FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects
Screen snapshot: This now-defunct site is reportedly where an FBI undercover agent posted hyperlinks purporting to be illegal videos. Clicking the links brought a raid from the Feds.
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.
AUDIO
News.com daily podcast
Reporter Declan McCullagh talks about the FBI's
hyperlinking tactic for getting child porn suspects.
Download mp3 (6.36MB)
Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes "attempts" to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.
The implications of the FBI's hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography--and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages. The bureau could register the "unlawfulimages.com" domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on.
"The evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Vosburgh specifically intended to download child pornography, a necessary element of any 'attempt' offense," Vosburgh's attorney, Anna Durbin of Ardmore, Penn., wrote in a court filing that is attempting to overturn the jury verdict before her client is sentenced.
In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, Durbin added: "I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they've brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this."
Durbin did not want to be interviewed more extensively about the case because it is still pending; she's waiting for U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage to rule on her motion. Unless he agrees with her and overturns the jury verdict, Vosburgh--who has no prior criminal record--will be required to register as a sex offender for 15 years and will be effectively barred from continuing his work as a college instructor after his prison sentence ends.
How the hyperlink sting operation worked
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical" activity.
In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic."
Excerpt from an FBI affidavit filed in the Nevada case showing how the hyperlink-sting was conducted.
Some of the links, including the supposedly correct one, included the hostname uploader.sytes.net. Sytes.net is hosted by no-ip.com, which provides dynamic domain name service to customers for $15 a year.
When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.
With the logs revealing those allegedly incriminating IP addresses in hand, the FBI sent administrative subpoenas to the relevant Internet service provider to learn the identity of the person whose name was on the account--and then obtained search warrants for dawn raids.
Excerpt from FBI affidavit in Nevada case that shows visits to the hyperlink-sting site.
The search warrants authorized FBI agents to seize and remove any "computer-related" equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any "addressed correspondence" sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements, and credit card statements.
While it might seem that merely clicking on a link wouldn't be enough to justify a search warrant, courts have ruled otherwise. On March 6, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Nevada agreed with a magistrate judge that the hyperlink-sting operation constituted sufficient probable cause to justify giving the FBI its search warrant.
The defendant in that case, Travis Carter, suggested that any of the neighbors could be using his wireless network. (The public defender's office even sent out an investigator who confirmed that dozens of homes were within Wi-Fi range.)
But the magistrate judge ruled that even the possibilities of spoofing or other users of an open Wi-Fi connection "would not have negated a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of child pornography would be found on the premises to be searched." Translated, that means the search warrant was valid.
Entrapment: Not a defense
So far, at least, attorneys defending the hyperlink-sting cases do not appear to have raised unlawful entrapment as a defense.
"Claims of entrapment have been made in similar cases, but usually do not get very far," said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "The individuals who chose to log into the FBI sites appear to have had no pressure put upon them by the government...It is doubtful that the individuals could claim the government made them do something they weren't predisposed to doing or that the government overreached."
The outcome may be different, Saltzburg said, if the FBI had tried to encourage people to click on the link by including misleading statements suggesting the videos were legal or approved.
In the case of Vosburgh, the college instructor who lived in Media, Penn., his attorney has been left to argue that "no reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vosburgh himself attempted to download child pornography."
Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink; knowingly destroying a hard drive and a thumb drive by physically damaging them when the FBI agents were outside his home; obstructing an FBI investigation by destroying the devices; and possessing a hard drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible).
The judge threw out the third count and the jury found him not guilty of the second. But Vosburgh was convicted of the first and last counts, which included clicking on the FBI's illicit hyperlink.
In a legal brief filed on March 6, his attorney argued that the two thumbnails were in a hidden "thumbs.db" file automatically created by the Windows operating system. The brief said that there was no evidence that Vosburgh ever viewed the full-size images--which were not found on his hard drive--and the thumbnails could have been created by receiving an e-mail message, copying files, or innocently visiting a Web page.
From the FBI's perspective, clicking on the illicit hyperlink and having a thumbs.db file with illicit images are both serious crimes. Federal prosecutors wrote: "The jury found that defendant knew exactly what he was trying to obtain when he downloaded the hyperlinks on Agent Luder's Ranchi post. At trial, defendant suggested unrealistic, unlikely explanations as to how his computer was linked to the post. The jury saw through the smokes (sic) and mirrors, as should the court."
And, as for the two thumbnail images, prosecutors argued (note that under federal child pornography law, the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" does not require that sex acts take place):
The first image depicted a pre-pubescent girl, fully naked, standing on one leg while the other leg was fully extended leaning on a desk, exposing her genitalia... The other image depicted four pre-pubescent fully naked girls sitting on a couch, with their legs spread apart, exposing their genitalia. Viewing this image, the jury could reasonably conclude that the four girls were posed in unnatural positions and the focal point of this picture was on their genitalia.... And, based on all this evidence, the jury found that the images were of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and certainly did not require a crystal clear resolution that defendant now claims was necessary, yet lacking.
Prosecutors also highlighted the fact that Vosburgh visited the "loli-chan" site, which has in the past featured a teenage Webcam girl holding up provocative signs (but without any nudity).
Civil libertarians warn that anyone who clicks on a hyperlink advertising something illegal--perhaps found while Web browsing or received through e-mail--could face the same fate.
When asked what would stop the FBI from expanding its hyperlink sting operation, Harvey Silverglate, a longtime criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge, Mass. and author of a forthcoming book on the Justice Department, replied: "Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of 'entrapment,' and so expansive in their definition of 'probable cause,' there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit."
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
Add to that, IP addresses can be faked in so many ways and fashions, and the fact that pictures of children naked are NOT illegal unless the camera is zoomed in on the child's genitalia or they are in an overtly sexual pose...... and the conviction of the man in this case doesn't stand scrutiny.
The Feds are getting desperate.... the only reason that they made the possession of 'child pornography' illegal was that if someone actually saw the child pornography in question, 99% of it they would not have a problem with, coming from someone who has accidentally come across it while surfing adult porn sites.
Yet some people (a minority) "get off" on it.
People who "get off" on child porn are misdirected and likely ill in the mind.
People who are misdirected and "ill in the mind" are not corrected by imprisonment. Many effective treatments exist... peer counseling (as in AA) and church group intervention.
Pursuing such individuals or actually enticing them (tempting them) is tremendously problematic, and is indeed a sign of someone's desperation. Whose desperation is this, and why?
Sex offenders of virtually ANY stripe are not just prosecuted but PERSECUTED in our society today, and this persecution does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to correct the issue at hand, which is mental health, and for which we spend less and less and less every year. We are descending into insanity.
I can talk to my roommate in Law school, but the only thing that can really be argued in this case (and already was) is that the whole concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't satisfied solely with an I.P. address.
Following your theory that IP addresses can supposedly be "faked in so many ways" so they're not valid to accuse someone, I assume then that you don't use that thing called "money", because it can be forged too, right?
Linking someone to child pornography using an IP address alone is not enough to someone in jail anyway, so you're argument doesn't make sense to me.
Interesting too your theory that watching child pornography is OK as long as genitalia is not zoomed, as if genitalia uses to be zoomed anyway on any kind of porn and as if the problem is the "zooming" (you seem to know a lot about this subject, even more than the judges, why don't you give them a call?).
I assume too from your last sentence that child pornography is fine and shouldn't really be illegal, is it?
If you ask me, you seem ackwardly stressed with this news, I hope you don't have something to hide.
Some people are really interesting: they want to be 100% safe, secure and protected, but they're never available to give hand of some freedom to give the proper institutions the means and the power to keep us and our kids protected.
I'd like to know your opinion about this matter if you'd see pornographic pictures of your kids up on the Internet for everybody (including pedophiles) to see (I honestly hope it doesn't ever happen).
And you think child porn is OK? Then I'm afraid your just another twisted pervert my friend. Little kids getting anally raped is good in you book? Oh, sorry, that's bad but naked kids frolicking is OK... Dude as soon as you admit there is no 'gray-area' to justify your own secret dark desires, then maybe you can come out into the light and condemn child porn, the people who make it, and the people who consume it.
Dude, really.
J
Is it true he was wearing a scoutmaster uniform when they grabbed him? Hhahahahaaa
Ever clicked a link accidentally?
Ever seen a link which is all white and appears to be a blank page?
Ever had a page load while you were on another page, it comes to the front and your pressing 'enter' clicking a link on the loading page?
Ever had a page load which illegible? (due to virus or hardware problems)
More importantly I cant believe, on a TECH forum, the idea that 1) open network users are hugely at risk 2) how hard is it to get on someone elses network.???
-Someone hacks your encryption -including someone from your provider- they surf on your network to whatever they want. Does the FBI search the home/files of the hacker?? NO. They come to the house where the network emanates from.
This is disgusting. Absolutely we must pursue criminals but not at the cost of the 4th Amendment and the innocent.
take a wild guess as to why!
mabey it was written by a bunch of slave drivin' Uncles
"Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed.[1]"
The agent posted on a website he had links. He summarized the purported content of the links, and left it at that.
First, under no time was the individual in question under coercion to click on the links or download the purported data, his computer didn't do it automatically, and it's the theory that had the individual not clicked the links the FBI would have never discovered his I.P. address.
Second, the agent did not mislead the individual in question about the purported content of the links; assuming the individual was of sane mind and was fully capable of utilizing the PC at a basic level of operation, it is the theory that the individual, while under no coercion, was fully capable of comprehending the actions of his electronic activity, particularly clicking these links to obtain electronic data.
Third, the agent did not post these links anywhere else but at a site/forum already suspected of illegal activity, primarily the exchange of child porn; a tactical decision derived from the basic principles of operating a sting, this action decreased the likelihood of the links reaching those not associated with the suspected illegal activity while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of the links reaching those associated with the suspected illegal activity. This adds strength to the prosecutions' argument that the individual in question did not click the links accidentally but instead did so as the result of a clear and conscious decision.
the target demographic is much larger
Look, I am absolutely unequivocably against child porn as much as anyone. But I am not against porn in general. If you downloaded porn purporting to be "young girls" (or other similar claims) 99.9% of the time the girls are actually in their 20's, sometimes older. If you deleted any ACTUAL child porn the moment you realized what it was, then why should you be subject to prosecution for child porn?
If you find that it is child porn and keep it, then fine, you should be subject to prosecution. But plenty of consumers download porn and they just don't know what they're actually getting until they preview it.
If the FBI finds pornography on a person's computer where one or more girls' ages are questionable, how will they determine whether it is actually an underage girl? Should people be prosecuted when they have no actual knowledge about the age of the girl? I'm not talking about obvious cases here, but consider the case of Tracy Lords who acted "legitimately" in the porn industry with a fake ID for years until it was discovered she had actually been underage. Do those hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people who viewed her films deserve to be arrested and imprisoned?
Let's bring back the ideals under which the USA was formed and stop our federal government from violating our civil rights. If the government wants to track and prosecute child pornography producers and distributers, fantastic. But THIS? This is KGB or gestapo.
Don't like it? Too bad. We still have a Republican administration, a Republican stacked supreme court, a republican stacked judicial system, and worst of all a republican stain on the country we used to live in and the ideals of freedom from unjust prosecution.
Just as Republicans view the Geneva convention as a quaint, outdated document and ideal, so are the concepts of liberty and justice...
As for how to change things, I'm no longer sure the damage can ever be undone, but we can stop republicans from destroying our country more than they have already. Don't like what America has become under Bush/Cheney? Don't even consider putting one of their fellow Nazis back in office. Any office. Any where. Any one that does vote for these people has no one to blame and doesn't deserve civil liberties themselves...
other similar claims) 99.9% of the time the girls are actually in
their 20's, sometimes older. If you deleted any ACTUAL child
porn the moment you realized what it was, then why should you
be subject to prosecution for child porn? If you find that it is
child porn and keep it, then fine, you should be subject to
prosecution.
Prior to the advent of the Internet, the FBI and postal authorities
would mail a suspected child pornographer a package
containing illegal child porn. Then, when the package was
picked up, they would use that "possession" as probable cause
to get a search warrant to search the person's residence. Even
though they couldn't use this unsolicited package as a reason to
prosecute the target.
"Honey potting" by the government is not new.
> Should people be prosecuted when they have no actual
knowledge about the age of the girl? I'm not talking about
obvious cases here, but consider the case of Tracy Lords who
acted "legitimately" in the porn industry with a fake ID for years
until it was discovered she had actually been underage.
The question here seems to me to be, how do you know how old
the person in the picture is? A lot is said about "obvious" child
porn, but what is obvious to one person isn't obvious to another.
Besides, the standard of proof in criminal court is "beyond a
reasonable doubt," not "Obvious." So, we must assume that the
prosecutor had actual knowledge of how old the girls in the
photographs were - which is entrapment and a crime on the part
of the FBI - or the jury was made up of complete idiots who
ignored the standard of proof and found this guy guilty because
they didn't like what the state ***purported*** the defendant
did. Sort of the opposite of jury nullification. The way politicians
run around screaming "save the children" to pander to their
perceived constituencies, it would not surprise me that the jury
found the guy guilty because of their reaction to the allegations,
rather than any actual evidence.
Several people were prosecuted for allowing Tracy Lords to
appear in pornography while she was a minor. Even though she
presented false documentation of her age. If we go by this same
standard, then, yes, everyone who viewed one of the movies
Lords made should have been prosecuted.
Let's not pretend we don't know what this is about. If there is no
100% sure way to know what age a person is, then practices like
these tend to chill the protected expression of anyone producing
material that might, conceivably, be interpreted as "child porn."
This, then, decreases the amount of porn available. And,
decreasing the amount of porn that is made and/or is available -
regardless of the age of the performers - is what this
administration is all about. Remember, Dubya thinks he has a
mandate from God to go after this type of thing.
This is a serious intrusion on our civil rights. Particularly when a
jury ignores the standard of proof and convicts because they
were offended by what the government purported the defendant
was doing.
Could the FBI not be sued for SPAM law violations with this?
The article stated that the feds posted links in a discussion forum and not sent via e-mail.
J.
pornography, which is a crime punishable by up to life in prison?
I don't know where the RIAA and the Government got this stupid idea that an IP number is a form of authentication. It's not. It's like the license plate on a bus. Lots of people use that bus.
HOWEVER RAIDS ARE DANGEROUS! People can get seriously hurt or even killed in a raid if something goes wrong. You can't just break someone's door down and expect it to go ok.
This is ridiculous, and if they keep doing this then eventually an innocent person will die from it. They need to focus on the people making the porn. I wish they could get the people downloading. However, there is just no way to authorize a connection by an IP. That's exactly why things like SSL and digital signatures were invented. Because the IP number doesn't really mean jack.
Was justice served? Well, if the feds showed up to my door with a warrant, I don't think it would occur to me to destroy a couple of drives. In fact, my main concern would be how to obtain backup copies of my personal and business accounts so I can continue to make my living. I'm an IT guy, and my business exists primarily on my hard drives and backup media.
In the case at hand, the feds showed up, the guy did exactly what a criminal would do - destroy drives, something no reasonable person would do - and he got busted. I hope he rots in jail.
J.
BUT
Yes, the question of open networks means that the FBI needs to know what it's doing, or else it'll run up the wrong tree. Finding an image in the thumb.db file of your IE cache carries little weight. Images are pushed into your computer by tons of websites.
The lack of technical savy in the judicial system means that the average citizen is at a disadvantage to being wrongly prosecuted. It's even easier to be convicted by what I would label as 'dumb' juries. A lot of the people sitting on juries are just as poorly informed, if not more so.
J.
It's a fine line to be sure, and I tend to be more on the side of law and order when it comes to the prosecution of crimes against children, but there are still ample legal and procedural questions which need to be addressed here.
Having a tiny thumbnail file of naked kids tucked somewhere amongst gawd only knows how many thousands of files?
Or the vile crime of clicking on a link?
Violence is bad. Violence against children is more bad. Sexual violence still more bad.
No one on here has said otherwise.
However, I happen to think that the best way to protect kids (and adults), is to educate them. In other countries, kids see things we call porn. Interestingly, they do not all grow up to be insane sociopaths. Turns out that if normalize sex & teach good boundaries, you have better results than censoring any mention of sex, sexuality or sex education.
If you are serious about protecting kids, educate them. If you just want to play fear games, don't forget to use the phrase "to protect children", as often as possible.
I commend the FBI for pursuing these folks. There is no downside to the need to stop child pornography.
However...
One poster said it best - how in god's name do we know how old some of these girls are? We just don't. There is simply no way to find them, call their parents, and ask their age.
Sure, the extreme cases are obvious - young children - which must be stopped. But there is a massive massive gray area out there, especially now that the entire planet has access to the Internet.
A chinese girl who is making a few bucks could be any age - and some schmuck in Topeka gets his life destroyed because he downloaded her pic?
The porn industry and the FBI need to have a talk.
must be stopped. But there is a massive massive gray area out
there, especially now that the entire planet has access to the
Internet.
I agree with your posits, however I have to ask a quesiton. How
does a graphical depiction of a person make their age "obvious"?
Is the standard for prosecution "obvious" or is it "beyond a
reasonable doubt"? Given the current state of technology for
creating and modifying graphical images, NOTHING is obvious. I
am not sure how the government gets around the standard of
proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - when they cannot
conclusively prove the age of the person or persons depicted in
an image and whether or not the image has been manipulated...
Of course we the Tax payers foot the bill for it as well.
A link leading to an arrest NO !
But clicking on a link for a direct download then YES!
address tracks back to them, not the loser's IP who is surfing for
child porn. This is only one more reason why it is risky to run a Tor
exit node.
is enough for the FBI to raid my home or office. Beware; Big Brother
is everywhere!
Blatant uses of the internet to procure illegal materials, ok. I don't like it and it kind of scares me, but have they considered...
1) Some individual identifying these links and using simple scripts to redirect millions of web browsers to these "click to raid" links.
2) How will these "illegal content links" be expanded? Why not just place a banner on Yahoo saying "street drugs" and hit their quota in a day as well as topping off our over crowded prisons once and for all?
Amendment Nine
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I been saying for years want to kill 95% of child porn look at the usenet. So many groups with child porn even in groups for adults.
I bet only a small number of people use the web for porn. You can get it free off news groups.
sorry your kinda freakishly wrong.
the number one use of the web is for porn.
- SO THE WISE GUY SAID TO ME, A KID, "GO AHEAD, PULL MY FINGER."
- by FO-FI_FO_454 March 20, 2008 8:33 AM PDT
- So, I did, and the Wise Guy PASSED GAS! I don't do that anymore, I was burned. Then the world reknowned surgeon said to me, when I was older, "Here take these, 3 times a day." So, I did, and I ended up in the mental and nervous disorders ward of a local hospital. Reason, "a negative reaction to a chemical and or biological substance." I don't do that anymore either! When a physician says "Take this" I show the man my middle finger and tell him "You first." When I want a Kosher Salami (I eat non-Kosher too) I usually look for the SEAL of a HIGHER AUTHORITY. Then, I make a sandwich. When I used to fill up my gas tank, at times, I'd exit the driver's side with a cigarette in my mouth. Then, one day, I saw a driver do the same thing, and BOOM...he lived. I don't do that anymore either. I knew a gal, years ago, a working girl, her name was Ginger. First time I met her she looked ordinary, so I figured on a pass, however, she insisted that SHE WAS DIFFERENT. So, we're together, I'm uptight, she says to me "Do it in my right eye socket" then, she took out a false eye. When I left, she said to me "I'm going to keep an eye out for you." There was this race horse, local track, of course the horse had to have a rider, or jockey. The night before the big race, the jockey tips me, and says "I'm on a live one Saturday." So, being that the horse was in the first leg of the early Daily Double, I wheeled that horse with every horse in the second race, and, I bought a gratuity ticket for the jockey. I couldn't lose the double if THE TIP won, and now, The Flag Is Up, the call to the Post, and the track announcer said "They're all in, AND THEY'RE OFF." Guess what happened? Here's the answer! Before the Tipped Horse even got out of the starting gate, the jockey was unseated, and landed face down in the dirt. The horse ran the race riderless, and WON, but had to be disqualified because he wasn't carrying a rider and the weight assigned. So, the jockey was right, and also wrong.....the horse did win the race, without the tipster, who ultimately for some unknown reason left town and was never heard from again.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Who decides????????
- by MTGrizzly March 20, 2008 3:19 PM PDT
- > So, what's my point as it may pertain to this Cnet News article
- Like this
-
- by tomebaden December 19, 2008 10:29 PM PST
- silly we dont need to be as cautious on the net as we are in an alley at night! The only reason to be cautious is the jackbooted thugs that work for our law enforcment agencies think they can read a book by its cover so they create all these stupid and simple minded tricks to try and find a sign that someone might be a pedophiile and then try and have him locked up for 10 years, What the hell are we becomeing? a nation of retards!
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 8 pages (337 Comments)The name of the race horse was "TRICKSOFTHETRADE" and his name may be found at:
http://www.pedigreequery.com/
The animal is related to "Favorite Trick" and also "Cheap Trick."
So, what's my point as it may pertain to this Cnet News article and the F.B.I.? I'm in favor of more tricks with oversight by a highly trained and proficient law enforcement regulatory authority, I'm also in favor of seeing a "Seal of Approval" (it's Kosher, it's NOT Kosher)on web sites and if for some reason it's NOT KOSHER, then, it shouldn't be there to begin with, GOTCHA!
I have launched links on the internet and ended up elsewhere, and I've sent messages to web sites through an embedded "Contact Us" email links, and then never saw the message leave the bogus web site. Would you walk down a dark alley at night, alone, unfamiliar with the turf, and NOT carrying any heat? No you wouldn't unless you were just being stupid. The same caution has to be employed when on the internet, and if by chance you want to launch a Get Rich Link that is in fact an unlawful pyramid scheme chain letter, then, you need to review your "Risk Taking Habits" and cool it for a while. Same thing applies to deviants who may want to peek at something that they have ZERO BUSINESS involving themselves with........like.....CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
If you do want to skate on thin ice, taking risks that are totally absurd, disgusting, unholy, immoral, and certainly not endorsed in any Bible in this world, then REST ASSURED.........the F.B.I. will be "Keeping An Eye Out For You Too!"
Thank you for this opportunity to TALK BACK.
TTFN
(From WW2, British, Ta Ta For Now).
and the F.B.I.? I'm in favor of more tricks with oversight by a
highly trained and proficient law enforcement regulatory
authority, I'm also in favor of seeing a "Seal of Approval" (it's
Kosher, it's NOT Kosher)on web sites and if for some reason it's
NOT KOSHER, then, it shouldn't be there to begin with, GOTCHA!
Okay, so who gets to decide what a "highly proficient law
enforcement regulatory authority" is? How do you measure such
proficiency - by rate of arrest and/or conviction? By how well it
prevents crime from occurring? Hmm, has it ever occurred to
anyone that the cops have a vested interest in helping to
perpetuate crimes or, at the very least, to create new criminality
when they want to arrest someone, so they can be perceived as
doing "something"? That, if there was no crime, those wonderful
folks out there "protecting" you by violating your civil rights
would be out of work? And, isn't it much easier to prosecute
someone for clicking on an "illegal link" than it is to actually go
out and do some police work and catch people who are really
dangerous to our society?
Who gets to decide what is "Kosher" and gets your "seal of
approval"? The government? [How do you know that the meat
you buy is, in fact, Kosher? Couldn't someone wanting to sell
into the Kosher market, just put the "seal of approval" on their
meat? How do you know that that Kosher "seal of approval"
means anything?] The current administration has done
everything in their power - including this little trick - to impede
the production of all erotica. Does Dubya's DOJ get to decide
who's website gets the "Seal of Approval" and who's doesn't? Or,
perhaps, you would have the National Association of
Evangelicals, (Remember Ted Haggard?), or the Adult Video
News decide? Maybe we should just turn over our civil rights to
James Dobson for some really objective limitations? [heavy
sarcasm here] Moreover, once we have extracted all freedoms
from our society for "the children," how are we supposed to
control the thoughts and expressions of those who reside
beyond our borders?
The supreme court has held that obscenity is to be judged by
local community standards. This pretty much kills the concept of
having one all powerful regulatory agency that functions on a
federal basis. Who would pay for the time and effort to grant
your "seal of approval" on a federal basis? [Which would be
unconstitutional, a concept that never seems to stop Dubya's
"imperial presidency"] Or on a local basis?
The "problem" with our constitution is that it protects the rights
of the minority, even when they disagree with the majority.
That's the way it was designed to work. Under our constitution,
there can be no one all powerful, omnipotent authority. We are
"forced" to confront constantly changing ideals on an individual
basis. We are forced to oppose government that is full of itself
and who seems to have forgotten that their authority comes
from the people, not from themselves. A government that does
so in all of our names and, supposedly, to protect every citizen.