Break the law to enforce the law.

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

You'd be held responsible. Recall what happened to the owner of 4chan. He got pressured, and so he got the mods to ban people for CP.

[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?

You'd be held responsible. Recall what happened to the owner of 4chan. He got pressured, and so he got the mods to ban people for CP.

If this is true then how can the FBI not be held responsible for distributing CP? They did so for two weeks and supposedly know better than that.

Don't forget, it's the position of the Supreme Court and every prosecuting attorney in the United States that every time a picture of CP is shared then it is a continuation of the abuse suffered by the victim.

Each image the FBI facilitated in being shared on their website is yet another incident of abuse to the child. If you try to say the FBI didn't abuse any children then you have to apply the same to every person convicted of CP in that they didn't actually abuse any children either (in the case of simply sharing images).

The fact is the FBI became Child pornography peddlers in an attempt to catch child pornographers. They didn't just pose as pornographers, they were the distribution hub of thousands of images of children being sexually abused. Each and every single image shared is yet another incident of abuse. And that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of the Supreme court and every prosecutor in the nation. That's why people go to prison because they shared images of CP even though they didn't actually abuse the child in the picture. The simple sharing of the picture is the abuse.
But it's ok for the FBI to do it because they were trying to catch pedophiles?

So, is it ok to abuse a child to catch a pedophile?

And BBS, LOL at you equating terrorists.
Patches: "The FBI peddle CP, why is that ok?"
BBS: "Terrorism!"

hahaha, you sound like a politician trying to justify poor policy by bringing up terrorists. Didn't what's his name try and do that during his failed 2006 Senate election campaign, Rick Santorum? Who, near the end of his campaign and trailing badly in the polls, tried to convince voters that if his opponent was elected it would be a victory for the terrorists. He was running for a seat in the House (haha! victory terrorists if he's not elected). He lost in the biggest landslide of an incumbent in 30 years.


Oh, and BTW, how do you think it plays out in court when the State says "yeah, we entrapped this guy for terrorism/CP/any offense". The case gets thrown out. We don't entrap people, that's illegal.

So to you, BBS, the Ends justify the Means. I am disappointed in you BBS, of all people I'd think you wouldn't be of that ilk. It's a Collectivist tenant and I didn't peg you as a Collectivist.
Haggis is right, our attitudes toward sex offenders clouds our judgment of what's right and what's wrong. IMO.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

Well, this is the essential rub here. One either agrees with this statement or one does not. I do not believe in moral absolutes, and in particular it can be justified to do some harm to prevent an even worse harm. If you do believe in moral absolutes, then you will not agree with what the FBI did. There's not a whole lot more to it than that.

It has nothing to do with "collectivism." It is straight up utilitarianism.

[patches70]

The Ends may be noble but the Means to get to those ends can be corrupting.

Sure, there are people who are not going to see anything wrong with what the FBI did because the FBI was trying to get pedophiles and everyone hates pedophiles. And this is the corrupting influence.

The idea to cause harm to a few for the benefit of others is all a numbers game and it's a Collectivist ideology. The greater good for the greater number of people. The problem is, that even though some good was done for some (many) people, there are those few who would not agree, the ones who were sacrificed for the benefit of the greater good.

For instance, what if it came out that the Boston Marathon bombing, the bomb materials were provided by the FBI in a sting operation. The FBI then allows the bombing to take place so that they can get a deeper penetration of terrorist cells. Thus they believe the can capture more bombers and prevent future bombings at the cost of 4 dead and hundreds wounded.

Few would be comfortable with such a scenario.

I do not think that it is utilitarian of me to expect that those who enforce the law are also subject to that same law themselves.
The Ends may be noble but the Means to get to those ends can be corrupting. Such as in this case with the FBI.
The FBI harmed 100's of children in their attempt to capture sexual predators.
That is absolute fact. Now, who is comfortable with this?

[MeDeFe]

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.

They guy is from Germany, his name is Kim Schmitz (but he goes by Kim Dotcom), the site was Megaupload, he lives and was arrested in New Zealand. He still hasn't been extradited nor charged with any crime, and the courts are finding more and more faults with the way the raid and subsequent investigations have been handled.

[AndyDufresne]

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.

They guy is from Germany, his name is Kim Schmitz (but he goes by Kim Dotcom), the site was Megaupload, he lives and was arrested in New Zealand. He still hasn't been extradited nor charged with any crime, and the courts are finding more and more faults with the way the raid and subsequent investigations have been handled.

MeDeFe, stop infusing facts into this conversation.


--Andy

[patches70]

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.

They guy is from Germany, his name is Kim Schmitz (but he goes by Kim Dotcom), the site was Megaupload, he lives and was arrested in New Zealand. He still hasn't been extradited nor charged with any crime, and the courts are finding more and more faults with the way the raid and subsequent investigations have been handled.

Yeah, I couldn't remember the details but the point was in answer to someone else who asked if one were to set up a site and illegal things happened even if the one didn't participate, would the one be held liable. They did so for Kim Dotcom and his case has lots of problems.
Though pirating is illegal, Megaupload had a system in place to allow the removal of pirated content. To me that's at least proves an attempt by Kim Dotcom to at least try and keep illegal things from happening on his site. I'm rooting for the guy.

Apparently, pirating doesn't justify illegal tactics by the government but CP does. I guess because CP is so horrible a crime that people are willing to let governments do things that they'd never be allowed to do in other cases. I believe it's a dangerous thing to let certain parties ignore the laws that everyone else has to abide by. It creates entities that are above the law and that ain't a good thing, no matter what justification they try and use.

[Metsfanmax]

The Ends may be noble but the Means to get to those ends can be corrupting.

Sure, there are people who are not going to see anything wrong with what the FBI did because the FBI was trying to get pedophiles and everyone hates pedophiles. And this is the corrupting influence.

I don't hate pedophiles, but I still don't necessarily disagree with the tactic being used here.

The idea to cause harm to a few for the benefit of others is all a numbers game and it's a Collectivist ideology. The greater good for the greater number of people. The problem is, that even though some good was done for some (many) people, there are those few who would not agree, the ones who were sacrificed for the benefit of the greater good.

Well, again, this comes down to philosophical beliefs. If you believe that torture could not be justified even if there were 100% certainty that the act of torture would stop a bombing, then you are probably going to also see this FBI action as morally wrong.

For instance, what if it came out that the Boston Marathon bombing, the bomb materials were provided by the FBI in a sting operation. The FBI then allows the bombing to take place so that they can get a deeper penetration of terrorist cells. Thus they believe the can capture more bombers and prevent future bombings at the cost of 4 dead and hundreds wounded.

Few would be comfortable with such a scenario.

This is a qualitatively different scenario because in the bombing case the FBI is making the crime possible, whereas I would argue that in the case of the child pornography, these people were going to look for the material anyway. It's also qualitatively different because in the case of the child pornography, the actual making of the material has already happened, and it cannot be taken back. That material is out there on the internet either way. Yes, the FBI might be doing some sort of existential harm by reproducing it on more site I suppose, but it's not at all analogous to the bombing question.

Nevertheless, this basic principle is used in government all the time. Haven't you seen Law and Order? Sometimes they have to let the guy down the chain walk so that they can catch the big mafia boss. Achieving the greatest good is a good thing to do, in general. The reason it's so fraught with danger is that it's often hard to be certain that there will be redemption for letting that smaller crime go. The reason people are intuitively uncomfortable with your constructed scenario is that there's no guarantee that more lives are saved by the action, there's only probabilities and ambiguous statements. If you changed the scenario so that you knew that the FBI providing the bombs to the terrorists would stop a bombing two weeks from now that would kill a hundred people, would you really be willing to be the person who says "no, I'd rather let 96 more people die than we have to, so that I can at least say I didn't intentionally kill anyone?" That might be good for your moral conscience (though it wouldn't be for mine), but it's not good for society.

[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

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

So, if this applies nationwide, then it makes sense to cast nets.

There's little difference between the two scenarios. For one, the group which is sworn to uphold the law is indeed breaking the law, so how is one action deemed acceptable and the other not? Second, if by saying that you're okay with the feds breaking the law to achieve their intended goal (success notwithstanding), then how are random searches and seizures not also acceptable? You have victims in both cases (allowing CP to continue being spread throughout the net and innocent homeowners being raided) and rewards (arrest of pedophiles and homeowners with contraband).

-TG

[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.

So, if this applies nationwide, then it makes sense to cast nets.

There's little difference between the two scenarios. (1) For one, the group which is sworn to uphold the law is indeed breaking the law, so how is one action deemed acceptable and the other not? (2) Second, if by saying that you're okay with the feds breaking the law to achieve their intended goal (success notwithstanding), then how are random searches and seizures not also acceptable? You have victims in both cases (allowing CP to continue being spread throughout the net and innocent homeowners being raided) and rewards (arrest of pedophiles and homeowners with contraband).

-TG

(1) Consequentialism. If the operation worked, then there'd be less pedophiles out there. The op didn't, so learn from failure, and move on to something better.

(2) If the FBI was dropping off 8 year olds in public places to catch the pedophiles, then I'd have a problem with that. I still don't see how favoring the sting op is similar to favoring random searches and seizures because the two acts are completely different. One is a sting op. The other is randomly searching people's houses. Pretty different.


@ patches: What Mets said about utilitarianism.

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

You'd be held responsible. Recall what happened to the owner of 4chan. He got pressured, and so he got the mods to ban people for CP.

If this is true then how can the FBI not be held responsible for distributing CP? They did so for two weeks and supposedly know better than that.

Don't forget, it's the position of the Supreme Court and every prosecuting attorney in the United States that every time a picture of CP is shared then it is a continuation of the abuse suffered by the victim.

Each image the FBI facilitated in being shared on their website is yet another incident of abuse to the child. If you try to say the FBI didn't abuse any children then you have to apply the same to every person convicted of CP in that they didn't actually abuse any children either (in the case of simply sharing images).

The fact is the FBI became Child pornography peddlers in an attempt to catch child pornographers. They didn't just pose as pornographers, they were the distribution hub of thousands of images of children being sexually abused. Each and every single image shared is yet another incident of abuse. And that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of the Supreme court and every prosecutor in the nation. That's why people go to prison because they shared images of CP even though they didn't actually abuse the child in the picture. The simple sharing of the picture is the abuse.
But it's ok for the FBI to do it because they were trying to catch pedophiles?

So, is it ok to abuse a child to catch a pedophile?

And BBS, LOL at you equating terrorists.
Patches: "The FBI peddle CP, why is that ok?"
BBS: "Terrorism!"

hahaha, you sound like a politician trying to justify poor policy by bringing up terrorists. Didn't what's his name try and do that during his failed 2006 Senate election campaign, Rick Santorum? Who, near the end of his campaign and trailing badly in the polls, tried to convince voters that if his opponent was elected it would be a victory for the terrorists. He was running for a seat in the House (haha! victory terrorists if he's not elected). He lost in the biggest landslide of an incumbent in 30 years.

If you want to debate that way, then there's no point in taking you seriously.

For instance, what if it came out that the Boston Marathon bombing, the bomb materials were provided by the FBI in a sting operation. The FBI then allows the bombing to take place so that they can get a deeper penetration of terrorist cells. Thus they believe the can capture more bombers and prevent future bombings at the cost of 4 dead and hundreds wounded.

How does bringing up a conspiracy theory support your position?

[Woodruff]

1. Wouldn't this be considered entrapment?

2. No, they should not be able to break the law to enforce the law, outside of things along the lines of "running a red light in a high speed chase" where there really isn't any other good option.

[Woodruff]

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?

Would I be happy? Yes, I would. I would be happy that those individuals were identified and arrested. But the key is that it would be "after the fact" anyway. In other words, since they were identified and arrested using illegal means and weren't going to be released regardless of my opinion, then sure...the consolance to me is that we at least got some. But that's not enough to justify the action in my opinion.

I would PREFER that such actions not be taken by our law enforcement community. Entrapment is illegal. It is a very dangerous thing for our law enforcement to be able to routinely break the law in such an egregious way.

Would I be happy that such disgusting individuals might not be apprehended under such circumstances? Actually...sort of. It seems to me to be very similar to the flag burning argument. It pisses me off personally when someone burns the flag. But I am very proud of the fact that it is upheld in our law that the flag can be burned. I think that's a very important distinction.

[john9blue]

i'm liking metsfan's utilitarian approach ITT (no big surprise)

what was the harm done by this website? some distribution of CP

what was the harm prevented by this website? nabbing CP producers and preventing a great deal of CP production in the future.

so if you assume that distribution of CP is always bad (which is debatable, some say that it prevents consumers from abusing children), then the answer should be simple.

[Woodruff]

i'm liking metsfan's utilitarian approach ITT (no big surprise)

what was the harm done by this website? some distribution of CP

what was the harm prevented by this website? nabbing CP producers and preventing a great deal of CP production in the future.

so if you assume that distribution of CP is always bad (which is debatable, some say that it prevents consumers from abusing children), then the answer should be simple.

Don't those individuals still have the right not to be entrapped? Is it not entrapment once law enforcement takes over management of that site?

(FYI, I do actually assume that distribution of CP is always bad.)

[john9blue]

Don't those individuals still have the right not to be entrapped? Is it not entrapment once law enforcement takes over management of that site?

(FYI, I do actually assume that distribution of CP is always bad.)

i don't know all the details behind the legality of entrapment and what constitutes entrapment. i don't think entrapment is always wrong, though. in this case i don't think it made someone commit a crime that they weren't going to commit anyway (which is a huge problem with some kinds of entrapment), since the FBI didn't seem to make any effort to actively recruit new users to the site.

[patches70]

i'm liking metsfan's utilitarian approach ITT (no big surprise)

what was the harm done by this website? some distribution of CP

Are you ignoring how the distribution of CP is viewed by the law? Are you saying no harm is done by trading images of CP if the people who are trading the images didn't participate in the actual abuse depicted in the images?

If so, that's the exact opposite of how the courts, Supreme Court and every prosecuting attorney views CP.
If so, the the defense of those who are arrested for possessing CP being "no harm was done by <the defendent> to the child in the image" is a valid defense. Which it's not legally speaking.

It is the view of the courts and the law that the sharing of the images themselves are intrinsically related to the original case of abuse and is unlawful. All the citations for this view have been provided ITT.


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!
If the FBI peddling CP did no harm then all those trading in that very same CP did no harm either. Thus there is no case against them or any reason to go after them.

[Metsfanmax]

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]

i'm liking metsfan's utilitarian approach ITT (no big surprise)

what was the harm done by this website? some distribution of CP

Are you ignoring how the distribution of CP is viewed by the law? Are you saying no harm is done by trading images of CP if the people who are trading the images didn't participate in the actual abuse depicted in the images?

whoa whoa wait

i say "what is the harm done" and then list "distribution of CP" as the harm... then you think i'm claiming that no harm is done by distribution of CP... the f*ck?

it's so hard to talk to people who have such a visceral reaction to certain sex-related things.

[john9blue]

know what else is awesome???

people ITT say that reducing demand for CP will stop the CP producers, and therefore cause less crime

but if we reduce market demand for tv shows and movies by pirating them, obviously that doesn't affect the producers of those things at all! in fact, it could increase demand!

at least, that's what they would have you believe.

but that's fine by them, because they aren't attracted to children, so they don't give a f*ck what happens to anyone who is... as long as they get to keep getting their free pirated shit

[Metsfanmax]

but if we reduce market demand for tv shows and movies by pirating them, obviously that doesn't affect the producers of those things at all! in fact, it could increase demand!

You know, we could actually do something about this piracy business if we prosecuted it as seriously as CP.

[john9blue]

but if we reduce market demand for tv shows and movies by pirating them, obviously that doesn't affect the producers of those things at all! in fact, it could increase demand!

You know, we could actually do something about this piracy business if we prosecuted it as seriously as CP.

i agree. more proof the two are similar. but i'm talking about what ought to be done, not what can be done. people are being hypocritical about their beliefs when it benefits them personally. lots of moral subjectivism up in here

[Haggis_McMutton]

i'm liking metsfan's utilitarian approach ITT (no big surprise)

what was the harm done by this website? some distribution of CP

what was the harm prevented by this website? nabbing CP producers and preventing a great deal of CP production in the future.

so if you assume that distribution of CP is always bad (which is debatable, some say that it prevents consumers from abusing children), then the answer should be simple.

Allowing government institutions to disregard their own laws sets a very dangerous precedent. Where does that figure in your utilitarian calculus?

It's the same as the classic situation where evidence of a murder is obtained through unlawful means. If we go with it we catch a murderer, but we also implicitly tell the government that they can disregard their limitations as long as they have a good enough PR campaign to go with it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

The reason people are intuitively uncomfortable with your constructed scenario is that there's no guarantee that more lives are saved by the action, there's only probabilities and ambiguous statements. If you changed the scenario so that you knew that the FBI providing the bombs to the terrorists would stop a bombing two weeks from now that would kill a hundred people, would you really be willing to be the person who says "no, I'd rather let 96 more people die than we have to, so that I can at least say I didn't intentionally kill anyone?" That might be good for your moral conscience (though it wouldn't be for mine), but it's not good for society.

In the real world, such knowledge is impossible. We have to muddle through with the messy probabilities and subjectivity. That's one fundamental problem with all the trolley thought experiments and such. It just doesn't work that way in real life.

but if we reduce market demand for tv shows and movies by pirating them, obviously that doesn't affect the producers of those things at all! in fact, it could increase demand!

You know, we could actually do something about this piracy business if we prosecuted it as seriously as CP.

i agree. more proof the two are similar. but i'm talking about what ought to be done, not what can be done. people are being hypocritical about their beliefs when it benefits them personally. lots of moral subjectivism up in here

What ought to be done is irrelevant. Only identifying the best course of action available to us matters.

Eg: What ought to be done is for all humanity to become completely unselfish, have infinite empathy, create technology that eliminates all need for production and spend all their time creating art and exploring the universe.

See? not very relevant.

So, that we ought to somehow catch all violent sex offenders and miraculously prosecute all internet pirates is equally meaningless. In reality we have to look at cost benefit analyses necessary to accomplish these things.

[Woodruff]

As usual, most want security over freedom. Allowing law enforcement to break the law without repercussion, even within circumstances such as this that are considered by almost everyone to be a very good cause, does not set the stage for freedom.