Break the law to enforce the law.

[patches70]

Is it a sound policy?

Should government be able to break the law to enforce the law?

Case in point. It has been learned that the FBI ran a child pornography website in an attempt to catch criminals. They ran the site for about a month in which 10's of thousands of pictures were distributed of children posing nude, being raped or otherwise abused. The site had some 5,600 users and the FBI attempted to identify the users.

It appears that no one was charged or arrested, the article didn't go say. The FBI has since shut the web site down completely.

The FBI ran a pedophile ring to catch pedophiles.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... Pedophiles

I have a few questions.

I wonder how many of those 5,600 users were actually cops from other jurisdictions doing their own investigations?

The FBI got the site by seizing it. Instead of shutting it down immediately they went ahead and took over. However, the Supreme Court in the case NYvsFerber said that simply the depictions themselves of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to sexual abuse of children.
That means that the abuse itself is obviously a crime, but each and every image of that crime afterward taken, distributed or otherwise disseminated is also a crime and insidiously immoral. Yet the FBI continued to distribute said images. Did the FBI commit a crime?

If so, should the FBI be held criminally liable for it's part in the distribution of child pornography?

I'm all for catching pedophiles who abuse children, but in the past this has never been done, not like this. I don't really buy into the entrapment excuse, as the FBI wasn't forcing anyone to go to the site or advertising the site or anything like that, but simply running the site is illegal, immoral and unethical. I don't give a crap who is running the site or what justification, it's wrong and repugnant.

To me no government agency should be given a pass to commit crimes just to catch criminals.

What about the parents of the children or the children themselves? Would they have wanted those pictures to be kept on being distributed after seizure? (Assuming that the parents themselves weren't the ones committing the abuse in the first place).

Does the FBI set up meth labs and sell meth to catch drug dealers? Do they set up actual brothels to clamp down on prostitution?

It's one thing to pose as a drug dealer, a drug buyer, a prostitute, buts it's something all together different to actually do those things. Does the undercover officer actually go through with banging the john and then arrest him?
Does law enforcement produce drugs and then sell them and arrest the buyers after they've consumed the drugs or sold those drugs to someone else?

Thoughts?

[waauw]

I don't think they should be allowed to.
The law is a system in place to not only restrain and protect the rights of the people but also those of the government.
If you can't judge the government by the lawsystem, by what will you judge it then?

Keep in mind everybody has a temptation limit. If you show a person a piece of cake long enough, they'll eventually want to eat. Now I'm not saying that this is the same as with pedophiles, but the law should draw lines in this so the government officials don't just go do this all over the place.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, it's basically entrapment. For example, the FBI sells weapons to wanna-be terrorists, but they hardly ever charge them with an act of terror (since nothing happened). Usually, the FBI gets them on having explosives, buying explosives, etc.

I don't have a problem with that--in regard to terrorism and pedophilia. You need to set the bait to catch particular people.

What's the alternative, and how does it compare to entrapment?

One could data mine communications and maybe catch terrorist recruiters. One could wait around until they get a report of someone possibly being a pedophile, and in this circumstance the crime may have been already committed.

[patches70]

Yeah, it's basically entrapment. For example, the FBI sells weapons to wanna-be terrorists, but they hardly ever charge them with an act of terror (since nothing happened). Usually, the FBI gets them on having explosives, buying explosives, etc.

I don't have a problem with that--in regard to terrorism and pedophilia. You need to set the bait to catch particular people.

What's the alternative, and how does it compare to entrapment?

One could data mine communications and maybe catch terrorist recruiters. One could wait around until they get a report of someone possibly being a pedophile, and in this circumstance the crime may have been already committed.

For a month the FBI peddled child pornography (a crime BTW) to hundreds of people, distributing 10's of thousands of images of exploited children and caught zero suspects. And you have no problem with that?

Do you believe the Ends justify the Means?

How were child pornographers caught before this? Never before had the FBI actually gone to these particular lengths. Why the change?
And did this change pay off? Was the cost worth the results? Costs being not just monetary, man hours, but also contributing to further abuses of children in the future.

Not to mention taking the position that it's ok that the law need not apply to those charged with enforcing the law.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, it's problematic, but compared to what? Would you prefer them to sit around and respond to reported suspicion or crimes? Is that method alone superior?

Based upon a conversation with a lawyer who handles sexual child abuse cases, the perpetrators on average commit about 80 child-sex crimes up to the time they're prosecuted. So, if this applies nationwide, then it makes sense to cast nets. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

I don't understand what you're outraged about. It's a sting operation. The FBI poses as some nefarious organization in order to 'catch the bad guys' and/or dismantle a criminal organization from within (e.g. lulzsec).

[waauw]

Yeah, it's basically entrapment. For example, the FBI sells weapons to wanna-be terrorists, but they hardly ever charge them with an act of terror (since nothing happened). Usually, the FBI gets them on having explosives, buying explosives, etc.

I don't have a problem with that--in regard to terrorism and pedophilia. You need to set the bait to catch particular people.

What's the alternative, and how does it compare to entrapment?

One could data mine communications and maybe catch terrorist recruiters. One could wait around until they get a report of someone possibly being a pedophile, and in this circumstance the crime may have been already committed.

First thing that needs to be done is that these sort of practices of entrapment become legal. Government agencies can't just go around doing things for which they haven't gotten the people's permission from. They work for the people

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Yeah, it's basically entrapment. For example, the FBI sells weapons to wanna-be terrorists, but they hardly ever charge them with an act of terror (since nothing happened). Usually, the FBI gets them on having explosives, buying explosives, etc.

I don't have a problem with that--in regard to terrorism and pedophilia. You need to set the bait to catch particular people.

What's the alternative, and how does it compare to entrapment?

One could data mine communications and maybe catch terrorist recruiters. One could wait around until they get a report of someone possibly being a pedophile, and in this circumstance the crime may have been already committed.

So do you believe it's okay for a cop to bust into your house without a warrant to find evidence of contraband?

-TG

[MeDeFe]

It's one thing to pose as a drug dealer, a drug buyer, a prostitute, buts it's something all together different to actually do those things. Does the undercover officer actually go through with banging the john and then arrest him?

In South Park they do. Season 13, episode 9.

[patches70]

I don't understand what you're outraged about. It's a sting operation. The FBI poses as some nefarious organization in order to 'catch the bad guys' and/or dismantle a criminal organization from within (e.g. lulzsec).

The FBI didn't "pose" as anything, they ran an actual child pornography distribution web site.

Sure, it's problematic, but compared to what? Would you prefer them to sit around and respond to reported suspicion or crimes? Is that method alone superior?

Based upon a conversation with a lawyer who handles sexual child abuse cases, the perpetrators on average commit about 80 child-sex crimes up to the time they're prosecuted. So, if this applies nationwide, then it makes sense to cast nets. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

They do cast nets. By posing as a buyer of child pornography and bust the person selling/distributing. The FBI doesn't (didn't) distribute the seized images they recovered. Until now.

And being as they actually caught such people in the past without having to run actual child porn sites, it's so far quite a bit superior since they caught no one while distributing child porn. Yes, the FBI were child porn distributors.

What the FBI did was engage in illegal activities to justify attempted capture of criminals. And failed miserably.

I'm all for grabbing up pedophiles who break the law. (See that caveat there? Break the law?). In fact, I'm all for tossing anyone and everyone who distributes child porn straight into prison. Even if those who are distributing said porn are government agents. And I don't even care why they did it, if someone distributes images of children being sexually exploited, then it's off to prison for them when they get caught.

The ends do not justify the means. Just because the FBI wants to catch some pedophiles, they still shouldn't distribute child porn. Ever. It's illegal and immoral.

BBS, can you explain how distributing child porn is illegal for everyone else in the US but the FBI apparently can run a child porn site without fear of prosecution?
Is it ok to break the law for some hope of future gain?
Are the agencies who are to enforce the laws, are they also bound by those same laws?

What is it when you have a State that makes laws that do not apply to those who work for the State? What kind of State is that?

Do you support such a State?

[patches70]

It's one thing to pose as a drug dealer, a drug buyer, a prostitute, buts it's something all together different to actually do those things. Does the undercover officer actually go through with banging the john and then arrest him?

In South Park they do. Season 13, episode 9.

Yeah, they do all kinds of absurd things in South Park. South Park (which I love to watch, BTW) revels in absurdity.

It appears the FBI also revels in absurdity by actual events in real life as well.

[/]

Morally, it depends on your view between the difference of doing vs. allowing harm.

Legally, it depends on the meanings of "run", "possess", and "distribute".

In my opinion, disregarding the law, it is more harmful to allow these horrid individuals a chance to escape, than to allow the obscenity in question to exist for two more weeks.*

Legally it's a grey area, I'm not sure if it technically falls under "distribution" in this case. As far as the article indicates, what basically transpired is the government allowed the site to continue to operate (Given the article, I would guess it's a forum styled site, the government didn't necessarily provide anything themselves.) as the users continued to incriminate themselves and supply information necessary to find them. I would equate it to not immediately shutting down a found drug ring so that law enforcement can learn more about it.

In conclusion I would offer these two points.
1. Investigations take time, this doesn't mean that the perpetrators will not be caught. Some of these people may be in other countries or hiding behind proxies. If we don't do what we can to catch them now, they will be able to post the exact same filth elsewhere, and initiate even worse acts.

2. I highly doubt that the site itself was contributing much to the user's deviance. When it comes to CP we're mostly talking about the Deep Web, these people know exactly what they are doing.

*"Agents in the Omaha area seized “Website A” on Nov. 16 and continued to operate it until Dec. 2, monitoring messages from users of the website, the Seattle special agent told the court. The site was shut down Dec. 2.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... z2Uou84pE9"

[patches70]

Looking into this story a bit more, the site in question was being run from Nebraska. The site was seized and the guy running it was arrested. The FBI wanted to get all the users as well. That's when the FBI stepped in and kept the site up and running in an attempt to catch those using it. Except all those using it knew how to hide their identities.

The site itself was worked like this- Users would upload their own images and other users would download those images for whatever reason pedophiles do such things.
In the first week of FBI operation over 7,000 new images were shared.
The site also had forums with some pretty disgusting stuff. Also in those forums were some technical stuff like how to encrypt such things to avoid detection. Something apparently all the users were good at.

The FBI ran the site for two weeks, not a month as I had originally thought. During that two weeks over 10,000 images were traded among the some 5,600 users. And none of the users were identified. Except possibly one.

The San Francisco Chronicle ran a story about this person in Seattle who was arrested and his computer seized. This man was seized on April 10, 2013. At this time he still hasn't been charged with any crimes nor has it been said whether or not any child porn was found. Considering that he hasn't been charged it's probably a safe bet that no such images were found.

As to the criminality of child porn, the Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Marci Ellsworth who sent a Seattle child molester to prison (a man whose last name is Pinson) last year (unrelated to this case) because he was caught possessing child pornography said this in court. Pinson's defense was that he didn't abuse any of the children in the images BTW.

Distributing of child pornography – images and videos of real children experiencing the worst moments of their young lives – is not a ‘victimless’ crime, and the heinous nature of this offense should never be diminished by referring to it as ‘just pictures',........The children portrayed … suffer real and permanent damage, for the rest of their lives, each and every time their exploitation is shared over the Internet.

As you can see, this special prosecutor is echoing the Supreme Court. Distributing images of child in this way is a heinous crime. Luckily, the FBI can do if they have good intentions.





Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... z2Up3NY7Br

[patches70]

That's a fair post /.

Morally, it depends on your view between the difference of doing vs. allowing harm.

In the case of the FBI and this incident, it appears that the FBI was allowing harm and doing harm as well.

The legal position of child porn is that even the trading of said images is illegal. Period. Just because the person who committed the actual act and took the original picture is not one of those now distributing the picture, the people distributing the picture are contributing to the original act of abuse.
It's right there in the Supreme Court case NY vs Ferber.

Legally, it depends on the meanings of "run", "possess", and "distribute".

Yes, the FBI ran a child porn distribution site that possessed 10's of thousands of images of raped, abused and exploited children and allowed those images to be distributed.

In my opinion, disregarding the law, it is more harmful to allow these horrid individuals a chance to escape, than to allow the obscenity in question to exist for two more weeks.*

The FBI did both! They allowed the obscenity to exist for another two weeks and were unable to identify any of the users. The FBI figured out pretty quickly that the format wasn't going to let them figure out who these users were, and that's why the thing was shut down.

But I understand your sentiment. When you disregard the law then yeah, your opinion makes perfect sense. Except that you are disregarding the law. Or, that is, allowing the government agencies to disregard the law. That my friend is a dangerous opinion IMO.

Legally it's a grey area, I'm not sure if it technically falls under "distribution" in this case.

The original owner of the site was arrested, charged and convicted of distribution. The FBI who seized the site, owned the site and just allowed it to keep on running just as it always had been. If it was distribution before the FBI stepped in then it's still distribution after the FBI stepped in. There is no getting around that. The only thing someone can say is the ends justify the means.

As far as the article indicates, what basically transpired is the government allowed the site to continue to operate (Given the article, I would guess it's a forum styled site, the government didn't necessarily provide anything themselves.)

Correct.

as the users continued to incriminate themselves and supply information necessary to find them. I would equate it to not immediately shutting down a found drug ring so that law enforcement can learn more about it.

That's not a bad analogy. Except in your example the government isn't running the drug ring, are they? They simply are watching it, correct? At some point they'll (hopefully) pounce when they've gotten to the point they need in their investigation.

In relation to this incident though, wouldn't it be fairer to say that the government goes in, arrests the drug dealers and places their own agents in their place and continue selling drugs to bust the people buying the drugs? And the knowledge that during the selling of the drugs the entire transaction is completely anonymous between the seller (now the government) and the buyer (still completely hidden)?

In conclusion I would offer these two points.
1. Investigations take time, this doesn't mean that the perpetrators will not be caught. Some of these people may be in other countries or hiding behind proxies.

Oh, this is certainly true and a valid point. I guess what's needed is complete government control over the entire web where no one is allowed to have anonymous identities anywhere on the interwebz? Would that be a good way to go about it?

If we don't do what we can to catch them now, they will be able to post the exact same filth elsewhere, and initiate even worse acts.

This is certainly true as well. Without a doubt. In fact, every image seized by the FBI and destroyed is still out there. And still promoting even worse acts. It seems to me it's best to shut down every distribution network you find as quickly and ruthlessly as legally possible.

2. I highly doubt that the site itself was contributing much to the user's deviance. When it comes to CP we're mostly talking about the Deep Web, these people know exactly what they are doing.

I don't know what the deep web is, but yes, these people knew exactly what they were doing. They certainly were able to cover their tracks better than the FBI could follow them, that's for certain.
But you are correct, in the future some of these people will certainly be caught, eventually. Will they be caught because of the actions of this failed investigation? On that I have my doubts.

Like I said originally, I don't believe in the notion that the Ends justify the Means. Some things are just immoral, unethical and illegal and no matter what one's reasoning is, still doesn't justify committing such acts. This incident is one of those. IMO.

[Lootifer]

But it wasnt the sting that is the problem here, its the fact that the sting failed.

You would be happy if those 5000 odd people were identified and arrested correct?

The FBI had two options; close down the site immediately, or, hold onto the site for a very brief period to see if they could identify any of the users.

Pragmatically both options are going to have the net result in terms of internet availability of child porn; its like a hydra, cut off one head and another will appear.

The point of difference is the latter option at least attempts to locate these disgusting people. Sure it failed, but you dont win every time. However you will never win if you dont ever try.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Question:
Was the original owner arrested because he also partook in the activities on his site (shared photos, whatever), or was he arrested simply for hosting the site ?

So, let's say I set up a forum on the deep web, say "hey guys, anything goes here" and then don't interact with the forum in any way whatsoever except for paying the bills. Am I responsible of "distributing child porn" if some people start posting pics of kids on the forum even though I have nothing to do with the activities?

[/]

Patches, you seem to be attempting to frame this operation as conclusively ineffective. I do not see how you have derived this from the given information.
All the article says it it's an ongoing case, and the FBI isn't providing all of the details yet.

The case is less than a year old; these types of things take time. This isn't an episode of Law & Order where you can bust a guy's door down 4 hours after you find the site. We're talking about 5,600 people here, each case needs to be individually looked into. It could take years, but the world will probably be better off for it.

[patches70]

But it wasnt the sting that is the problem here, its the fact that the sting failed.

You would be happy if those 5000 odd people were identified and arrested correct?

The FBI had two options; close down the site immediately, or, hold onto the site for a very brief period to see if they could identify any of the users.

Pragmatically both options are going to have the net result in terms of internet availability of child porn; its like a hydra, cut off one head and another will appear.

The point of difference is the latter option at least attempts to locate these disgusting people. Sure it failed, but you dont win every time. However you will never win if you dont ever try.

Is this the first web site found and seized by the Feds? Of course not, plenty of child porn sites have been found and shut down before this.

But this was the first time the Feds actually went and ran the site. Why the change? Why didn't they just do that with the very first web site that was found?

Because it's immoral and illegal.

Do you think what the FBI did, ran a child porn distribution site and regardless of the reasons for doing so, should be legal?

It's not, BTW, it's just that no one is going to prosecute the FBI for this. Even though they did distribute child porn for two weeks.


I can see why some people won't bat an eye at this. Because the FBI were trying to catch some really scummy people. Without a doubt, there aren't much worse people than child porn distributors, I think most of us would certainly agree on that.

To catch scummy people the FBI resorted to doing those same evil acts that the people they are trying to catch are doing. The FBI wasn't posing or pretending to be those people (as was always done in the past), they were being those people.
I don't see much difference between the FBI in this case and the people they are going after. Each and every image shared is yet another crime and another contribution to the abuse. Doesn't really matter who was doing the distributing or why.

To catch people that are so evil in our minds we seem to allow those who are supposed to be enforcing the law to go ahead and break the law to do it. That's just not very wise or well thought out, IMO.

[2dimes]

I just don't know enough. Seems really bad though.

Is it ok to kill someone to catch a murderer? Pretty easy to say no there.

I have to say I don't like the idea of the site being run but how it was run could make a really big difference.

[patches70]

Patches, you seem to be attempting to frame this operation as conclusively ineffective. I do not see how you have derived this from the given information.
All the article says it it's an ongoing case, and the FBI isn't providing all of the details yet.

The case is less than a year old; these types of things take time. This isn't an episode of Law & Order where you can bust a guy's door down 4 hours after you find the site. We're talking about 5,600 people here, each case needs to be individually looked into. It could take years, but the world will probably be better off for it.

No, this is a discussion on if the Ends justify the Means, in reality. The FBI running an illegal child porn site is merely the setting.


I hope all those child porn bastards are caught one day. The sooner the better. What I'm trying to figure out is why people think it's ok for the cops to break the law and do vile and disgusting things because of the perceived future benefits.

It's easy to see how blurred it gets when one attaches an emotional response to the subject. I.e. child porn. Anyone engaging is such activity are viewed by most as pure evil scumbags, and rightly so. But does that justify allowing those with power an open license to do anything they want with no fear of reprisal?

Sure, the users should be arrested once discovered for engaging in child porn. Also, anyone who engaged in said practice should be arrested as well. This includes the FBI, IMO. Like I said, I don't give a crap why they did it, if an entity is running a child porn site then that entity needs to be dealt with, harshly. Just because they have a badge doesn't give them the right to do such a thing.

I think this is how government gets away with outrageous stuff, because they convince everyone that it's for the greater good, that the ends justify the means. What I see is that some people are harmed for the benefit of other people.

[patches70]

Question:
Was the original owner arrested because he also partook in the activities on his site (shared photos, whatever), or was he arrested simply for hosting the site ?

So, let's say I set up a forum on the deep web, say "hey guys, anything goes here" and then don't interact with the forum in any way whatsoever except for paying the bills. Am I responsible of "distributing child porn" if some people start posting pics of kids on the forum even though I have nothing to do with the activities?

I don't know! That is, I don't know if the owner had partaken in those activities or not. He was arrested for distributing child pornography, but I don't know if he was trading in the stuff himself or simply hosting. Though I guess in the eyes of the law there wasn't any difference.

Now, if you host a site and say "anything goes!", well, that wouldn't be a good idea. Just because you say anything goes doesn't give carte blanche to commit crimes. As to being responsible, certainly, even though you didn't partake such activities wouldn't have been possible without your implied consent and logistics as a venue through which to commit said acts.

The US had that Australian arrested, for pirating movies. I can't remember the guy's name or the site, meta or mega something I think. But he got nabbed. He even provided some way for the illegal pirating to be rectified by the offended parties but the guy was still arrested, charged and extradited. I don't know where that case stands though at the moment. It was a pretty messed up deal if I recall, but he was held responsible, rightly or wrongly I guess.

In all honesty I don't hold much (if any) sympathy for the original owner of the child porn site. I wouldn't count on the "I didn't partake in any trading of child porn images" defense though. As far as child porn goes, you don't have to be the one who took the picture or committed the abuse in the images. If you possess it, trade it or in anyway distribute it (for monetary gain or otherwise), it's illegal. At least in the eyes of the law. Except if you are in the FBI apparently. Heh heh.

[thegreekdog]

I thought about this and I honestly don't know whether this is good or not, but I'm leaning towards not for two reasons. First, what Tailgunner says. Second, I would think the purpose of law is to prevent crime, not to catch criminals. I guess we're saying that the best way to prevent these things from happening is to capture and prosecute the criminals, but this whole thing makes me uncomfortable.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Question:
Was the original owner arrested because he also partook in the activities on his site (shared photos, whatever), or was he arrested simply for hosting the site ?

So, let's say I set up a forum on the deep web, say "hey guys, anything goes here" and then don't interact with the forum in any way whatsoever except for paying the bills. Am I responsible of "distributing child porn" if some people start posting pics of kids on the forum even though I have nothing to do with the activities?

I don't know! That is, I don't know if the owner had partaken in those activities or not. He was arrested for distributing child pornography, but I don't know if he was trading in the stuff himself or simply hosting. Though I guess in the eyes of the law there wasn't any difference.

Now, if you host a site and say "anything goes!", well, that wouldn't be a good idea. Just because you say anything goes doesn't give carte blanche to commit crimes. As to being responsible, certainly, even though you didn't partake such activities wouldn't have been possible without your implied consent and logistics as a venue through which to commit said acts.

The US had that Australian arrested, for pirating movies. I can't remember the guy's name or the site, meta or mega something I think. But he got nabbed. He even provided some way for the illegal pirating to be rectified by the offended parties but the guy was still arrested, charged and extradited. I don't know where that case stands though at the moment. It was a pretty messed up deal if I recall, but he was held responsible, rightly or wrongly I guess.

In all honesty I don't hold much (if any) sympathy for the original owner of the child porn site. I wouldn't count on the "I didn't partake in any trading of child porn images" defense though. As far as child porn goes, you don't have to be the one who took the picture or committed the abuse in the images. If you possess it, trade it or in anyway distribute it (for monetary gain or otherwise), it's illegal. At least in the eyes of the law. Except if you are in the FBI apparently. Heh heh.

If you would indeed be arrested for only hosting the site, without interacting with it in any way, then it's true that the FBI did something illegal (I'm assuming they weren't actively posting pics, just keeping the site up).
If this is the case, I mostly agree with you. We shouldn't allow the government to overstep its bounds just because the person it's chasing is particularly heinous. If we allow them to overstep their bounds on this, then they will also overstep their bounds on less extreme crimes and the bounds become meaningless.

I think it's unrealistic to say the people in charge of the operation should get prosecuted as CP distributors, but someone should get reprimanded for this thing.

Unfortunately, lots of people don't seem to be able to think rationally when it comes to "sex offenders". I think societal attitude towards these people is a pretty big problem atm, not least of which being that all of them seem to be grouped together, as if the guy torturing and raping a 3 year old is the same as the guy fapping to hentai of per-pubescent girls.

[Fewnix]

FBI and other government sources have long been recognized as one of the major funders of "illegal" or "subversive" organizations.On behalf of the oppressed people of the world, thank you, please keep the cheques coming . Couldn't do it without you.

Communists: Gee, Men
Friday, Oct. 26, 1962
Subscriber content preview. Subscribe now or Log-In

Share

Last week in the Nation, former FBI Agent Jack Levine reported that nearly 1,500 of the Communist Party's 8,500 U.S. members are FBI informants—almost one out of six. Since members must pay party dues, this would make the FBI the largest single financial supporter of the Communist Party, U.S.A. Concluded Levine: "The day will soon come when FBI informants, who are rising rapidly to the top, will capture complete control of the party."
...
To continue reading: Subscribe now or Log-In
This TIME Magazine article is free for subscribers.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z2UrNmLWNU

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, it's basically entrapment. For example, the FBI sells weapons to wanna-be terrorists, but they hardly ever charge them with an act of terror (since nothing happened). Usually, the FBI gets them on having explosives, buying explosives, etc.

I don't have a problem with that--in regard to terrorism and pedophilia. You need to set the bait to catch particular people.

What's the alternative, and how does it compare to entrapment?

One could data mine communications and maybe catch terrorist recruiters. One could wait around until they get a report of someone possibly being a pedophile, and in this circumstance the crime may have been already committed.

So do you believe it's okay for a cop to bust into your house without a warrant to find evidence of contraband?

-TG

Random searches and seizures aren't supported by my post.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't understand what you're outraged about. It's a sting operation. The FBI poses as some nefarious organization in order to 'catch the bad guys' and/or dismantle a criminal organization from within (e.g. lulzsec).

The FBI didn't "pose" as anything, they ran an actual child pornography distribution web site.

Hmm. They posed as a criminal organization. Not sure how much clearer I can make that statement.

Sure, it's problematic, but compared to what? Would you prefer them to sit around and respond to reported suspicion or crimes? Is that method alone superior?

Based upon a conversation with a lawyer who handles sexual child abuse cases, the perpetrators on average commit about 80 child-sex crimes up to the time they're prosecuted. So, if this applies nationwide, then it makes sense to cast nets. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

They do cast nets. By posing as a buyer of child pornography and bust the person selling/distributing. The FBI doesn't (didn't) distribute the seized images they recovered. Until now.

And being as they actually caught such people in the past without having to run actual child porn sites, it's so far quite a bit superior since they caught no one while distributing child porn. Yes, the FBI were child porn distributors.

What the FBI did was engage in illegal activities to justify attempted capture of criminals. And failed miserably.

I'm all for grabbing up pedophiles who break the law. (See that caveat there? Break the law?). In fact, I'm all for tossing anyone and everyone who distributes child porn straight into prison. Even if those who are distributing said porn are government agents. And I don't even care why they did it, if someone distributes images of children being sexually exploited, then it's off to prison for them when they get caught.

The ends do not justify the means. Just because the FBI wants to catch some pedophiles, they still shouldn't distribute child porn. Ever. It's illegal and immoral.

BBS, can you explain how distributing child porn is illegal for everyone else in the US but the FBI apparently can run a child porn site without fear of prosecution?
Is it ok to break the law for some hope of future gain?
Are the agencies who are to enforce the laws, are they also bound by those same laws?

What is it when you have a State that makes laws that do not apply to those who work for the State? What kind of State is that?

Do you support such a State?

lol good lord. So (1) the FBI tried something, and it didn't work. (2) Trial-and-error is necessary in order to discover new avenues of preventing/stopping crime. Sometimes, it works (e.g. terrorism), sometimes it doesn't (e.g. pedophilia). Your position--if held consistently--would be against the entrapment against potential terrorists. Is your position reasonable?