
How many new offenders were created?
How many were removed?

According to the article no users have been charged with any crimes even though the FIB claims some 5,600 people committed crimes (with the FBI's help of course). Is this "positive result" just wishful thinking or is it based on some actual facts you are aware of?
And where does the harm to the children in the images whose trade was facilitated by the FBI figure into your equation that somehow reached a "positive result"?

[Woodruff]

Do you know that was the case? Do you know that no new CP was uploaded to the site during that time? Do you know that no first-time interest in CP didn't arrive at that site during that time? I'm very curious at these presumptions on your part.

no, but i very much doubt that the number created was higher than the number caught.

I'm not sure what you mean there, to be honest. It seems like you're saying that the number of accounts on the site that were created was less than or equal to the number of accounts that resulted in an arrest. I find that unlikely, simply from a numbers standpoint...unless you think they were able to arrest every single account on the site. Did I misunderstand what you were referring to?

the number of new offenders created during the 2 week period was less than the number of offenders caught during those 2 weeks. so (assuming that removing an offender is equal to creating an offender) leaving the site running for those 2 weeks generates a net positive result.

Not yet it hasn't. And as I said before, the ends do not justify the means.

i don't have the hacking expertise that the collective technological mind of the FBI does, and i see no reason for them to lie, so i'm willing to admit ignorance on this one and defer to their assessment of the situation.

When their "assessment" is to break the law, I'm afraid I'm not very willing to defer to them.