http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nefd.pop
The FBI now posting links to trick people into believing it is child pornography. They then raid the house of anyone who clicks the links. I guess this is the FBI's version of rickrolling some one; except this time, you go to jail.
I fail to see how this is legal and how they can actually prosecute. For example, what if they came here and posted the link and one of the admins or mods clicked the link to see if it was actually illegal content so we knew whether or not to delete the post and report it. We'd get in trouble for following the law requiring us to report such content. So we can risk getting prosecuted for not reporting the content if it turns out to be real, and we can be prosecuted for checking if the content is real to report it.
Great planning there.
$50 says people will start posting these links all over the internet, especially 4chan.
These people have no common sense.
You're both idiots.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 21, 2008, 10:28:16 AM
$50 says people will start posting these links all over the internet, especially 4chan.
These people have no common sense.
Yeah, I'm sure the *chans will be flooded.
I hope you click on one of the links then. [:
O_0
oh and what clucky said.
Quote from: Clucky et al. on March 21, 2008, 10:31:11 AM
I hope you click on one of the links then. [:
I'd really hope not because it'd be sad for a man to go to jail for ten years when he had no intention to get involved in any illegal activities and didn't even commit a crime.
Quote from: Lawlz on March 21, 2008, 10:35:08 AM
I'd really hope not because it'd be sad for a man to go to jail for ten years when he had no intention to get involved in any illegal activities and didn't even commit a crime.
what if your a sadist and enjoy unfair surprises happen to other people
Quote from: Clucky et al. on March 21, 2008, 10:37:20 AM
what if your a sadist and enjoy unfair surprises happen to other people
I can laugh at suicide but not at innocent people being imprisoned.
It was duckroll originally. So the FBI made its own DUCK ROLL ARGH madood;
Use illegal tatics to track people doiing illegal things down. Sure baddood;
This is just retarded and unconstitutional.
Shit.
This can't be serious. doodthing;
I'm not worried. Just as Co Z said, it's probably unconstitutional.
Quote from: Claquesous on March 21, 2008, 11:33:09 AM
I'm not worried. Just as Co Z said, it's probably unconstitutional.
So is wiretapping, yet it still goes on.
Also, how do they know it wasn't some little kid screwing with his father's computer?
Quote from: Claquesous on March 21, 2008, 11:33:09 AM
I'm not worried. Just as Co Z said, it's probably unconstitutional.
But the courts uphold it, so they can proceed with it.
Quote from: Selkie on March 21, 2008, 12:01:40 PM
Also, how do they know it wasn't some little kid screwing with his father's computer?
They don't care.
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 11:58:46 AM
So is wiretapping, yet it still goes on.
Wiretapping isn't going to put someone in jail who is possibly totally innocent.
This definitely could, easily.
Quote from: Dr.Gerbil on March 21, 2008, 12:33:05 PM
It stills goes against the people's rights. doodthing;
I agree with doing something that won't hurt or bother anyone not doing anything wrong in order to keep people safe.
As long as nothing malicious goes on, and the people listening stick to their job of foiling terrorist plots and not getting blackmail bait or anything like that, it is fine.
And wiretapping is an example of how the government gets more and more centralized during times of war. This thing the FBI is doing has nothing to do with the war.
I pretty much click every link, not because I want to but something tells me I have to
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 11:58:46 AM
So is wiretapping, yet it still goes on.
Wiretapping isn't unconstitutional. doodthing;
doing it without a warrant, well that's another story
Quote from: Commodore Guff on March 21, 2008, 01:07:31 PM
Wiretapping isn't unconstitutional. doodthing;
doing it without a warrant, well that's another story
That's what I was referring to. gimpdood;
should have clarified
I guess I'm not fapping tonight then.
In the FBI report, it said that they posted that child pornography were in the links. (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20080319/fbi2.jpg) It is not like they randomly posted links. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
Quote from: Odysseus on March 21, 2008, 03:19:38 PM
In the FBI report, it said that they posted that child pornography were in the links. It is not like they randomly posted links. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
It's still a shady method of tricking people. And as I brought up, there are people who are legally obligated to report such material and if they view it to know whether or not to report it they can get in trouble. If they don't report it they risk getting in trouble.
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 03:27:05 PM
It's still a shady method of tricking people. And as I brought up, there are people who are legally obligated to report such material and if they view it to know whether or not to report it they can get in trouble. If they don't report it they risk getting in trouble.
I completely agree on the method they are using to crack down on it. It is very shady as you said. If this is what they resort to who knows what they'll do next
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 03:27:05 PM
It's still a shady method of tricking people.
doesn't seem to be much worse than most other sting operations
besides, the implication seems to be that they're not going to simply lock up everyone who clicks their link; rather, they use the act to justify a search for other child porn that the individual may have
Quote from: Commodore Guff on March 21, 2008, 03:40:56 PM
doesn't seem to be much worse than most other sting operations
besides, the implication seems to be that they're not going to simply lock up everyone who clicks their link; rather, they use the act to justify a search for other child porn that the individual may have
"Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink..." he was charged for clicking the link itself.
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 03:46:31 PM
"Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink..." he was charged for clicking the link itself.
In addition to actually possessing child pornography and trying to destroy evidence. doodthing;
but has anyone been charged solely for clicking a link
Quote from: Commodore Guff on March 21, 2008, 03:57:25 PM
In addition to actually possessing child pornography and trying to destroy evidence. doodthing;
but has anyone been charged solely for clicking a link
It's only a matter of time.
Quote from: JMV on March 21, 2008, 04:02:15 PM
It's only a matter of time.
i don't see that being a certainty doodthing;
Entrapment.
why did he click multiple times
Quote from: Commodore Guff on March 22, 2008, 10:40:38 AM
No.
Yes. It's like laying a bag of weed on the street and arresting anyone who looks or touches it, you cannot prove what their intent was without it being expressly stated.
Quote from: Socks on March 22, 2008, 07:37:22 PM
Yes. It's like laying a bag of weed on the street and arresting anyone who looks or touches it, you cannot prove what their intent was without it being expressly stated.
you mean more like an officer saying "hey sir could you go pick up that bag of marijuana for me"
"sure"
"GET ON THE GROUND"
Yeah, wiretapping is bullshit. But this is even worse.
lol, about the "what if it's a kid messing with his dad's computer" part. Wouldn't that be fucking hilarious, a kid watching CP?
Quote from: Co-Z on March 22, 2008, 09:42:14 PM
Yeah, wiretapping is bullshit. But this is even worse.
lol, about the "what if it's a kid messing with his dad's computer" part. Wouldn't that be fucking hilarious, a kid watching CP?
Kids should be able to look at CP.