The FBI has started to create false hyperlinks advertising child pornography which when clicked on will lead the user to a "child pornography site" although no site actually exists. Once the user has entered the site (which has nothing but gibberish) their IP is recorded by a FBI controlled computer which will then lead to the ascertaining of further information about the IPs owner, simply clicking on the link to the site is considered intent to commit a crime with the crime being viewing child pornography.

Now the links aren't created so people can be (initially) charged with viewing child pornography (how can you be charged with viewing it if the site dosen't have any) instead the "evidence" of intent to commit a crime is enough to recieve a warrant for search and seizure. This allows the FBI to search your home to see if you actually have child pornography (if you are searching for it on the web chances are you're going to have it personally) which you will then face charges for.

The problem with this however is that while the hyperlinks created by the FBI are usually planted into sites known for trading child pornography these hyperlinks can be copied and formatted to say something entirely differant then what their contents contain. For example if you where to recieve a email in your spam folder with a hyperlink that says "Gods Paintings" and you, thinking of those countless landscape paintings that are actually photographs click the link to see them, could actually be taken to a fake FBI site where you will be classified as attempting to commit a crime.

Now this dosen't mean that the FBI is sending out emails like this but there are hackers or just malicious people who would do it for kicks. There is also a HUGE possibility of clicking one of these links on accident through various means be it that the link was put into a site where it shoulden't be (say a childs learning page) by hackers, or there is simply the ignorance of the young who may not know any better or whose curiosity may over ride their common sense at such a young age.

Another issue with this is that there is no way to prove who actually clicked the link. If multiple people live in one house and they all use the same computer is the FBI going to prosecute them all for the actions of one? And then there is the ever present IP "borrowing" where someone with Wifi (say on a laptop) in one house can click the link but their web service (and the Ip provided) is being taken from their neighbor.

Many have criticisized this procedure as entrapment but by the legal deffinition of entrapment this is incorrect as no one (members of the government or police) is forcing the suspect to click on the link. Also keep in mind that while age of consent may vary from state to state under law anyone under the age of 18 is considered a child, so where someone to have pictures of say a naked 16 year old that does not reasonibly serve any medical, scientific or artistic purpose when these "raids" happen then they could be charged with having child pornography.

So Dakka? What do we thing about this type of sting being used by our governemt? Personally I think it would be a good idea if it didn't have so much potential to "frame" someone who is innocent and shoulden't deserve any of the attention or prosecution they would recieve. There are so many reasons why someone who has no intention of searching for, viewing or partaking in child pornography would click on one of these links and while if they don't have any child pornography (or other illegal items) they have nothing to worry about should the FBI or police raid their house. But at the same time they shoulden't have been raided in the first place.

How do you just happen upon child pornography?

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

Google.

I'm feeling lucky!

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

He clicked on this site that actually went nowhere......
seriously, i say any means needed to remove that specific kind of scum.
and i don't just say that as a father of 2 daughters....

undivided wrote:

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

Google.

I'm feeling lucky!

Well putting 'kids' in the search box and pressing the 'I'm feeling lucky' button is just asking for trouble.

Agreed. It's not like people are getting locked up because they accidentally clicked a link. They will get locked up for having Child Porn on their PC or in their house though.

This is full of win!

Go FBI, get those perverts who deserve to get their lives destroyed!

No I'm not being sarcastic, these people are sick.

halonachos wrote:

undivided wrote:

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

Google.

I'm feeling lucky!

Well putting 'kids' in the search box and pressing the 'I'm feeling lucky' button is just asking for trouble.

I tried it, and this is what I got: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/

Oh goody, a link to cli.... wait a second.

Good try Chris Hansen.

Ooh, have I scared off Dakka with my ominous hyperlink?

This will not end well.

I'm not clicking on it

But people can happen upon it the same way you can click a link on many websites and instead of taking you to something innocent like you think it will it takes you to a porn page and every time you exit another pops up.

I clicked on it.

Kids

An amoral, HIV-positive skateboarder sets out to deflower as many virgins as possible while a local girl who contracted his disease tries to save his next target from her same fate.


What kind of fethed up move is that?

Amaya wrote:I clicked on it.

Kids

An amoral, HIV-positive skateboarder sets out to deflower as many virgins as possible while a local girl who contracted his disease tries to save his next target from her same fate.


What kind of fethed up move is that?

The kind that makes you feel lucky?

undivided wrote:

Amaya wrote:I clicked on it.

Kids

An amoral, HIV-positive skateboarder sets out to deflower as many virgins as possible while a local girl who contracted his disease tries to save his next target from her same fate.


What kind of fethed up move is that?

The kind that makes you feel lucky?

except they're tracking him now! i saw "Eagle Eye"! i know how this works...

My only problem with this is that they don't set the child porn traffickers on fire when they catch them.

Monster Rain wrote:My only problem with this is that they don't set the child porn traffickers on fire when they catch them.

It shall be done.

The potential problems with this system are very frightening.

Actually, I think this is pretty clever. Just clicking on the link isn't an offence in itself, and thus there is no real need to prove 'who' clicked the link. This is so that the FBI can have reasonable grounds to search the computer, and if there IS Child pornography stashed on there it's going to be impossible to claim it was an accident.

I see this going horribly wrong.
I mean, as soon as /b/ gets a hold of one such link...

Actually, how did you find out about this?

Wolfun wrote:I see this going horribly wrong.
I mean, as soon as /b/ gets a hold of one such link...

Well yes, I mean you can read about the news story here -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12313320

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

Actually, once whilst *ahem* using a forum for regular porn, one of the links I followed led to something other than that which was advertised. It was quite shocking and unpleasant, as it was a number of thumbnails, large enough to clearly see the images. Technically, as those images were stored in my temp folder so as to be displayed on the screen, I briefly had child porn stored on my computer. This was about seven or eight years ago whilst living in Japan. I reported the disguised link to both a UK-based and US-based agency, though I can't remember which ones. Neither ever replied to me, and the website I had followed the link from remained open. I didn't actually check the site I had stumbled across to see what had happened to that, as I didn't want to see it ever again. Had I been living in either the UK or US at the time, I am not sure I would have reported it, for fear of the consequences.

@Warboss any links to source?

If true then the FBI are seeming to do something without actually doing anything at all.

Such a trap would likely net the morbidly curious, the curious, and the totally unaware.

I assume that active paedophiles, child molesters, human trafficers, general scum are well aware of such efforts to catch them, they do seem to escape capture even though they must obviously be trawling the net for their deviant acts using such keyword strings as:

kiddie+porn+really+for realz+

What disturbed me about that recent case of the fella who had those three women in nurseries doing child porn for him was that he met them, and co-ordinated their activities via Facebook. That is really scary.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Wolfun wrote:I see this going horribly wrong.
I mean, as soon as /b/ gets a hold of one such link...

Well yes, I mean you can read about the news story here -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12313320

Something went wrong. Horribly wrong. I hate you

Fifty wrote:

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

Actually, once whilst *ahem* using a forum for regular porn, one of the links I followed led to something other than that which was advertised. It was quite shocking and unpleasant, as it was a number of thumbnails, large enough to clearly see the images. Technically, as those images were stored in my temp folder so as to be displayed on the screen, I briefly had child porn stored on my computer. This was about seven or eight years ago whilst living in Japan. I reported the disguised link to both a UK-based and US-based agency, though I can't remember which ones. Neither ever replied to me, and the website I had followed the link from remained open. I didn't actually check the site I had stumbled across to see what had happened to that, as I didn't want to see it ever again. Had I been living in either the UK or US at the time, I am not sure I would have reported it, for fear of the consequences.

Yeah, I've had similar things happen to me. I guess the answer is to jerk-off analogue style, like our dads did.

I'm thinking Razzle.

Tim the Biovore wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Wolfun wrote:I see this going horribly wrong.
I mean, as soon as /b/ gets a hold of one such link...

Well yes, I mean you can read about the news story here -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12313320

Something went wrong. Horribly wrong. I hate you

Haha. Always hover over links. =P

Well, I can see potential problems with this...the biggest being that /b/ gets its hands on it, and starts posting it everywhere, so people everywhere keep accidentally clicking on it, and the recording just gets swamped with information, 99% of which is just poor innocent people clicking on a link that advertises something completely different. I mean, even here on dakka I could create a hyperlink that I say will show you an awesome model, but actually takes you somewhere else. I won't actually do that becaue I like this site and getting banned is not high on my priority list, but still....it has potential to happen.

That being said, as long as clicking the link in and of itself does not become a crime, then using it to gather the occaisonal search warrant is fine in my book. Sometimes it does concern me though....sex offense laws in the US are very, very strict as is...and they do hurt people the same as they help...I'm just a tad bit concerned about where this might be going.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I think this is pretty clever. Just clicking on the link isn't an offence in itself, and thus there is no real need to prove 'who' clicked the link. This is so that the FBI can have reasonable grounds to search the computer, and if there IS Child pornography stashed on there it's going to be impossible to claim it was an accident.

The question is whether simply having apparently clicked on a link does provide actual reasonable grounds for search.

Who among us has never accidentally clicked a link that we didn't intend to? If you use a laptop it often has a touch pad which acts as the mouse and mouse click button. It's quite easy to accidentally click a link.

There are some websites so littered with pop-ups, ad links in the banner, the side columns and embedded in the text, that it is hard to actually navigate the text without some other crap being shoved in your face before you even know it's there. You go to move the cursor out of the column of text and bingo, an advert opens up.

I think there needs to be a repeated pattern of clicking on child porn links in order to build up reasonable suspicion.

Now all they have to do is put some CP in banner ads and they can lock away anyone whose browser caches images, ie. almost everyone.

This seems like a better use of resources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12298870

The US agents tracking down sex tourists in Cambodia

s part of an initiative to protect children from sexual predators, including those who travel overseas, special US agents operating in South East Asia have brought more than 80 alleged child sex tourists back to America to face justice.

Sihanoukville looks like paradise, or at least a decent, low-rent version. Golden beaches, swaying palm trees, cheap alcohol and shimmering sea.

Retired American pharmacist Ronald Adams had come here for the good life - setting up a beachside cafe. But one morning last February Adams' personal vision of paradise was shattered, when officers from the Cambodian National Police raided his apartment.

They found a collection of sex aids, child pornography on DVDs and a variety of illegal drugs. Adams was accused of drugging and raping a 12-year-old girl.
Under the radar

For Westerners arrested on child sex charges in South East Asia, things do not always turn out too badly. Gary Glitter got a two-and-a-half-year sentence in Vietnam for obscene acts with girls aged 10 and 12.

These are poor countries, where $100 can buy your freedom. But Ronald Adams had more to reckon with than the local police. An agent from America's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) was part of the group carrying out the raid........

Well, at least the government is smarter than your average business executive on leave in a foreign country...

halonachos wrote:Go FBI, get those perverts who deserve to get their lives destroyed!

No I'm not being sarcastic, these people are sick.

So long as they don't get the wrong people and make sure to only get actual pedophiles who are getting off to real children... or using real children.

While I would be the first to advocate the crucifixion of kiddie diddlers,I must admit the possibility of innocent people "stepping on these mines" does concern me quite a bit.

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

Well you start out looking for dick-girls and just get carried away.
Thanks to op for warning.

(humor)

You just have to be so careful when googling and make sure it is set to moderate safety.
I googled, "reading lumps and bumps" and was directed to Josie Straplash's World of Pain.

Anyway it was a revelation and I have dumped Phrenology in favour of Mammarology. Somehow it has more appeal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, how did you find out about this?

Uhhhh? Why do you ask? (it seems like you're implying something?)

@Mr.Burning: With all do respect this isn't a case of "if this is real" or not, if you think I'm making it up well that's your choice. As for a source I can't post it because I'm on my phone but a quick google search of Fake FBI Hyperlinks will pull up multiple results each containing the article.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, how did you find out about this?

Uhhhh? Why do you ask? (it seems like you're implying something?)

@Mr.Burning: With all do respect this isn't a case of "if this is real" or not, if you think I'm making it up well that's your choice. As for a source I can't post it because I'm on my phone but a quick google search of Fake FBI Hyperlinks will pull up multiple results each containing the article.

It's old news then.....cnet ran an article back in 2008 and other sites picked up the same story.....

So it already happened and......well, that's it, the world didn't end, and paedophiles who are savvy enough to evade obvious traps still do.

Hey guys, I found a great website.

www.greatpics14.com/1Rz467C.htm

...I'm not clicking that. It's going to get me reported, isn't it?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Hey guys, I found a great website.

Maximum trolling?

Seriously, it's this kind of thing thats going to make this idea completely useless.

Or make people terrified of links.

If I know Cannerus great pics = fluffy bunnies

and no.
that is not a euphemism!

I can imagine the chaos with this system when integrated with popups and more importantly, malware.

Medium has it right It really is a useless notion. I'd honestly have issue believing they weren't doing this kind of thing sooner.

I can see people on 4chan using this to troll people and get them in trouble...

halonachos wrote:How do you just happen upon child pornography?

Ever logged onto 4chan.com's /b/-section during happy-cp-hour?
- It's not pretty! It makes grown men cry... And i mean literally!

Mr. Burning wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, how did you find out about this?

Uhhhh? Why do you ask? (it seems like you're implying something?)

@Mr.Burning: With all do respect this isn't a case of "if this is real" or not, if you think I'm making it up well that's your choice. As for a source I can't post it because I'm on my phone but a quick google search of Fake FBI Hyperlinks will pull up multiple results each containing the article.

It's old news then.....cnet ran an article back in 2008 and other sites picked up the same story.....

So it already happened and......well, that's it, the world didn't end, and paedophiles who are savvy enough to evade obvious traps still do.

Old news or not it is something I haden't seen discussed on Dakka (and yes I did search) so here it is. And now you know it's real

I wasn't implying anything, it's just that the OP didn't source a link. And I don't know why the FBI would tell a news station about this.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I wasn't implying anything, it's just that the OP didn't source a link. And I don't know why the FBI would tell a news station about this.

No one ever knows why the FBI does anything and it isn't like they announced which websites they posted on and which links they added. It's the same as knowing that the police set up fake drug deals to catch dealers, knowing that it's done dosen't make it any less effective. Plus announcing it could also be a scare tactics for those who actually do use child porn.

But to answer your question i know about it because a friend of mine (a trusted friend in my contact list not spam ) sent me an email with an article about the topic. I found it interesting and so did some further research into it.

Okay, would you mind linking the article?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:If I know Cannerus great pics = fluffy bunnies

and no.
that is not a euphemism!

Fluffy bunnies...naked?!?

Bunny-boo, how could you?

Apart from cartoons and Beatrix Potter when aren't bunnies nakee?
And apparently they have polka dot boxer shorts on underneath their fur!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Apart from cartoons and Beatrix Potter when aren't bunnies nakee?
And apparently they have polka dot boxer shorts on underneath their fur!

What is beatrix potter?

I hope you are jesting!
for shame if not

Peter Rabbit ring any bells?

A tale of a young rabbit and what Mr Macgregor wanted to do to the young buck.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I hope you are jesting!
for shame if not

Peter Rabbit ring any bells?

A tale of a young rabbit and what Mr Macgregor wanted to do to the young buck.

I looked her up while waiting for the reply. My warped mind thought of Harry Pooter, and that witch Beatrix from it, as a rabbit. Glad I was wrong.

What if people link you to the FBI Site? As a way to get back at someone. Like someone sends you like. "HEY LOOK A RICK ROLL!" turns out to be porn of a little teenage girls. I have not had that happen but I have had one of my friends send me to a grandpa porn website my eyes are still stained by what I saw. And I died a little inside.

That's one of the issues with it is that they could be sent to anyone or copied and pasted anywhere. If I found one of the links, re-wrote it to say GW anounces return of Squat army. Then put it in a thread with the same title the FBI would have SO many IPs to investigate.

And as I said before I can't post links on my phone and even at that I don't have the email anymore.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html

Here's the first thing that popped upon googling 'FBI child porn fake hyperlinks'. Of course, this culd just as easily BE one of the hyperlinks they were releasing, no?

Yes it could actually but it isn't likely, from the differant articles I've read the FBI usually only posts the links in sites (forums) known to traffic child pornography.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/

I'll just leave this here.

That was a fairly messed up movie.

What's more messed up is it fits MORE into teenage sex mentality now then it did when it was made.

Why are there so many links in here?!

Too paranoid now to click on any linkys in case I end up on the FBI's most wanted list, or get Ricked, which is possibly worse!

Maybe the "honey pot" means direction to a Winnie the Pooh webpage. Or is that just to entice furries?

So basically if /b/ gets a hold of one of these fake links they'll be able to get more to go to /b/ by accident?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Too paranoid now to click on any linkys in case I end up on the FBI's most wanted list, or get Ricked, which is possibly worse!

Maybe the "honey pot" means direction to a Winnie the Pooh webpage. Or is that just to entice furries?

Furry pedophiles?! I'm sure someone does that. It's like my old boss used to say, "There's a fetish for everything." It's best not to dwell on that statement.

A fetish for everything?

What about watermelons covered in fluffernutter while molesting a newly made table painted to look like Adolf Hitler?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, I found one of the fake links. Here it is for my fellow dakkaites to avoid.

www.FIBporn.org

halonachos wrote:A fetish for everything?

What about watermelons covered in fluffernutter while molesting a newly made table painted to look like Adolf Hitler?

And what is exactly wrong with "Fluffy Melon Hitables"?!?

alarmingrick wrote:

halonachos wrote:A fetish for everything?

What about watermelons covered in fluffernutter while molesting a newly made table painted to look like Adolf Hitler?

And what is exactly wrong with "Fluffy Melon Hitables"?!?

I'm sorry if I offended.

halonachos wrote:A fetish for everything?

What about watermelons covered in fluffernutter while molesting a newly made table painted to look like Adolf Hitler?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, I found one of the fake links. Here it is for my fellow dakkaites to avoid.

www.FIBporn.org

possibly nsfw comment

You know what the FBI is targeting the wrong guy.

I was right about the Winnie the Pooh thing afterall!

Although I thought Tiggers don't like ikky sticky stuff.

Oh....oh god my eyes. They burn every time I see that picture.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:The FBI has started to create false hyperlinks advertising child pornography which when clicked on will lead the user to a "child pornography site" although no site actually exists. Once the user has entered the site (which has nothing but gibberish) their IP is recorded by a FBI controlled computer which will then lead to the ascertaining of further information about the IPs owner, simply clicking on the link to the site is considered intent to commit a crime with the crime being viewing child pornography.

Now the links aren't created so people can be (initially) charged with viewing child pornography (how can you be charged with viewing it if the site dosen't have any) instead the "evidence" of intent to commit a crime is enough to recieve a warrant for search and seizure. This allows the FBI to search your home to see if you actually have child pornography (if you are searching for it on the web chances are you're going to have it personally) which you will then face charges for.

The problem with this however is that while the hyperlinks created by the FBI are usually planted into sites known for trading child pornography these hyperlinks can be copied and formatted to say something entirely differant then what their contents contain. For example if you where to recieve a email in your spam folder with a hyperlink that says "Gods Paintings" and you, thinking of those countless landscape paintings that are actually photographs click the link to see them, could actually be taken to a fake FBI site where you will be classified as attempting to commit a crime.

Now this dosen't mean that the FBI is sending out emails like this but there are hackers or just malicious people who would do it for kicks. There is also a HUGE possibility of clicking one of these links on accident through various means be it that the link was put into a site where it shoulden't be (say a childs learning page) by hackers, or there is simply the ignorance of the young who may not know any better or whose curiosity may over ride their common sense at such a young age.

Another issue with this is that there is no way to prove who actually clicked the link. If multiple people live in one house and they all use the same computer is the FBI going to prosecute them all for the actions of one? And then there is the ever present IP "borrowing" where someone with Wifi (say on a laptop) in one house can click the link but their web service (and the Ip provided) is being taken from their neighbor.

Many have criticisized this procedure as entrapment but by the legal deffinition of entrapment this is incorrect as no one (members of the government or police) is forcing the suspect to click on the link. Also keep in mind that while age of consent may vary from state to state under law anyone under the age of 18 is considered a child, so where someone to have pictures of say a naked 16 year old that does not reasonibly serve any medical, scientific or artistic purpose when these "raids" happen then they could be charged with having child pornography.

So Dakka? What do we thing about this type of sting being used by our governemt? Personally I think it would be a good idea if it didn't have so much potential to "frame" someone who is innocent and shoulden't deserve any of the attention or prosecution they would recieve. There are so many reasons why someone who has no intention of searching for, viewing or partaking in child pornography would click on one of these links and while if they don't have any child pornography (or other illegal items) they have nothing to worry about should the FBI or police raid their house. But at the same time they shoulden't have been raided in the first place.

Sounds like a plan.

Mr. Burning wrote:This seems like a better use of resources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12298870

The US agents tracking down sex tourists in Cambodia

s part of an initiative to protect children from sexual predators, including those who travel overseas, special US agents operating in South East Asia have brought more than 80 alleged child sex tourists back to America to face justice.

America really scares me sometimes. I agree that hunting down these parasites is a noble cause. What about other countries with more relaxed age of consent laws? What about countries which are more liberal with drug laws? Hyperbole, sure, but how can you drag someone for sentencing in a country different to where the crime was committed? The principle of 'No one will care if I bury the terrorist/paedo/estate agent in the desert' only applies as far as you trust the agency who decides who gets targeted.

Sounds a lot like extraordinary rendition over again.

Soup and a roll wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:This seems like a better use of resources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12298870

The US agents tracking down sex tourists in Cambodia

s part of an initiative to protect children from sexual predators, including those who travel overseas, special US agents operating in South East Asia have brought more than 80 alleged child sex tourists back to America to face justice.

America really scares me sometimes. I agree that hunting down these parasites is a noble cause. What about other countries with more relaxed age of consent laws? What about countries which are more liberal with drug laws? Hyperbole, sure, but how can you drag someone for sentencing in a country different to where the crime was committed? The principle of 'No one will care if I bury the terrorist/paedo/estate agent in the desert' only applies as far as you trust the agency who decides who gets targeted.

Sounds a lot like extraordinary rendition over again.

Its for the US, why would we give a about other countries?

Soup and a roll wrote:America really scares me sometimes. I agree that hunting down these parasites is a noble cause. What about other countries with more relaxed age of consent laws? What about countries which are more liberal with drug laws? Hyperbole, sure, but how can you drag someone for sentencing in a country different to where the crime was committed? The principle of 'No one will care if I bury the terrorist/paedo/estate agent in the desert' only applies as far as you trust the agency who decides who gets targeted.

Sounds a lot like extraordinary rendition over again.

While you are eating your soup and roll, consider the fact that EVEN IN THOSE COUNTRIES BORKING A 10 YEAR OLD IS ILLEGAL. We aren't talking about arresting people in other countries that aren't breaking that countries laws, and the article never talked about doing for drug related instances. Did you read the article even? In the case of the article, it is specific to an area in which we were invited to help deal with a country that has both an easily corrupted system and a reputation as being a pedophiles playground. The decent people living there and in the government know this and would probably like a different reputation so they need help to deal with this serious problem.

Perhaps reading the article would have kept you from acting like the CIA was kidnapping college students in Amsterdam for smoking some marijuana.

And perhaps you should calm down Ahtman, you have no idea if he read it or not and he may very well have missunderstood it.

It is true that anyone from any country who has enternet can click on the links but the FBI would not be dealing with it themselves but would hand the case off to the proper authorities in the relevant country as most countries do take a very strict standing on child pornography.

I would also like to ask members reading this not to post links that aren't relevant to the discussion (links to articles about the topic are ok, unsetteling pictures and links to joke about if people are paranoid now not so much ) or to post pictures like the one above which is just gross this isn't a subject to discuss pedophiles, sex offenders or any kind of fetish. It's about the various aspects of this method being used by the FBI, thank you

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:And perhaps you should calm down Ahtman, you have no idea if he read it or not and he may very well have missunderstood it.

Than the proper response is to say "I don't understand", not to build a strawman and damning a country on false information. It wasn't a hard article to read, it gave all the information necessary to not come to the conclusion that America was kidnapping people. Almost everything in the post was not in the article, and would be difficult to come up with if the article had been, ya know, read. There is a huge difference between working with other governments to curb pedophilia and 'rendition' and to try and equate the two is both factually unsound and intentionally misleading.

It's a reasonable idea, I think. But any actual pedophile (if you could call them that) is quite aware that no such websites exist, so I doubt the more serious ones would even be found through this system.

They'll probably catch people who are just bored on the internet But I guess it's a good idea to keep tabs on these people, so if nothing else, they'll build a big list of IPs.

I'm interested to see how this goes...

Is the FBI kidnapping people when they move in to take a person from harm? Its called extraction and even though its like kidnapping there is a big difference, one difference being that one is done for the good of the community and the other isn't.

Now, don't go off on saying that kidnapping a person for a human sacrifice may be good for the community and all of that mumbo jumbo/jibba jabba, be realistic in your counter. The FBI is taking these pedophiles away because they are committing an illegal act, not because they're just sitting at the beach drinking Dos Equis peacefully.

Samus_aran115 wrote:It's a reasonable idea, I think. But any actual pedophile (if you could call them that) is quite aware that no such websites exist, so I doubt the more serious ones would even be found through this system.

They'll probably catch people who are just bored on the internet But I guess it's a good idea to keep tabs on these people, so if nothing else, they'll build a big list of IPs.

I'm interested to see how this goes...

What do you mean no website exists? that the links don't actually lead to a child porn site? that's not exactly how it works, it isn't like it's an advertisement for an actual website. In one of the examples I saw the link was supposed to lead to a video of an 8 year old having sex with her father. It dosen't say what website it would take you to.

halonachos wrote:Is the FBI kidnapping people when they move in to take a person from harm? Its called extraction and even though its like kidnapping there is a big difference, one difference being that one is done for the good of the community and the other isn't.

Now, don't go off on saying that kidnapping a person for a human sacrifice may be good for the community and all of that mumbo jumbo/jibba jabba, be realistic in your counter. The FBI is taking these pedophiles away because they are committing an illegal act, not because they're just sitting at the beach drinking Dos Equis peacefully.

It's not the removal of pedophiles I have a problem with,remove them and burn them alive IMO,what I take issue with is the manner in which the FBI is going about in removing them and the possibility of innocent people stumbling onto these "trip wires".

I was talking about them going to a foreign country, as far as the computer thing goes I believe that they should only get a warrant to let them take the hard drive and if something is on the hard drive then get the sick freak.

I think(note I said think and not know) that this is how it works in most cases of computer crimes.

If the poor guy is innocent and just happened to click the wrong thing then he should be compensated for the time the FBI had the computer and any damages to the hard drive if damage occurs.

I'm sure they've gone out of their way to make it so it's something that one would actively have to search for the material to hit the tripwire.

Make something idiot proof and someone will invent a bigger idiot.

halonachos wrote:Make something idiot proof and someone will invent a bigger idiot.

Basically this..., as much as I would like to hope that the FBI would attempt to set up these "traps" so as to only ensnare those actively searching for child porn,the possibility of people clicking a baited link accidently and seriously fething up their lives is a concern.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:It's a reasonable idea, I think. But any actual pedophile (if you could call them that) is quite aware that no such websites exist, so I doubt the more serious ones would even be found through this system.

They'll probably catch people who are just bored on the internet But I guess it's a good idea to keep tabs on these people, so if nothing else, they'll build a big list of IPs.

I'm interested to see how this goes...

What do you mean no website exists? that the links don't actually lead to a child porn site? that's not exactly how it works, it isn't like it's an advertisement for an actual website. In one of the examples I saw the link was supposed to lead to a video of an 8 year old having sex with her father. It dosen't say what website it would take you to.

I guess I'm saying that a pedophile would be smart enough to avoid something so boldly claiming to be CP. Real CP isn't on dedicated websites, and they know that. I mean, these people aren't idiots. They know how to hide their IPs, they know how to check websites before actually clicking them, and they know how to avoid 'honey pots' in the first place.

Most of the people they catch will be small time. Bored teenagers on the internet. Older men who pose no threat. Boring people. The real threats are the people uploading CP in the first place. That's who they're after the most, I think.

Yeah, but there are ways to ensure that the lives of the people who click the links won't be totally fethed.

They need to make sure that they have those in place before the links though because if Joe Schmoe loses his job because he was lonely one saturday nigt and accidentally clicked a link its a bad system.

Like I said they should take the computer and only the computer, look through it, and then decide whether or not the guy should be in jail. I also think that the legal system prevents them from adding a charge if they're searching for child porn and only find illegally downloaded movies IIRC.

No one is being kidnapped. The local LEOs are arresting the suspects. If they are American ICE are having them handed over directly to them to ship back to the US to face charges. ICE also helps the local LEOs with any investigation. It is still the country that is doing the detainment. All that has happened is that, generally speaking, they have streamlined the extradition process.

Ahtman wrote:No one is being kidnapped. The local LEOs are arresting the suspects. If they are American ICE are having them handed over directly to them to ship back to the US to face charges. ICE also helps the local LEOs with any investigation. It is still the country that is doing the detainment. All that has happened is that, generally speaking, they have streamlined the extradition process.

I was agreeing with you Ahtman, I said they weren't being kidnapped but arrested.

halonachos wrote:Yeah, but there are ways to ensure that the lives of the people who click the links won't be totally fethed.

They need to make sure that they have those in place before the links though because if Joe Schmoe loses his job because he was lonely one saturday nigt and accidentally clicked a link its a bad system.

Like I said they should take the computer and only the computer, look through it, and then decide whether or not the guy should be in jail. I also think that the legal system prevents them from adding a charge if they're searching for child porn and only find illegally downloaded movies IIRC.

If those sorts of steps were implemented then I see no problem with the tactics.
If Joe Schmoe clicks "Hot Young" thinking he's going to see some nubile 18 year olds and finds himself caught in the cogs of the legal system then that's a problem,but if some piece of gak kiddie diddler gets caught searching for images of children I'm all for it.

Ah, 18 years of age, that special time when you can smoke, enlist, and not touch a single high school freshman.

halonachos wrote:Like I said they should take the computer and only the computer, look through it, and then decide whether or not the guy should be in jail.

Having your computer full of work and personal stuff taken off you for however many months (because no investigation is particularly fast) and having everyone in your neighbourhood talking about how the police busted you as a paedo is *not* fun for the person involved if all they did was go to the webpage accidentally.

It could in fact be very unpleasant. It's like when a kid in a school falsely accuses a teacher of molestation, it can cost them their job, their family and probably their sanity.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I mean, these people aren't idiots.

I don't know if you've ever watched "To Catch a Predator" but many of them are, in fact, complete idiots.

If this catches a few of the stupider ones I say that the system works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yeah, but there are ways to ensure that the lives of the people who click the links won't be totally fethed.

They need to make sure that they have those in place before the links though because if Joe Schmoe loses his job because he was lonely one saturday nigt and accidentally clicked a link its a bad system.

Like I said they should take the computer and only the computer, look through it, and then decide whether or not the guy should be in jail. I also think that the legal system prevents them from adding a charge if they're searching for child porn and only find illegally downloaded movies IIRC.

If those sorts of steps were implemented then I see no problem with the tactics.
If Joe Schmoe clicks "Hot Young" thinking he's going to see some nubile 18 year olds and finds himself caught in the cogs of the legal system then that's a problem,but if some piece of gak kiddie diddler gets caught searching for images of children I'm all for it.

The difference is the guy who honestly clicks on it by accident while looking for something to romance himself with won't have a library of CP somewhere in his house or on his computer like the target of this operation would.

One of them is in trouble, the other one isn't.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

halonachos wrote:Like I said they should take the computer and only the computer, look through it, and then decide whether or not the guy should be in jail.

Having your computer full of work and personal stuff taken off you for however many months (because no investigation is particularly fast) and having everyone in your neighbourhood talking about how the police busted you as a paedo is *not* fun for the person involved if all they did was go to the webpage accidentally.

It could in fact be very unpleasant. It's like when a kid in a school falsely accuses a teacher of molestation, it can cost them their job, their family and probably their sanity.

Life sucks then you die. Who cares?

@halonachos: Uh maybe you didn't read the OP where I said that's exactly what they do? lol except for the compinsation bit, the FBI/government isn't required to compinsate someone for actions taken during an investigation of that person wether they where innocent or not.

@samus_aran115: No one ever said the links where posted in sites dedicated to child porn and with respect unless you have searched for them yourself (not saying you have) or gone to every child porn site there is no way of knowing if there are sites actually dedicated to child porn so saying that there are none is a false statement. But yes those who traffic in child porn probably are better at hiding themselves then others. But if you are someone interested in child porn, ona forum known to trade child porn (though that's not the purpose of the forum) and you see a link that says "8yo does her father" chances are you'd click on it. The big risk however comes from hackers and those who would just copy the links. Rewrite them to say something else then send them out to random people or embed them in sites where they don't belong.

Which we know is going to happen. Besides, do think of what even an INVESTIGATION can do to a person. Like samu_aran said, imagine your computer was taken away from you for months. Now imagine you have to explain to your boss or other people that it was confiscated becaue you are under investigation for posession of child pornography. Can you imagine what that would do to you? It's not an easy thing...and everyone knows /b/ is going to have a field day with this. They'll probably see getting someone investigated as a great source of lulz.

Go go government sticking it's nose into where it doesn't belong.

I hate child rapists more than the next guy but this is seriously going to lead to major problems if this thing is allowed to continue unchecked.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:@halonachos: Uh maybe you didn't read the OP where I said that's exactly what they do? lol except for the compinsation bit, the FBI/government isn't required to compinsate someone for actions taken during an investigation of that person wether they where innocent or not.

Actually you make no mention of them taking the computer/hard drive in the original post. You mentioned them searching the home for child pornography and mention search/seizure, but make no attempts to specify hard drives being taken. Search and seizure means evidence can be taken, but like I said no specifications.

So no you didn't exactly say that they take the hard drives you said that they would use a warrant to search the house for evidence.

halonachos wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:@halonachos: Uh maybe you didn't read the OP where I said that's exactly what they do? lol except for the compinsation bit, the FBI/government isn't required to compinsate someone for actions taken during an investigation of that person wether they where innocent or not.

Actually you make no mention of them taking the computer/hard drive in the original post. You mentioned them searching the home for child pornography and mention search/seizure, but make no attempts to specify hard drives being taken. Search and seizure means evidence can be taken, but like I said no specifications.

So no you didn't exactly say that they take the hard drives you said that they would use a warrant to search the house for evidence.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Go go government sticking it's nose into where it doesn't belong.

I hate child rapists more than the next guy but this is seriously going to lead to major problems if this thing is allowed to continue unchecked.

I don't know if it makes me a bit of an authoritarian, but I don't have a problem with with them cutting corners to catch these guys.

But there is so many ways for this to backfire and end up with innocents in jail for doing no wrong.

This is even more fethed up then "To catch a predator" and that show was so contrived and so borderline illegal that it was pulled by networks for just that reason.

I mean, there were instances of days or even weeks passing that the "TCAP" volunteers/employees had child porn on the servers. Isn't it illegal, no matter what use it's for, to have pictures of children in sex acts or naked in your possession?

Just saying.....it's like this thread. It won't end well.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing someone could say to me that would get me to go to what I believe is a 12 year old girl's house to have sex with her.

If you're entrapped by that, you kind of deserve to be.

If they check the computer and there is no child porn the guy won't go to jail. If he has child porn on his computer or in his house then he will go to jail, I fail to see how an innocent person will go to jail.

It's one of those civil liberties arguments where no one is going to agree.

Side A: "If you don't have anything to hide, who cares?"

Side B: "Why should they have the right to look in the first place?"

halonachos wrote:If they check the computer and there is no child porn the guy won't go to jail. If he has child porn on his computer or in his house then he will go to jail, I fail to see how an innocent person will go to jail.

But how long will they be 'borrowing' my computer to look through it? How will this investigationa ffect my life? Just because someone doesn't go to jail, doesn't mean they don't get hurt by it.

How long can it take for them to give it a quick check? Not a full-scale investigation, just going through the hard-drive?

Asherian Command wrote:What if people link you to the FBI Site? As a way to get back at someone. Like someone sends you like. "HEY LOOK A RICK ROLL!" turns out to be porn of a little teenage girls. I have not had that happen but I have had one of my friends send me to a grandpa porn website my eyes are still stained by what I saw. And I died a little inside.

I know this post is a few pages old but did the link have anything to do with lemons? Cause I share your pain...

Lemons?

Maybe something about a party of some sort?

the horror...

Monster Rain wrote:I'm pretty sure there's nothing someone could say to me that would get me to go to what I believe is a 12 year old girl's house to have sex with her.

If you're entrapped by that, you kind of deserve to be.

Except it obviously was felt that the network and CH were going too far. The problem with the show is that the men weren't ever "caught" doing anything illegal. Sure, intent was to have sex with a minor but how far would some or even most of these men had gone? What if "Joe" 5 minutes into his makeout sessions with a 16yo realized he screwed up. By legal definition kissing a minor is NOT sexual assault of any kind unless it was forced on said minor. In that instance no crime has been committed and if "Joe" left the "victims" house, got back in his vehicle and drove home and acted like nothing happened than obviously law enforcement cannot "prove" he would ever have had sex with his "victim". In one episode the guy realized before he even got across the street that something wasn't right. He tried to get back into his truck to leave when an officer tackled him to the ground, treated him like he HAD just diddled a minor and he was hauled off.

Now, isn't that a bit excessive to treat someone like that for something they may or may never have done? Granted you can't wait until the guy is actually in the act of penetrating a minor but it sure as hell is ridiculous to treat a person like an animal when no actual crime has ever been committed.

Also, "TCaP" was using adults posing as children online and then using children for real to answer the door and let these men in. Sure there were cops around the house and bushes but if the show is so damned worried about the welfare of kids why is the show putting minors in possible dangerous situations?

The best way for parents to protect their kids from predators is to monitor the computer. No reason a 12yo needs to be in Yahoo chat or MSN chat. A 16 or 17yo should also be smart enough to NOT engage in sexual talk with anyone on the net that isn't their bf. I'm sure most guys don't lie about their age so if 16yo Abby gets a PM from a guy saying "Hey, you are sexy. I'm 45/m/Florida" the best way for her to not be a victim is to click "ignore" and problem solved.

The US is turning too much into a nanny state. If parents cannot or will not monitor their child's activities in order to prevent harm to their children then perhaps it's not the "predators" that should be put in prison but the parents?

Food for thought.

Again, this "fake" child porn link thing is just disaster waiting to happen.

No kidding~

halonachos wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:@halonachos: Uh maybe you didn't read the OP where I said that's exactly what they do? lol except for the compinsation bit, the FBI/government isn't required to compinsate someone for actions taken during an investigation of that person wether they where innocent or not.

Actually you make no mention of them taking the computer/hard drive in the original post. You mentioned them searching the home for child pornography and mention search/seizure, but make no attempts to specify hard drives being taken. Search and seizure means evidence can be taken, but like I said no specifications.

So no you didn't exactly say that they take the hard drives you said that they would use a warrant to search the house for evidence.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that everyone had enough common sense to know that if the FBI is gonna search your house they would take the computer without having to actually say they would take it. But sense you've covered the "specifications" of what would be taken I think maybe the 2 people who didn't know that the FBI would take the computer (when the whole discussion is about online traps) understand that now.

You've been such a great help to everyone on the thread and I think that anyone who coulden't connect the fact that if the FBI sets an online trap to get a search and siezure warrant (exactly like I said which is what I was refering to) to search your house and sieze anything that could contain child porn (gee, could that be the computer you triggered the trap on?) should thank Halonachos for his miraculous contribution. Hats off to you buddy

I think where you went wrong was saying that you wrote it in you OP and hadn't, and to this casual observer you were kind of being unnecessarily rude in that post and also in this last one.

You should just apologize and cut your losses.

Emperors Faithful wrote:How long can it take for them to give it a quick check? Not a full-scale investigation, just going through the hard-drive?

Depending on how backed up the office is, and how confusingly your hard drive is organized, potentially a very long time. I mean, you try going through your entire hard drive, checking everything, everywhere that could possibly hide child porn...and tell me it doesn't take a rather long time.

If the FBI really wants to catch these guys, they need inside men. So deep, that they might even forget who they're working for. These men must infiltrate /b/.

Perhaps the Feds just need to let parents do their own policing.

Ah hah.

Or is it too much to ask parents to actually be parents and not just breeders and ATM machines?

ChrisWWII wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:How long can it take for them to give it a quick check? Not a full-scale investigation, just going through the hard-drive?

Depending on how backed up the office is, and how confusingly your hard drive is organized, potentially a very long time. I mean, you try going through your entire hard drive, checking everything, everywhere that could possibly hide child porn...and tell me it doesn't take a rather long time.

I can't say I have.

Don't be ashamed to admit it EF.

Just because you randomly searched your drive to make sure you didn't have any does in no way imply you HAD any. Nothing wrong with precaution, eh?

I-um er... ah THEY'RE ONTO ME!

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps the Feds just need to let parents do their own policing.

Ah hah.

Or is it too much to ask parents to actually be parents and not just breeders and ATM machines?

Sadly yes, the worst are the well-to-do families. I look at my friends and see that working class kids tend to have parents that are more involved in their lives. Is there a chance that their kid will drink before turning 21, yes but the parent will at least make sure the kid avoids doing anything stupid after that point. Will they smoke pot, maybe but again the parents will step in and take of their kid to help prevent them from doing it again or to prevent them from doing something to hurt another. The well-to-do parents let their kids go off and do whatever they want. The kids I know that live in a well-to-do gated community will go for walks at 11 o' clock at night because they think the neighborhood is safe. Those same kids do drugs, drink, have had multiple sex partners, oh and they just got into their junior year of high school. Makes me fething sick.

And because you continue to berate me, you misspelled the following Warboss(including the small portion I quoted);
1)compensation
2)compensate
3)whether
4)were(not where)
5)going to(not 'gonna')
6)since
7)couldn't
8)referring
9)seizure
10)seize
11) Typically numbers lower than 11 are spelled out in a sentence, i.e) two.

You're welcome for the spelling tips by the way.

Monster Rain wrote:I think where you went wrong was saying that you wrote it in you OP and hadn't

In my OP I said that the FBI was using the links as reasons to get search and siezure warrants I made no mention that they where taking computers given that it's common sense given the topic of the discussion, this is also what I was referancing when I asked him if I haden't already said that (which I've already pointed out). So I didn't go wrong, he missunderstood what I was asking as have you.

and to this casual observer you were kind of being unnecessarily rude in that post and also in this last one.

Asking someone if they wern't just repeating what had already been said isn't being rude, the tone and manner in which he responded was rude and I replied with sarcasm.

You should just apologize and cut your losses.

This won't be happening.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think where you went wrong was saying that you wrote it in you OP and hadn't

In my OP I said that the FBI was using the links as reasons to get search and siezure warrants I made no mention that they where taking computers given that it's common sense given the topic of the discussion, this is also what I was referancing when I asked him if I haden't already said that (which I've already pointed out). So I didn't go wrong, he missunderstood what I was asking as have you.

and to this casual observer you were kind of being unnecessarily rude in that post and also in this last one.

Asking someone if they wern't just repeating what had already been said isn't being rude, the tone and manner in which he responded was rude and I replied with sarcasm.

You should just apologize and cut your losses.

This won't be happening.

1) Poor puncuation.(...seizure warrants. I made...)
2) were
3) referencing
4) hadn't
5) misunderstood
6) weren't

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:In my OP I said that the FBI was using the links as reasons to get search and siezure warrants I made no mention that they where taking computers given that it's common sense given the topic of the discussion, this is also what I was referancing when I asked him if I haden't already said that (which I've already pointed out). So I didn't go wrong, he missunderstood what I was asking as have you.

I haven't misunderstood, but given your grammar and strange sentence structure it isn't outside the realm of possibility that someone might have difficulty reading some of your wordier posts. Also, even if you think something is "common sense" the classier thing to do would be to be gracious about someone misunderstanding something you said.

ChrisWWII wrote:

halonachos wrote:If they check the computer and there is no child porn the guy won't go to jail. If he has child porn on his computer or in his house then he will go to jail, I fail to see how an innocent person will go to jail.

But how long will they be 'borrowing' my computer to look through it? How will this investigationa ffect my life? Just because someone doesn't go to jail, doesn't mean they don't get hurt by it.

They will get hurt by it and that aspect of this issue does indeed stink. However, I believe that this is one of those rare exceptions where 'innocent before proven guilty' actually applies. The warrant should be carried out as quietly as possible to prevent damage to the alleged pedophile's reputation and the combing of the hard drive should be done as quickly as possible to decrease the amount of infringement upon the alleged pedophile's work and life.

Once we find out that the person is a pedophile then we should put him up in stocks and pelt him with metal covered arrowheads.

halonachos wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps the Feds just need to let parents do their own policing.

Ah hah.

Or is it too much to ask parents to actually be parents and not just breeders and ATM machines?

Sadly yes, the worst are the well-to-do families. I look at my friends and see that working class kids tend to have parents that are more involved in their lives. Is there a chance that their kid will drink before turning 21, yes but the parent will at least make sure the kid avoids doing anything stupid after that point. Will they smoke pot, maybe but again the parents will step in and take of their kid to help prevent them from doing it again or to prevent them from doing something to hurt another. The well-to-do parents let their kids go off and do whatever they want. The kids I know that live in a well-to-do gated community will go for walks at 11 o' clock at night because they think the neighborhood is safe. Those same kids do drugs, drink, have had multiple sex partners, oh and they just got into their junior year of high school. Makes me fething sick.

And because you continue to berate me, you misspelled the following Warboss(including the small portion I quoted);
1)compensation
2)compensate
3)whether
4)were(not where)
5)going to(not 'gonna')
6)since
7)couldn't
8)referring
9)seizure
10)seize
11) Typically numbers lower than 11 are spelled out in a sentence, i.e) two.

You're welcome for the spelling tips by the way.

Then it should still be on the parents to be actual parents. Yes, sometimes it takes both parents working 60+ hours per week to make ends meet but their are VERY easy ways to restrict children and their access to the internet. 1) Don't buy them their own personal desktop or laptop (not especially at 12 years old. A 12yo doesn't need his or her laptop). 2) Make sure the family PC has any site blocked, require administrator rights to do anything beyond booting up (ie, 12yo anna can't install YM or Skype or anything else so long as she can't log in as admin).

Most teen girls 14-18 view 30+ year old men who hit on them as "creepers". The ones that fall in love with men that age have issues probably relating to crappy parenting.

One of my buddies has 4 kids, 2 oldest are 12. They don't have any Messenger programs installed on their "homework" laptop and all adult sights are cyber-nannied. The only thing they can do is play kids games on it and homework.

Child molesters sicken me but parents who don't every try to parent sicken me even more.

Monster Rain wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:In my OP I said that the FBI was using the links as reasons to get search and siezure warrants I made no mention that they where taking computers given that it's common sense given the topic of the discussion, this is also what I was referancing when I asked him if I haden't already said that (which I've already pointed out). So I didn't go wrong, he missunderstood what I was asking as have you.

I haven't misunderstood, but given your grammar and strange sentence structure it isn't outside the realm of possibility that someone might have difficulty reading some of your wordier posts. Also, even if you think something is "common sense" the classier thing to do would be to be gracious about someone misunderstanding something you said.

If you didn't understand then why was it you said that where I went wrong was for saying something that in fact I didn't say in the context that you seem to think when I simply asked a question and he was the one who responded in a rude manner.

In every thread I have ever posted in on every single website I've been a member of not once has anyone been unable to understand what I am saying do to grammar and sentence structure. I don't see how it would be any differant now and if it is it isn't my problem because everyone else understands it just fine.

And that "classier thing" was exactly what I was going to do before he answered in the manner that he did.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:And that "classier thing" was exactly what I was going to do before he answered in the manner that he did.

Boy if I had a penny for everytime I heard that particular phrase.

" I was going to do X before he did Y" typically means you weren't going to do 'X' but just wanted a cheap way to make the other guy look bad.

Emperors Faithful wrote:How long can it take for them to give it a quick check? Not a full-scale investigation, just going through the hard-drive?

It took Steve Jackson Games months to get their computers back after a cyber bust. They were 100% innocent, but their business suffered a lot.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:How long can it take for them to give it a quick check? Not a full-scale investigation, just going through the hard-drive?

It took Steve Jackson Games months to get their computers back after a cyber bust. They were 100% innocent, but their business suffered a lot.

That's multiple computers though so the amount of information they had to go through is incredible. Add to that the fact that all of the computers counted as evidence means that even if half of the computers were screened they could not give the company those computers back. What were they searching for though?

http://www.sjgames.com/SS/topten.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service

While they took multiple computers from Steve Jackson Games, the size of a hard disk in those days was under 1,000th of what is common now, so the amount of data was actually fairly small.

Anyway, the authorities didn't bother examining the evidence. They just took all the computers and sat on them for months, before grudgingly being forced to give them back after enormous legal fees had been spent.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm pretty sure there's nothing someone could say to me that would get me to go to what I believe is a 12 year old girl's house to have sex with her.

If you're entrapped by that, you kind of deserve to be.

Exactly. Instead of their expected victim, the house should be full of soccer moms, with pliers...

Kilkrazy wrote:While they took multiple computers from Steve Jackson Games, the size of a hard disk in those days was under 1,000th of what is common now, so the amount of data was actually fairly small.

Anyway, the authorities didn't bother examining the evidence. They just took all the computers and sat on them for months, before grudgingly being forced to give them back after enormous legal fees had been spent.

Aside from not examining the evidence, the small memory size means that the FBI didn't have the large memory size that we have today either.

So hopefully anybody working in an office doesn't have a cowroker who clicks on one of those links.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm pretty sure there's nothing someone could say to me that would get me to go to what I believe is a 12 year old girl's house to have sex with her.

If you're entrapped by that, you kind of deserve to be.

Exactly. Instead of their expected victim, the house should be full of soccer moms, with pliers...

...and turtle wax.

I don't think the FBI should do that,maybe put more effort into finding the uploaders and stopping it at the source.
I mean the real victims are the children,even if they stopped people looking at it,a child was still abused.

But this is a really touchy topic.