Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!