Say Anything Blog

Oh, this is SOOOOOO BAD.  I can completely see someone clicking on that just to go, “WHAT?”

but I always thought someone had to actually do a crime in order to get arrested, not just think it.

I personally do not have any problem with this type of operation.  If they take the folks off the street - then great.

If they “thought” about clicking the link and did not, then that’s one thing - but if they click the link, they have a reasonable expectation (and intent) of seeing something that is illegal.

I believe there may be legal precedents for this type of “intent” charge as well.

Example - Police stumble upon a murder plot.  They remove the bullets from a gun, but the assailant thinks the gun is loaded.  He points it at the intended victim and pulls the trigger.  Is that still “attempted murder?” I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer - but it seems to me one could make the case that the assailant thought he would be killing the person, therefore can be charged with attempted murder.

However, it also seems the weak link in this system would be proving intent.  One time may be easy to fight - “I stumbled across a site with that link and accidentally clicked it.”

I’d bet that “clicking the fake link” is not going to be used as the basis for any charges.  More than likely, if the person is “guilty”, they have lots of data on their hard drive indicating a pattern of behavior.  Active searches for the underage and illegal porn, stored images and videos, etc.

The “honey pot” (fake link) gives the authorities sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant, grab the PC and search the offenders residence (or office).

If that is the purpose - to give authorities a chance to get their foot in the door - I wholeheartedly agree with the program.  If someone’s clean, they should have nothing to hide.

I can completely see someone clicking on that just to go, “WHAT?”

Reference my post above, if there’s no other “indicators” found when the authorites search the PC and associated area, then there’s probably not a case.

Oh, this is SOOOOOO BAD.  I can completely see someone clicking on that just to go, “WHAT?”

BANG! It’s a Drive-By.

Innocents always end up getting shot in drive-bys.

If someone’s clean, they should have nothing to hide.

Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about.

Drive-by + swatting = are now in criminal hands.

These are simple links, not conversation. Links are easy to entice. One link can send you to one address that automatically installs malware. There are already thousands of programs out in the wild that do exactly this. Most computers aren’t locked down properly and a good percentage of them are already already controlled.

The black hat’s tools are aligning up nicely.

subbob,

I personally do not have any problem with this type of operation.

Then we should install video cameras in your home...just to be sure you know. An FBEYE agent on every corner...sheesh.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

In my opinion, the FBI has much more important things to do than find out what someone is looking at.  Personally I have better things to do than look at an underaged person doing something, but I think that this can be interpreted in many ways.  What about FISA?  So it is OK to monitor everything someone does on a computer if? but not facist muslims plotting to kill innocent civilians?

Communism is evil

Well.....for the record, here’s what goes on in Spotsylvania County, VA.  You can be an alcoholic that sits in your own home, drunk, chatting on Yahoo.  The Spotsylvania sheriff is in there trolling.  A popup appears and you merely laugh them off, but make a crude comment...mostly because you are out of it.  Next thing you know, your door is crashed, you are arrested and extradited to VA.  Your computer is seized and searched.  They find NO evidence of pedophilia.  You either plead to a manadatory five year sentence or you get dragged through a trial by your peers....redneck, hillbilly Virginia peers, that is.  This happened to a relative of mine and I have seen the “evidence” and watched the outcome.  Perhaps alcohol treatment or some other intervention, but FIVE years?  This county is headed down a scary road.

eyesonu.  I saw similar overzealous law enforcement in other areas too.  Public school, local county, etc.  They are afraid to confront real criminals-- to their credit it is because of liberal judges, so they go after soft targets.  “Turning or changing lanes without a signal” , etc.  “Looking at people” in public.

Need to leave for the day.

Communism is evil

I always thought someone had to actually do a crime in order to get arrested, not just think it.

They get charged with attempt:

“It is not a defense that, under the attendant circumstances, the crime was factually or legally impossible of commission, if such crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as such person believed them to be.” People v. Dlugash (perp shoots his already-dead friend). Model Penal Code 5.01.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

I also doubt that the FBI ever charges anybody for clicking the link (a simple defense to that would be “uh, I click ten million links a day, I wasn’t paying attention"). They probably use the click as probable cause to get a warrant and monitor the clicker’s online activities in depth.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter in most states.  Now, I don’t believe that clicking on a link demonstrates intent in and of itself, but the FBI are using the clicks (multiple in the cited case) to obtain a warrant to subsequently gather evidence against the person.

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.

So a single click (or even the multiple clicks this guy made in reality) was not the totality of the evidence.  There seems to be other supporting evidence.  Let’s examine that:

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.

BS.  Only Windows Explorer creates the Thumbs.db file to show thumbnail images in the “thumbnails” view mode.  Hence, there must have been two files there to begin with that had those images of naked girls and the user must have navigated in Windows Explorer to that folder for the Thumbs.db file to contain those scaled down images.  When you add that to the clicking of the honeypot links (more than one) and the destruction of his hard drive and USB drive, I would have voted guilty had I been on the jury.

Turning or changing lanes without a signal

See, I guess that’s where I differ - I see TOO LITTLE of that kind of enforcement of our basic laws.

When I started driving (early 1980s), people were still ticketed for “improper lane change” if they made a right turn into the inner lane instead of the outer lane of a four way road.

Why do I care?  Because the gradual erosion of “good driving skills” is causing accidents and getting people hurt and killed.

I can observe any intersection in a stop sign in my home town and watch 3 out 4 cars fail to come to a stop on a routine basis.  I’m not talking an “almost stop”, but often rolling through at 10-15 MPH.

The crime is an ATTEMPT to view an IMAGE.

TV presents murderous mayhem , should viewers be arrested for viewing fatal crimes?

Eric Cartman 8 year old cartoon character in his transvestite role of Mee Ling Vietnamese prostitute.

Go wash your eyes out.

Actually, world trends show the opposite. Car collision fatalities have dropped since 1980, with most countries having a 50% reduction. Since the 90’s, the US has seen a small increase in traffic accidents, but there is a decrease in both fatalities and injuries. This may be due to improved safety features and improved medical response. But at any rate, most statistics that I’ve seen indicate that we are safer then we were 20 years ago.

I also doubt that the FBI ever charges anybody for clicking the link (a simple defense to that would be “uh, I click ten million links a day, I wasn’t paying attention"). They probably use the click as probable cause to get a warrant and monitor the clicker’s online activities in depth.

And you’re ok with this?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

WOOF, did you even read the relevant law as linked to by the article?  Let me put it this way, the verb “view” does not appear anywhere in any form in the text of the law.  Rather the law prohibits the sale and/or “transport[ation]...in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails” of visual images depicting child pornography as befits a federal crime.  In the penalty clause it then states, “Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate...” So there is your attempts which is a demonstration of intent.  By the way, there is such a thing as attempted murder, but it does not include passive activities such as “viewing”.  Must we really wait for some one to murder another person or rape a child or actually procure child pornography (which by definition includes the sexual exploitation of a child) before we prosecute them?  By demonstrating a clear intent to commit such crimes, the criminal is telegraphing what they will do in the future (and may have already done in the past without being caught) if we do not take notice of their intent and act accordingly.

On the other hand, I might take issue with certain tactics that, in my eyes, are either entrapment or something right of the line of entrapment, but to take issue with the law itself is just asking for chaos.  In this case, Mr. Vosburgh demonstrated intent to possess (and probably prior possession of) child pornography.  His intent to possess child pornography was demonstrated by his clicking on multiple links clearly describing the linked material as child pornography and by actually possessing pictures of naked children.

Ripping perfectly legitimate tools away from the good guys would leave people like Mr. Vosburgh free longer to do more damage to more children.  And yes, the possession (or the attempt to posses) of child pornography is tantamount to raping the child in the picture.  After all, that picture didn’t magically appear out of thin air with card board cut out people in them.

And you’re ok with this?

Yes, yes a million times.  Looking at the case cited, the man clicked on multiple links clearly describing the linked content as child pornography.  His clicking on the links in question were not the only evidence.  Other evidence was found and presented at trial and that evidence was gathered legally using a warrant obtained from his actions of clicking on the links demonstrating intent to possess child pornography.

Look I’m just against government abuse of power as the next guy, but let’s not look for it behind every hedge and tree.  “No knock” warrants are an abuse of power.  This is not.

Kbiel:

By demonstrating a clear intent to commit such crimes, the criminal is telegraphing what they will do in the future (and may have already done in the past without being caught) if we do not take notice of their intent and act accordingly.

So clicking a link (which could happen if your cat sat on your mouse for example) is a clear attempt to you?

Sorry this is just very police state to me, and I don’t support such laws.  If I were on a Jury, it would take far more than one “illegal click” to gain a conviction.  If you could show a pattern of repeat traffic to the same illegal websites that would certainly qualify however.

And you’re ok with this?

Not just ok, enthralled, excited, overjoyed!

There is no doubt in my mind that “clicking on a link to child porn” should be sufficient probable cause for a warrant to ensure that person was not a pedophile or engaging in illicit behavior.

For that matter, one of the most tragic interpretations of law, in my mind, of the last century is the “fruit of the poison tree” - i.e. that evidence found in an illegal search and seizure is not admissible.

I fully support our Constitution rights - but I believe you punish the violator and not shield a criminal.

Case to illustrate: A police officer is having a bad day. He arbitrarily decides to pull over the next red Mustang he sees.  He does so, gets a “bad feeling” about the driver and searches the car.

In the trunk he finds the body of a young woman.  An autopsy reveals she was raped and sodomized and died as a result of multiple stab wounds. A search warrant for his residence is obtained where they find blood evidence and the murder weapon (with the driver’s fingerprints). Conclusive DNA evidence links the driver to both the rape and the murder.

In our current legal system, NONE of that evidence would be admissible.  The initial stop and search was illegal.  Without the body there’s no probably cause for a warrant, so the blood evidence and murder weapon is thrown out.  The rapist/murderer walks, probably to rape and kill again.

That type of logic defies common sense and is NOT in our Constitution - it is an interpretation.

The evidence, found legally or illegally, should stand in court.  However, the violator of the driver’s civil rights (the police officer) should be held accountable.  He should have to pay a fine, be suspended or, after multiple violations, have his status as a law enforcement officer removed.

So clicking a link (which could happen if your cat sat on your mouse for example) is a clear attempt to you?

No, clicking a (singular) link is not clear intent to me.  Clicking multiple links is.  That, in and of itself, would not be enough for me to convict or even prosecute Mr. Vosburgh, though it is enough for me to want to obtain a warrant for further investigation.  The totality of the evidence gathered as a result of the warrant obtained because of his clicking multiple links as presented in the article is enough to convict the man.

Rob,

And you’re ok with this?

Personally, I don’t know. But it’s legal. You need probable cause to get a warrant for further monitoring (like I said, no one would even get an attempt conviction on a single click).

I don’t know how I feel about the FBI wasting my tax dollars playing games with pedophiles (it should probably be handled by the state if anything), but what they are doing IS legal—so I’m okay with the legality part of it (or at least I have to either accept it or argue that the American legal system needs to drastically change—an argument that I’m not prepared to make).

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

So clicking a link (which could happen if your cat sat on your mouse for example) is a clear attempt to you?

So, you are NOT a purveyor or viewer of child porn.

They get one “hit” on you - perhaps get a warrant for records from your ISP and see no evidence of habitual behavior.  Perhaps they stop there - destroy the records they received - no harm done.

Or, they get a warrant and examine your computer.  Again, they find nothing (because you are innocent, and not a pedophile or passive participant in pedophila).  You explain your cat clicked on the link, they thank you for your time, apologize for the inconvenience and go on their way.

subbob asks:

Example - Police stumble upon a murder plot.  They remove the bullets from a gun, but the assailant thinks the gun is loaded.  He points it at the intended victim and pulls the trigger.  Is that still “attempted murder?”

The answer to that is yes. The intent and the means are there and whether or not the perp knew the weapon had been disabled is irrelevant.

And Hairy:

They probably use the click as probable cause to get a warrant and monitor the clicker’s online activities in depth.

Bingo. Clicking on that site could constitute probable cause - although I have to say it’s a bit shaky. No doubt the FBI ran it past their legal people first, though.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

subbob,

From my post above:

“It is not a defense that, under the attendant circumstances, the crime was factually or legally impossible of commission, if such crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as such person believed them to be.” People v. Dlugash.

So yes, if he shot the gun thinking it was loaded, he attempted murder.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

For that matter, one of the most tragic interpretations of law, in my mind, of the last century is the “fruit of the poison tree” - i.e. that evidence found in an illegal search and seizure is not admissible.
I fully support our Constitution rights - but I believe you punish the violator and not shield a criminal.

But the violator wasn’t being punished, that is how the doctrine came about.  The violator would get an inconsequential suspension or reprimand and than would be promoted.  The only effective way to stop the violations is to not allow the evidence gained illegally.

My only problem with this is something that happened to me a few years ago.

Being a news junkie I was following the Russia/Chechnya thing. I googled or yahooed Russia/Chechnya and clicked on what I thought was a news article. It was a Russian porn site and lemme tell ya, those guys ain’t shy about their porn.

I clicked the little X to shut it off and another one popped up. Then another and another. They kept popping up faster that I could close them and they got progressively worse. My whole screen was pasted with porn sites, everything from bestiality to hard core child porn AND I COULDN’T STOP IT. I couldn’t even turn off my computer with the off button. It was somehow disabled.

I ended up unplugging my computer and praying that somebody somewhere didn’t see those sites in it.

A friend later told me it’s called being “mousetrapped”.

Scary stuff, and I hope nobody ends up under investigation because of something like that.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim,

They wouldn’t. Either way, it’s pretty simple to explain away. Nobody in the FBI is actively “out to get you.” Prisons are full as it is, if they don’t think they have a solid case against you, they’re not going to waste resources charging you.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

For that matter, one of the most tragic interpretations of law, in my mind, of the last century is the “fruit of the poison tree” - i.e. that evidence found in an illegal search and seizure is not admissible.

That’s not what “fruit of the poisonous tree” is about.

What that means is that other evidence gained as a result of an illegal or bad faith search cannot be used because it’s tainted by the original illegal search - say an illegal search results in evidence or material that leads investigators to OTHER evidence that connects the perpetrator to that or other crimes or proves his guilt in this one. It’s no good. It’s literally the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, the Poisonous Tree being the original bad search or illegal interview or whatever.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

I don’t know how I feel about the FBI wasting my tax dollars playing games with pedophiles (it should probably be handled by the state if anything), but what they are doing IS legal—so I’m okay with the legality part of it (or at least I have to either accept it or argue that the American legal system needs to drastically change—an argument that I’m not prepared to make).

Hairy, you’re splitting hairs as you always do.  Rather than simply come out and tell us how you feel about an issue you engage in these merry-go-rounds of “well it’s legal, blah, blah, blah.”

I should note that I never meant to question the legality of this.  I meant to question the ethics, given issues like Pilgrim and others have described, and the effectiveness.  You’re the one who brought up the legality.

Rather than hosting your own fake-illegal porn and trying to ensnare people looking for it, why not just go after the people who are actually posting illegal porn.

Also, while there are attempted murder laws on the books, I’m not aware of “attempted viewing of kiddie porn” laws.  And I am, in general, rather dubious of crimes that don’t involve actual crimes.

Again, the porn the FBI is hosting is legal porn that is merely advertised as being illegal.  Seems to me that a person should have to commit a crime to be guilty, not just think they committed one lest we find ourselves on a slipper slope to a place we don’t want to go.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I clicked the little X to shut it off and another one popped up. Then another and another. They kept popping up faster that I could close them and they got progressively worse. My whole screen was pasted with porn sites, everything from bestiality to hard core child porn AND I COULDN’T STOP IT. I couldn’t even turn off my computer with the off button. It was somehow disabled.

Now that would be entrapment if the FBI did that.

Rob,

Rather than hosting your own fake-illegal porn and trying to ensnare people looking for it, why not just go after the people who are actually posting illegal porn.

Because if you catch them before they actually obtain the desired porn that they have clearly demonstrated an intent to possess, then you will have shrunk the market for this stuff maybe sparing a kid or two from being raped or exploited.

Also, while there are attempted murder laws on the books, I’m not aware of “attempted viewing of kiddie porn” laws.  And I am, in general, rather dubious of crimes that don’t involve actual crimes.

Please read the actual article or at least my previous comments.  The crime was not attempting to view the porn, it was attempting to transport it across state lines (or internationally) which is why it is a federal offense.  Please read the law, it contains nothing about viewing the pornography.  It is all about the transportation and/or selling of child pornography across state lines or internationally (or in a federal building).  And as I have stated before in this thread, Mr. Vosburgh who is held up as the poor victim of an overzealous and ignorant FBI in this case did not click just one link but multiple links which clearly described the linked content as child pornography.  But he was not solely convicted on that evidence.  Rather that evidence was used to obtain a warrant to gather further evidence which in total made him guilty in my eyes (and the eyes of twelve ordinary, and presumably reasonable, citizens in this case).

Please everyone, read the article. It was not just one click on one fake link, but it was multiple clicks on multiple links clearly describing the linked material as child pornography and the man was not convicted on that evidence alone, but that evidence was used to obtain a warrant to collect more evidence, including evidence showing that the man had possessed pictures of fully nude, underage girls.

Rob: At the very heart of our Framer’s efforts was their clear intent to restrain the power of a national government over it’s citizenry.

The IVth Amendment says it so eloquently: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...”

Luring anyone to a hyperlink, established and maintained by an agency of the federal government, violates, in my mind, the standard set forth therein.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Rob,

Hairy, you’re splitting hairs as you always do.  Rather than simply come out and tell us how you feel about an issue you engage in these merry-go-rounds of “well it’s legal, blah, blah, blah.”

I should note that I never meant to question the legality of this.  I meant to question the ethics…

It’s pointless for me to just come out and say how I feel about the issue for two reasons:

1) I’m never going to convince anyone here of anything. Everyone comes to the table with their own, inalterable views.

2) IMO, ethical conclusions require more than a simple “this is how I feel”—there’s an is-ought gap to be dealt with Serious discussion is always warranted.

So I find it much more interesting (maybe even effective) to consider your issues from various points of view, point out where I see flaws in your reasoning or just play devil’s advocate and, hopefully, let you reach your own conclusions.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy Polemic:

Everyone comes to the table with their own, unalterable views.

If that is so, why even have this site? Why visit it? Why bother to comment?

People like robert108, Move_Zig, Laydown Sally, even Hannitized… folks whose views I disagree with… have forced me to think about - and in some cases reshape - my views.

Isn’t that what a debate should really be about?

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

So I find it much more interesting (maybe even effective) to consider your issues from various points of view, point out where I see flaws in your reasoning or just play devil’s advocate and, hopefully, let you reach your own conclusions.

So, basically you come here not to discuss, but to play little games thinking that you’re leading us all to better understanding.

How very patronizing of you.

I’m never going to convince anyone here of anything. Everyone comes to the table with their own, inalterable views.

If that were true, why would any of us talk to each other?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Kbiel,

Please read the actual article or at least my previous comments.  The crime was not attempting to view the porn, it was attempting to transport it across state lines (or internationally) which is why it is a federal offense.

Except that the “transporting across state lines” is, in reality, “viewing it on your computer.

It is all about the transportation and/or selling of child pornography across state lines or internationally (or in a federal building).  And as I have stated before in this thread, Mr. Vosburgh who is held up as the poor victim of an overzealous and ignorant FBI in this case did not click just one link but multiple links which clearly described the linked content as child pornography.

I’m not trying to defend any schmucks out there who are on the ‘net looking for porn.  I’m pointing out that arresting for someone for just thinking they looked at kiddie porn is a slippery slope.

And I’m exactly right, too.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I don’t mean to be patronizing. But…

So, basically you come here not to discuss, but to play little games thinking that you’re leading us all to better understanding.

Absolutely. I am leading everyone, including myself, to a better understanding by arguing the many facets (read: hair splits) of a single issue. This is the point of discussion.

If you take any other view of discussion than what I just outlined, then you are basically saying this:

“Hairy, I would prefer it if my blog readers simply read my posts, then used the comments section to grunt in the negative or the affirmative, perhaps throw the occasional ad hominem attack at the other side, and then sought another forum for in-dept analysis of the topic’s underlying issues.”

Since I imagine you wouldn’t agree with this method; I believe that if you really thought about it, you’d agree that splitting hairs serves a purpose. Otherwise, we’re not engaging one another, but merely waiting for our turns to speak.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

...and Rob,

Me: I’m never going to convince anyone here of anything. Everyone comes to the table with their own, inalterable views.

You: If that were true, why would any of us talk to each other?

That’s my point exactly. Believe me, unless you guys are discussing some really contentious issue and actually start splitting their hairs of the underlying topic, your comments are sleepworthy. They amount to this:

Pilgrim: I believe in family values.
Hawk: I don’t.
Pilgrim: Well I do.
Hawk: Well I don’t. And you suck.
Pilgrim: You are immature… and I believe in family values.
(etc...)

Splitting hairs is the only thing that turns this into an intelligent discussion.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Personally I enjoy the disagreements here. Sometimes someone can post a differing point of view that makes you stop and think.

kbeil is a good example of this. I often disgree with his points but he presents them in such a way that I have to say say, damn.....lemme think about this for a minute.

Others, like Hannitized for example, are simply obtuse and disagree with just about everything, seldom presenting a rational reason for their argument.

Either way I enjoy a good scrap when it comes to debating a point. And, note this.....this is one of a few sites that DOES NOT BLOCK anyone’s point, no matter how stupid.

Try debating over at Huffington or Kos. I did, and they shut me off pretty quick. After just a few days Huffington held all of my comments for “review”. Most of them never got posted.

Heh.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Either way I enjoy a good scrap when it comes to debating a point. And, note this.....this is one of a few sites that DOES NOT BLOCK anyone’s point, no matter how stupid.

Agreed. I appreciate that too.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Go to Jail, Do not pass Go,
Do not collect $200.

I don’t care what images you look at, I don’t care if you take nude pictures of bathing your infant in the sink, I don’t care if your dark dreams involve hot fudge sundaes in the shoe dept at Macy’s.

I care what you do, not what you might like to do.

Except that the “transporting across state lines” is, in reality, “viewing it on your computer.

OK, you are legally allowed to view all the child porn you want as long as you don’t possess it and don’t attempt to sell or distribute it.  For example, if you happen to walk by a computer terminal at the library displaying child porn, you will not be convicted for having viewed it.  On the other hand, if it can be proven that you are the one who searched for and downloaded the illegal images, you can be convicted on any number of laws, none of which will contain the word “view” in them.  Your semantic argument is absurd.

I’m pointing out that arresting for someone for just thinking they looked at kiddie porn is a slippery slope.

Woo hoo, let’s repeal all the attempted murder laws as well.  After all, no one who was convicted of attempted murder actually murdered some one.</sarc>

Seriously though, please, I implore you to read the facts presented in the article.  Mr. Vosburgh did more than attempt to download child pornography.  That was the probable cause as well as one of the charges, but he also possessed pictures of nude girls as well.  You may feel that this is a slippery slope, but take your feelings out of it.  I’m just as suspicious as you are of our federal government, but in this case, they did what was right and just.  I’ll join you in the slippery slope argument when they attempt to convict some one for accidentally clicking on just one link.  This case isn’t it though.

If you take any other view of discussion than what I just outlined, then you are basically saying this:

“Hairy, I would prefer it if my blog readers simply read my posts, then used the comments section to grunt in the negative or the affirmative, perhaps throw the occasional ad hominem attack at the other side, and then sought another forum for in-dept analysis of the topic’s underlying issues.”

So it’s either agree with you on this point, or I just want pie-throwing contests in the comments.

I don’t think this is an either-or.

Since I imagine you wouldn’t agree with this method; I believe that if you really thought about it, you’d agree that splitting hairs serves a purpose. Otherwise, we’re not engaging one another, but merely waiting for our turns to speak.

Hey, I appreciate playing Devil’s Advocate as much as the next guy, but there comes a point where it’s not so much about clarifying things as its about muddying the waters by injecting absurdity into the debate.

I find such games tiresome, but that’s just me.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

OK, you are legally allowed to view all the child porn you want as long as you don’t possess it and don’t attempt to sell or distribute it.  For example, if you happen to walk by a computer terminal at the library displaying child porn, you will not be convicted for having viewed it.  On the other hand, if it can be proven that you are the one who searched for and downloaded the illegal images, you can be convicted on any number of laws, none of which will contain the word “view” in them.  Your semantic argument is absurd.

It’s actually not at all, because if you accessed the FBI porn you wouldn’t have actually downloaded any illegal images/video.  You’ll have just thought you did.

Which, of course, isn’t a crime.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

WOOF,

Gee… it almost seems like this kiddie porn stuff hit a sore spot with you.  Could it be?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Kbiel, you’re not the only one who understands the facts here and imploring everyone to read the article - as though that would suddenly make you wright - is getting tiresome.

I read the article, and I’ve based my conclusions on it.  That you disagree with me is neither here nor there.

Woo hoo, let’s repeal all the attempted murder laws as well.  After all, no one who was convicted of attempted murder actually murdered some one.

Are there attempted porn downloading laws?  Because I don’t think there are.  I think there are laws about downloading/possessing/distributing actual kiddie porn that the feds are trying to stretch to cover these instances of downloading fake kiddie porn.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s actually not at all, because if you accessed the FBI porn you wouldn’t have actually downloaded any illegal images/video.  You’ll have just thought you did.

So I guess you’re for the repeal of attempted murder laws, attempted rape laws, and solicitation for murder laws.  After all, anyone convicted of those crimes did not actually murder, rape, or hire a hit man, they just thought they were doing it.

So I guess you’re for the repeal of attempted murder laws, attempted rape laws, and solicitation for murder laws.  After all, anyone convicted of those crimes did not actually murder, rape, or hire a hit man, they just thought they were doing it.

So now you’re going to demonize me in order to win this debate?  If I’m against the FBI entrapping people with fake porn I’m obviously opposed to laws against murder for hire?

Here’s what I’m against: A slipper legal slope that has us arresting people for inadvertently clicking a link.  After all, you can’t mistakenly call up a hit man and talk to him about killing someone.  But you can mistakenly click an internet link.

See my problem here? Or would you like to accuse me of condoning attempted rape a few more times?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I read the article, and I’ve based my conclusions on it.  That you disagree with me is neither here nor there.

Are there attempted porn downloading laws?  Because I don’t think there are.

Then you would be wrong.  I linked the law used according to the article twice.  I shamelessly stole the link from the article itself.  I’ve described the law and quoted the relevant parts pertaining to the “attempt” being a crime.

OK, so maybe I should not keep imploring everyone to read the article, but to read the facts presented in the article ignoring the obvious slant the writer put into it.

I certainly didn’t ignore any slant.  All I’m saying is what I said in my last comment:

I worry that a) this isn’t a very effective way of going after kiddie porn and b) that this presents a slippery slope that could well end up entrapping innocent people.

Your incessant exhortations to “read the article” have no bearing on either of these concerns.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If I’m against the FBI entrapping people with fake porn I’m obviously opposed to laws against murder for hire?

There was no entrapment.  Entrapment involves enticing or forcing someone into doing something they would not normally do.  Putting a link on the Internet and waiting for the perps to come to you is not entrapment.

And yes, if you are consistent, you should also be against the murder for hire laws.  People often convicted of this crime are convicted because they are talking to a police agent or federal agent posing as a hit man.  They never actually hired a real hit man or were even in danger of doing so, though they had to search out the fake hit man, call him up, and attempt to hire him.

After all, you can’t mistakenly call up a hit man and talk to him about killing someone.  But you can mistakenly click an internet link.

Again, it was not just single, mistaken click on single internet link.  The article shows parts of the affidavit from the FBI which show that Mr. Vosburgh clicked on several links.  And again, he was not convicted just for clicking on those links but for also possessing pictures of nude children.  When you look at the totality of the evidence, Mr. Vosburgh clearly had intent to obtain child pornography.  That the links themselves were fake is irrelevant, it was the attempt to obtain what he knew thought to be illegal material that made it a crime.  Nobody emailed it to him, no one said, “hey you should check out this site it has pictures of balloons and rainbows on it,” and Mr. Vosburgh has not argued that his rolled around on his desk and somehow clicked on several links clearly describing the linked material as illegal child pornography.

and Mr. Vosburgh has not argued that his rolled around on his desk and somehow clicked on several links clearly describing the linked material as illegal child pornography

Oops, that should read:

and Mr. Vosburgh has not argued that his cat rolled around on his desk and somehow clicked on several links clearly describing the linked material as illegal child pornography

Rob,

My personal opinion:

Clicking the link is sufficient probable cause for a search warrant to monitor further online activities (not to raid his house). Also, he should not have been convicted on “attempt” for merely clicking the link because, unless his lawyer was braindead, it should be impossible for the government to prove the “knowing” element of the statute’s mens rea. The conviction will be overturned.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

There was no entrapment.  Entrapment involves enticing or forcing someone into doing something they would not normally do.  Putting a link on the Internet and waiting for the perps to come to you is not entrapment.

The question is: Would the person have clicked if the link was there in the first place?

And yes, if you are consistent, you should also be against the murder for hire laws.

Actually, that’s not true at all.  Because clicking an internet link is not the same as contacting an assassin.

Again, it was not just single, mistaken click on single internet link.

It wasn’t in this particular instance, but we’re certainly opening the door to that sort of thing.  Which is the problem I’m having.

I have little doubt that putting Vosburgh away was good for society in general, but what I worry about is the way the FBI went about doing it.

The problem I’m having is that none of the porn he downloaded was actually illegal porn.  And I also worry that people could actually get entrapped by this sort of thing.  After all, prosecutors can be overzealous and law enforcement officials can be less than scrupulous.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

My personal opinion:

Clicking the link is sufficient probable cause for a search warrant to monitor further online activities (not to raid his house). Also, he should not have been convicted on “attempt” for merely clicking the link because, unless his lawyer was braindead, it should be impossible for the government to prove the “knowing” element of the statute’s mens rea. The conviction will be overturned.

I could agree with all of that, though I still worry that the FBI links being used as probable cause aren’t actually illegal links.

And I don’t really see this as an effective method for combating kiddie porn either.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I worry that a) this isn’t a very effective way of going after kiddie porn and b) that this presents a slippery slope that could well end up entrapping innocent people.

Well, in the absence of evidence one way or the other, we’ll just have to disagree on point a.  As for point b, it would be entrapment if the FBI somehow tricked or otherwise enticed (i.e. if the web site stated that the links really contained pictures of Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton) Mr. Vosburgh into doing something he would not normally do.  His possession of illegal nude pictures of children puts the lie to that.

Your incessant exhortations to “read the article” have no bearing on either of these concerns.

I keep saying that because you and others keep talking about a single click.  The cited case did not involve a single click, it involved multiple clicks and other supporting evidence.  You even claimed that you doubted there was a law making it illegal to attempt to obtain child pornography when the article linked to that very law.  The reason I keep asking you and others to read the articles for the facts and not the slant is because you seem to arguing out of ignorance.

As for point b, it would be entrapment if the FBI somehow tricked or otherwise enticed (i.e. if the web site stated that the links really contained pictures of Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton) Mr. Vosburgh into doing something he would not normally do.  His possession of illegal nude pictures of children puts the lie to that.

In this particular instance, sure.  But what about other cases?  Once this is established procedure there seems to be way too much room for abuse.

I keep saying that because you and others keep talking about a single click.  The cited case did not involve a single click, it involved multiple clicks and other supporting evidence.  You even claimed that you doubted there was a law making it illegal to attempt to obtain child pornography when the article linked to that very law.  The reason I keep asking you and others to read the articles for the facts and not the slant is because you seem to arguing out of ignorance.

We are arguing ideas and concepts, not the specifics of this case.  We worry that this sort of procedure could result in entrapping someone guilty of only a single click.

You want to exonerate the entire concept by saying “it worked out ok in this case, so it’ll probably work out in them all.”

The issue does not begin and end with this one case.

And as for you linking to that law, I pointed out that what the guy downloaded from the FBI site was not illegal.  There is no law making it illegal to think you’re downloading kiddie porn.  Only laws that make it illegal to actually download kiddie porn.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

And I don’t really see this as an effective method for combating kiddie porn either.

Neither do I.

I still worry that the FBI links being used as probable cause aren’t actually illegal links.

Well-established case law and the Model Penal Code rule that if you meant to do something illegal, but extraneous circumstances prevented you from doing so (like the gun you fired being empty, or the link you clicked being BS), you are still guilty of attempt.

I agree with the policy behind this because criminal law is there to PREVENT illegal behavior. It wouldn’t set a good precedent (as a matter of prevention) to free criminals just because they fucked up the crime.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

The question is: Would the person have clicked if the link was there in the first place?

That has nothing to do with entrapment.  Would a crack head buy crack if there were no crack to buy?  Would a burglar not enter a house if there were no houses to enter?  Perhaps leaving your doors unlocked is entrapment?  It can only be entrapment if a government agent says or does something that tricks you or entices you to do something you wo