http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nefd.pop
could they one day do this with gambling?
could they one day do this with gambling?
Sure, but I really can't imagine that they are that concerned with snagging players.
A bigger concern should be for anyone that has an unsecured wireless router. Nothing like getting your door kicked in because you have some pervert neighbor unknowingly stealing your bandwidth to check out kidde porn. I'd bet good money that it's already happened more than once.
A bigger concern should be for anyone that has an unsecured wireless router. Nothing like getting your door kicked in because you have some pervert neighbor unknowingly stealing your bandwidth to check out kidde porn. I'd bet good money that it's already happened more than once.
They could but why. Clicking on an Offshore sportsook website is not illeagal. You actually have to gamble, which would mean posting up funds and actually making a bet. What does that leave the FBI with? A case against an otherwise honest citizen making a bet on a ballgame or horserace on the internet. The bogus site would be quickly identified by players once the case was prosecuted.
The expenditure of funds (advertising for example), time and effort to bust a simple player for making some bets is not worth the effort. Not to mention there are entrapment issues involved.
A website offering unprescribed oxycodone would be more realistic but still has the entrapment problem. Same thing with prostitution.
wil.
The most discouraging aspect of this case to date (at least based on the linked coverage) is that the alleged offense by Vosburgh did not in fact "attempt to download child porn" because the link he clicked contained no content of any kind.
He is essentially charged with having "imagined" he might possibly download some child porn.
Much akin to the idea of having a 35 year old cop go into an online venue and pretend to be a 14 year old kid. When an adult agrees to meet them in person, the adult is in many jurisdictions charged with "setting up a meeting with a minor age kid" when in FACT they were setting up a meeting with a 35 year old man.
The "illegal meeting" was an imaginary incident on both ends.
Thought Crimes - Welcome to the 21st Century North American criminal justice system
He is essentially charged with having "imagined" he might possibly download some child porn.
Much akin to the idea of having a 35 year old cop go into an online venue and pretend to be a 14 year old kid. When an adult agrees to meet them in person, the adult is in many jurisdictions charged with "setting up a meeting with a minor age kid" when in FACT they were setting up a meeting with a 35 year old man.
The "illegal meeting" was an imaginary incident on both ends.
Thought Crimes - Welcome to the 21st Century North American criminal justice system
Not really, because they weren't "seduced" into doing anything "real". The "crime" was an utterly imaginary event. No child porn existed at the FBI-created link, so none could have been downloaded even if that had been the mental desire of the defendant.
An appropriate analogy would be a (unidentified) cop telling someone, "If you go to this location and look under the park bench you will find some cocaine in a green bag"
So dude goes to the bench, reaches under to pick up a green bag, finds it empty and is then charged and convicted with possession of cocaine.
An appropriate analogy would be a (unidentified) cop telling someone, "If you go to this location and look under the park bench you will find some cocaine in a green bag"
So dude goes to the bench, reaches under to pick up a green bag, finds it empty and is then charged and convicted with possession of cocaine.
No, they have work to do.
They've been assigned to identify people who possess and traffic in child porn.
But they're using incredibly obtuse methods which are clearly contrary to the 4th Amendment and also to "reality" as noted in my earlier posts.
They're able to skirt these seeming impediments by virtue of the general public being so terrified of some guy ripping off their kids that they (the GP) will endorse such imaginary "crime solving".
As WIL and a couple others mused earlier, such methods could be carried over into the enforcement of other "crimes" - notably the use of certain substances, gambling etc
They've been assigned to identify people who possess and traffic in child porn.
But they're using incredibly obtuse methods which are clearly contrary to the 4th Amendment and also to "reality" as noted in my earlier posts.
They're able to skirt these seeming impediments by virtue of the general public being so terrified of some guy ripping off their kids that they (the GP) will endorse such imaginary "crime solving".
As WIL and a couple others mused earlier, such methods could be carried over into the enforcement of other "crimes" - notably the use of certain substances, gambling etc
There are several ways for a person to unknowingly have child porn on their computer:
- They may click on a valid link that contains child porn further down the page in an advertisement and they will never have viewed it. Yet it is downloaded to their computer.
- Yahoo used to have personal photo pages in their profiles. If a person were to browse a profile that contained child porn they may not know it has been downloaded.
- Another person in their household may have viewed child porn web pages. Even if Temporary Internet Files are deleted they still remain on the hard drive until written over.
Most states have statutes that state a person must "knowingly" possess child porn. However, if a search warrant is obtained and child porn is found the person can be arrested and have their name broadcast all over and the police/FBI/DCI are not held accountable for the trashing of the person's name.
Just the fact that the FBI is attempting such tricks tells me that they have run out of more effective ways of snaring "potential" downloaders of child porn.
It's odd that I heard of a case where a guy was accused of raping a little girl but the charges were dropped because the girl died due to illness. Yet if a girl or boy were to appear in child porn the person who possesses the media is accused of a crime against the child. How can this be if they don't even know if the child is alive or dead?
