The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.
Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.
A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who's using an open wireless connection--and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.
Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.
Although I usually am very skeptical of FBI employing new tactics and they usually are abusing these new powers, I must admit, this is a pretty original idea and it's extremely easy and simple to set up.
In technical circles it's called a "honeypot", I know in the context of the subject, it's pretty inappropriate, but that's what it's called.
In computer terminology, a honeypot is a trap set to detect, deflect, or in some manner counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems. Generally it consists of a computer, data, or a network site that appears to be part of a network but which is actually isolated, (un)protected, and monitored, and which seems to contain information or a resource that would be of value to attackers. A honeypot that masquerades as an open proxy is known as a sugarcane.
A honeypot is valuable as a surveillance and early-warning tool. While often a computer, a honeypot can take on other forms, such as files or data records, or even unused IP address space. Honeypots should have no production value and hence should not see any legitimate traffic or activity. Whatever they capture can then be surmised as malicious or unauthorized. One very practical implication of this is that honeypots designed to thwart spam by masquerading as systems of the types abused by spammers to send spam can categorize the material they trap 100% accurately: it is all illicit.
So, what do you think? Do you think it's "entrapment"? It's difficult for me to believe that if someone who saw a link that said "kiddies having sex" and they clicked on it, that they didn't mean to download child porn.
Sure, there's the "no way it's kiddie porn" thought that runs in your head and some people might be curious enough to click on it "just to see", but when you see something that everyone knows is illegal, you'd be hard pressed to convince a jury of your true intentions.
It's like if someone said "wanna buy some kiddie porn" on the street and you went around to the back of his van to take a look and were arrested. Just because it's easier on a computer to obtain, doesn't mean that you're off the hook.
With as many children as I have in my life, I'll be the first one to say "string 'em up" when it comes to kiddie porn. My wife has to deal with these types of guys on a regular basis, so it's difficult for me to feel sorry for someone who's preying on some of the most defenseless members of society.
Which is why I always crack a simile when I see a guy lead out of a squad car in handcuffs, head down, and having reporters asking him questions about abusing children. I know his life is about to get much worse.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment