The FBI is either apallingly stupid or abominably malicious (re: pedophile hunts)

[Derleth]

You're going to click this link. You might not want to click links in the future. They may get the FBI to take you down hard:

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."

Some of the links, including the supposedly correct one, included the hostname upload.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.

Read the bolded part a few times. Some asshole could put the link in a message board post or an email passed around the Internet or into the Javascript of a webpage and trick you into incriminating yourself as a pedophile. You don't even have to click a link to be a winner. (Referer* headers can be forged via proxies, so even if the FBI did look at them it would still have been egregiously stupid. The fact they didn't indicates either stupidity or something worse.) Shit, someone could forge packets so they appear to be from your computer and implicate you that way. There is absolutely no technical reason why they couldn't.

*(It's spelled "Referrer" in English and "Referer" in HTTP. Browsers speak HTTP.)

Judges consider this A-OK:

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.

[snip]

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.

The Wi-Fi thing is fairly scary as well. Anyone who uses your Wi-Fi connection without your knowledge could be implicating you in who-knows-what. Used to be, though, the worst they could do was get you sued in one of the RIAA/MPAA's scattershot "John Doe" copyright suits. Now they can convince the FBI to charge you with child pornography.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Holy shit. That's pretty despicable.

[Tenebras]

This is orders of magnitude cooler than rick rolling someone.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Has the sonic boom from the various rights orginizations jumping on this died down yet? Please tell me this will get overturned once the judge can be sat down and have this explained to them?!

[elucidator]

"OK, see, there's all of these tubes...."

[Derleth]

A link with a lot more detail. In case you thought my original link was a hoax.

[Sunspace]

This kind of crap is one reason I do NOT have WI-Fi set up at home. There are probably a dozen apartments around me that could leech bandwidth through any wireless base station I might own.

But still, the situation described by the OP is wrong.

[Clothahump]

If you have wi-fi, put a key on it. Sheesh.

That way, your neighbors won't be stealing your porn.

[Jayn_Newell]

My neighbour should be thankful I only use the free wireless for Wii and DS gaming.

[Cluricaun]

Originally Posted by Tenebras

This is orders of magnitude cooler than rick rolling someone.

I'm in ur network clickin ur linkz.

[Frylock]

It's just a search warrant.

-FrL-

[ducks]

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

If you have wi-fi, put a key on it. Sheesh.

Our wi-fi isn't simply locked, it's dead. We think the antenna connector went bad.

[Otto]

Hey, at least sometimes the FBI is still going to the trouble of getting a warrant. That's encouraging, right? Right?!

[Bricker]

How much cause is needed to justify a search warrant, Derleth? We need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, but what's the level of evidence we need for a search warrant?

[flight]

Unless I am mistaken, net accelerators function by automatically downloading information from the links on a page you haven't even clicked on yet. That way, when you do click on them most of the information is already downloaded, making it appear that you have a very fast connection. That would mean that anyone with a net accelerator who visits one of the sites where the FBI dumped the dummy links would look like they were visiting the "child porn" sites.

So, running a net accelerator is enough to get the FBI knocking on your door with a search warrant. Ouch.

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by Bricker

How much cause is needed to justify a search warrant, Derleth? We need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, but what's the level of evidence we need for a search warrant?

That someone at an IP address clicked on a link isn't evidence of anything whatsoever, to any degree. The reference to rick rolling above is quite apropos.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by flight

Unless I am mistaken, net accelerators function by automatically downloading information from the links on a page you haven't even clicked on yet. That way, when you do click on them most of the information is already downloaded, making it appear that you have a very fast connection. That would mean that anyone with a net accelerator who visits one of the sites where the FBI dumped the dummy links would look like they were visiting the "child porn" sites.

So, running a net accelerator is enough to get the FBI knocking on your door with a search warrant. Ouch.

That's cause for some concern.

Was Vosburgh running a net accelerator?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Gorsnak

That someone at an IP address clicked on a link isn't evidence of anything whatsoever, to any degree. The reference to rick rolling above is quite apropos.

Really? It's not evidence of anything at all? Why not?

[Ponder Stibbons]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Really? It's not evidence of anything at all? Why not?

Really? It's not obvious?

Look, it happens on message boards all over the internet all the time. Even on this one. Someone posts a link that looks something like this: Click this! It's just a funny cartoon! (Or whatever)

So you click it and it's not at all a funny cartoon, but something else meant to startle you/annoy you/etc. Come on, man, you can't have been on the internet more than two weeks without accidentally clicking some link you didn't mean to. Sure, over the years you've learned to avoid clicking on such links, but you can't say you never have.

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Really? It's not evidence of anything at all? Why not?

It is evidence, but not enough, IMH-non lawyer-O, to grant a search warrant.



Why?

Well, there are reasons a person may click that sort of link that don't mean they want kiddie porn.

For instance, I may see a link to something I think is questionable on this website. I could click that link, and then, if I found something 'bad' I would then report it to a moderator. I wouldn't report a 'suspected' bad link because I don't want to waste the moderators time.

Or I may see a link titled "see little kids have sex" and think that it is some sort of joke. Or I may wish to view the site and then notify the FBI. But since the link just goes to a dead page, without kiddie porn, I would not take any follow up action that would indicate that I was not after the kiddie porn.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Ponder Stibbons

Really? It's not obvious?

Look, it happens on message boards all over the internet all the time. Even on this one. Someone posts a link that looks something like this: Click this! It's just a funny cartoon! (Or whatever)

So you click it and it's not at all a funny cartoon, but something else meant to startle you/annoy you/etc. Come on, man, you can't have been on the internet more than two weeks without accidentally clicking some link you didn't mean to. Sure, over the years you've learned to avoid clicking on such links, but you can't say you never have.

So what you're saying is because there are multiple plausible explanations for the event, and many of them are reasonble, we can conclude zero, zippo, absolutely nothing at all?

I'm sorry, but that's not so. We would never be able to CONVICT someone on that evidence, of course. But the mere fact that a possible innocent explanation exists doesn't destroy all evidentiary value.

Consider an officer that witnesses what appears to be a street drug transaction. It could be any number of things. All he knows is person A and person B exchanged items. A could have owed B a debt. They could have been exchanging phone numbers or Tootsie Rolls. But merely because it could quite plausibly have been any number of legitimate events doesn't mean we hear the officer's observation and say, "That's zero evidence of anything."

Does it?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Zebra

It is evidence, but not enough, IMH-non lawyer-O, to grant a search warrant.



Why?

Well, there are reasons a person may click that sort of link that don't mean they want kiddie porn.

For instance, I may see a link to something I think is questionable on this website. I could click that link, and then, if I found something 'bad' I would then report it to a moderator. I wouldn't report a 'suspected' bad link because I don't want to waste the moderators time.

Or I may see a link titled "see little kids have sex" and think that it is some sort of joke. Or I may wish to view the site and then notify the FBI. But since the link just goes to a dead page, without kiddie porn, I would not take any follow up action that would indicate that I was not after the kiddie porn.

And what is the standard of evidence required to grant a search warrant?

[neutron star]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Read the bolded part a few times. Some asshole could put the link in a message board post or an email passed around the Internet or into the Javascript of a webpage and trick you into incriminating yourself as a pedophile.

Is there any evidence to suggest that anyone who wasn't involved in the investigation knew the link was a trap?

[flight]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So what you're saying is because there are multiple plausible explanations for the event, and many of them are reasonble, we can conclude zero, zippo, absolutely nothing at all?

I'm sorry, but that's not so. We would never be able to CONVICT someone on that evidence, of course. But the mere fact that a possible innocent explanation exists doesn't destroy all evidentiary value.

Consider an officer that witnesses what appears to be a street drug transaction. It could be any number of things. All he knows is person A and person B exchanged items. A could have owed B a debt. They could have been exchanging phone numbers or Tootsie Rolls. But merely because it could quite plausibly have been any number of legitimate events doesn't mean we hear the officer's observation and say, "That's zero evidence of anything."

Does it?

We may be able to conclude more than zero, but that is not necessarily enough for a warrant. To take your police officer example, I would think that him seeing two people exchanging something would be nowhere near enough for a search warrant. If the exchange took place on a highly frequented drug corner and the police had an informant that said one of the guys had been dealing drugs, then maybe it is enough now.

There is a wide range in between zero and enough for a warrant.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by flight

We may be able to conclude more than zero, but that is not necessarily enough for a warrant. To take your police officer example, I would think that him seeing two people exchanging something would be nowhere near enough for a search warrant. If the exchange took place on a highly frequented drug corner and the police had an informant that said one of the guys had been dealing drugs, then maybe it is enough now.

There is a wide range in between zero and enough for a warrant.

How would you describe what evidence is enough for a warrant?

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And what is the standard of evidence required to grant a search warrant?

I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that question better than I.


But...

I would think a person would have to have been at the bogus site for sometime, perhaps browsing through several layers in an attempt to get at the site. This would weed out any 'accidental' views.

Plus, it seems that the FBI and the Judge are not fully up to speed on internet tech. (like net accelators)

You know as well as I do that even being suspected of a sex crime against a minor is a very serious ordeal. It can involve loss of employment, being ostrichised, and even violence against the person suspected. Even if they are not charged, or convicted. I hope the government is very careful in bringing this sort of charge against any person. This feels more like a 'lets stop all traffic to see if anyone is drunk' sort of operation to me.


This sort of 'wide net' program just does not seem a like a good use of government resources to me.

[Ponder Stibbons]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So what you're saying is because there are multiple plausible explanations for the event, and many of them are reasonble, we can conclude zero, zippo, absolutely nothing at all?

Conclude nothing? Philosophically I could conclude any number of things. But we aren't talking philosophy, we're talking sufficient grounds for a search warrant. And I'm saying that what we have here is not sufficient grounds for a search warrant. There's any number of reasons people click links, either on purpose, or by accident, that don't involve any sort of illegal activity.

This situation is nothing like your "person A and person B exchanged items" scenario. It's more like "person A and person B bumped into one another while walking down the street and person A said 'oops, sorry' and since person B is an undercover police officer who has been posing as a drug dealer this is enough evidence to search person A's house".

Clicking a link by accident, or a link that goes somewhere you didn't expect, or maybe you did expect it but you didn't really think it was real ... these are far too common of occurrences to possibly be suspicious behavior, because you've basically described almost everyone with an internet connection! In fact, if I was an FBI agent I wanted to come up with a reason to search your house, I bet I could get you to click on a link that would get me that search warrant within a week.

[brossa]

Originally Posted by Zebra

being ostrichised

Is that where they bury your head in the sand, or is it some version of tarring and feathering?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Sunspace

This kind of crap is one reason I do NOT have WI-Fi set up at home. There are probably a dozen apartments around me that could leech bandwidth through any wireless base station I might own.

Isn't this easily solved by requiring a password to log onto your wireless network?

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Isn't this easily solved by requiring a password to log onto your wireless network?

And encryption. Or a dead antenna.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Zebra

I would think a person would have to have been at the bogus site for sometime, perhaps browsing through several layers in an attempt to get at the site. This would weed out any 'accidental' views.

My understanding here is that Vosburgh clicked on the links four times.

But your thinking is not right: the standard required here is "probable cause," which does not require that "accidental" possibilities be eliminated. In order to get a search warrant -- and this is not a "crash your door unannounced" warrant, mind you -- the government does not need to show that criminal activity is certain, or even more likely than not - just that it's among the likely possibilities.

Plus, it seems that the FBI and the Judge are not fully up to speed on internet tech. (like net accelators)

Let's chat a bit about net accelerators. What net accelerator works by pre-loading every link on a page? My understanding of net accelerators is that they cached previously-visited pages (which would actually resulted in FEWER hits at ther server end). Can you give me an example of a net acelerator product that works by pre-loading every link in a visited page?

You know as well as I do that even being suspected of a sex crime against a minor is a very serious ordeal. It can involve loss of employment, being ostrichised, and even violence against the person suspected. Even if they are not charged, or convicted. I hope the government is very careful in bringing this sort of charge against any person. This feels more like a 'lets stop all traffic to see if anyone is drunk' sort of operation to me.

I agree. But Vosburgh was not charged with anything until after FBI agents actually found illegal images on an external drive -- and after they waited outside his house for a half-hour before he let them in... to discover a hard drive that had been pried out of his computer and physically destroyed, and the remains of a destroyed thumb drive in the toilet.

This sort of 'wide net' program just does not seem a like a good use of government resources to me.

OK. I don't necessarily disagree with that. But that's a different argument than the implication that it's not a LEGAL use of government resources.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Ponder Stibbons

Conclude nothing? Philosophically I could conclude any number of things. But we aren't talking philosophy, we're talking sufficient grounds for a search warrant. And I'm saying that what we have here is not sufficient grounds for a search warrant. There's any number of reasons people click links, either on purpose, or by accident, that don't involve any sort of illegal activity.

This situation is nothing like your "person A and person B exchanged items" scenario. It's more like "person A and person B bumped into one another while walking down the street and person A said 'oops, sorry' and since person B is an undercover police officer who has been posing as a drug dealer this is enough evidence to search person A's house".

Clicking a link by accident, or a link that goes somewhere you didn't expect, or maybe you did expect it but you didn't really think it was real ... these are far too common of occurrences to possibly be suspicious behavior, because you've basically described almost everyone with an internet connection! In fact, if I was an FBI agent I wanted to come up with a reason to search your house, I bet I could get you to click on a link that would get me that search warrant within a week.

A link? Perhaps. But could you get me to download the video file from your fake page? That's more than clicking on a link. Even if I accept that the link was an accident, the fact that he downloaded the video file would seem PROBABLE that there was no accident.

[Gorsnak]

At least Rick (Astley, not Bricker) is "never gonna give me up," though I hadn't previously thought he was talking about giving me up to the feds!

[AskNott]

All the same, maybe you shouldn't brag about the secret site where you train Tibetan and Irish terriers. I'll keep my Car Bon footprint to myself, too.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Bricker

I agree. But Vosburgh was not charged with anything until after FBI agents actually found illegal images on an external drive -- and after they waited outside his house for a half-hour before he let them in... to discover a hard drive that had been pried out of his computer and physically destroyed, and the remains of a destroyed thumb drive in the toilet.

I don't think we're necessarily debating Vosburgh's innocence. The larger issue is that clicking on a link can get you arrested- whether it successfully netted a pedophile in this case is irrelevant.

Many people rely on their home computers for their livelihood. The first thing the FBI does in situations like this is they seize the computers- and it's notoriously difficult to get the hardware back in any reasonable amount of time. It would be a major disruption to my career- to others, it might very well mean the difference between paying that month's rent or not. Thirty minutes, while it was enough for Vosburgh to destroy a hard drive, would not be enough time for me to gather all of my files and programs. I'd be screwed. If I was working on a contract job at the time, I'd have no way to continue the job.

And don't forget- they take ALL computers, all computer hardware, telecommunications gear, and even utility bills.... all because you clicked on a link.

I think the only thing that would slap some sense into the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would be to show them just how easy it is for someone to plant inappropriate images onto a computer.

[Zebra]

Am I the only person afraid to click the links in this thread?

[flight]

Bricker, of course the standard is "probable cause", and what exactly constitutes probable cause likely varies between jurisdictions and the judge issuing the search warrant. I can say that as a non-lawyer "reasonable person" I would be appalled if a police officer viewing a transaction between two people on the street without aggravating circumstances would automatically assume a drug transaction and take the observed transaction to be probable cause.

Further research on net accelerators has show that they use one or more of three technologies. First, they tweak your internet settings (packet size, latency, etc.), second they mess with your cache (which is what gives you better performance on repeat browsing of the same page) and third they use read-ahead browsing to download the information on linked pages. This last is what could get you in trouble. I know that many older accelerators used this technology a lot (like Netjet) but I am not sure how many of the newer ones do.

[threemae]

I'm going to go with Bricker on this one.

Unlike the hyperbolic statements upthread, clicking on a link will not get someone arrested, it will yield a search warrant. Perhaps these searches are too onerous for innocent people (seizure of equipment for long periods of time, etc.), that might be a valid complaint, but I suspect that overwhelmingly the people that actually clicked on this link were people persuing child pornography. Certainly enough specificity to be considered a valid or even, "good" means of establishing probable cause.

[Projammer]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Isn't this easily solved by requiring a password to log onto your wireless network?

No. WEP is a severely compromised technology these days. Given a couple of hours and the proper software I can be surfing from any "secure" wireless network in this town. Yes, I am familiar with the software and equipment necessary to do so. It's part of my job to be up to date on this kind of thing.

So, if we lived in the same apartment cmplex and you had called the manager or police because my party was too loud last night I would jump on your wireless cennection and visit as many of these honeypot sites as I could locate.

In a few days/weeks some decidedly unfriendly types are knocking on your door with a warrant. Sure, eventually you should be able to clear yourself. But in the meantime you've been without any of your computers for a month or so while they scour them for evidence, they also turned your entire residence over looking for magazines, photos, videos, whatever. And any storage units you might have rented have also been emptied.

Oh, and while you're trying to dig your way out from under that, someone leaked the news that you were being investigated for child pornography to the rest of your neighbors. Damn everyone is unfriendly all of a sudden.

[flight]

Originally Posted by threemae

I'm going to go with Bricker on this one.

Unlike the hyperbolic statements upthread, clicking on a link will not get someone arrested, it will yield a search warrant. Perhaps these searches are too onerous for innocent people (seizure of equipment for long periods of time, etc.), that might be a valid complaint, but I suspect that overwhelmingly the people that actually clicked on this link were people persuing child pornography. Certainly enough specificity to be considered a valid or even, "good" means of establishing probable cause.

As near as I can tell from the links, this is untrue. It appears the guy in question was arrested when the police seized his equipment. I admit that the arrest may have been for the destruction of evidence rather than the link click, but the stories do not seem to work together. They state that they told him they were there on a different matter and he opened the door at which time they pulled him outside, cuffed him, and arrested him. They also say that he damaged the computer equipment to prevent them from getting it. These things do not seem to reconcile themselves.

I would agree that clicking on the link would be enough to make someone a "person of interest," but I would hope that more evidence would be necessary to confiscate someones computer.

[buttonjockey308]

Originally Posted by Zebra

I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that question better than I.


But...

I would think a person would have to have been at the bogus site for sometime, perhaps browsing through several layers in an attempt to get at the site. This would weed out any 'accidental' views.

Plus, it seems that the FBI and the Judge are not fully up to speed on internet tech. (like net accelators)

You know as well as I do that even being suspected of a sex crime against a minor is a very serious ordeal. It can involve loss of employment, being ostrichised, and even violence against the person suspected. Even if they are not charged, or convicted. I hope the government is very careful in bringing this sort of charge against any person. This feels more like a 'lets stop all traffic to see if anyone is drunk' sort of operation to me.


This sort of 'wide net' program just does not seem a like a good use of government resources to me.

Search warrants are a dime a dozen any more. Once you convince the judge, (who is usually not only NOT up on technology, half of 'em aren't even up on the law) that THEREZ KIDDIE PRON ON THAT MACHINE! You're in. The 4th amendment is a shell of what it used to be in this country.

[flight]

Originally Posted by Projammer

No. WEP is a severely compromised technology these days. Given a couple of hours and the proper software I can be surfing from any "secure" wireless network in this town. Yes, I am familiar with the software and equipment necessary to do so. It's part of my job to be up to date on this kind of thing.

What about WPA with MAC filtering?

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by Bricker

... What net accelerator works by pre-loading every link on a page? ...

Fasterfox, one of the top twenty most popular extensions for Firefox.

... Since prefetching is basically the same as clicking on a link, and clicking on a dynamic link can perform some action such as "logging you out" or "emptying your cart", only static content is prefetched by Fasterfox.

On top of the Mozilla prefetching limitations which are outlined here: Mozilla Link Prefetching FAQ

Fasterfox further limits prefetching such that only files with the extension .gif, .htm, .html, .jpeg, .jpg, .pdf, .png, .text, .txt, and .xml are prefetched. ...

from the Op's link,

... 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. ...

If having a thumbs.db file with illicit images is a serious crime then what do ya think having .gifs, .jpgs and whole web pages is?

Originally Posted by threemae

... clicking on a link will not get someone arrested, ...

... Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink ... 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 ...

Clicking on a hyperlink can land your ass in jail!

CMC +fnord!

[Moirai]

Originally Posted by Bricker

How would you describe what evidence is enough for a warrant?

One's ability to convince a judge to sign it?

I seem to recall a warrant being issued in CA for a suspected hydroponic marijuana-growing operation on the following criteria-

1. Resident puts out trashcans at the last minute the morning of the trash pick-up, rather than the night before.

2. Resident has a spike in electricity usage.




The trash can thing seems to be something that cops look at a lot, when they suspect illegal activity. I guess they figure the resident is trying to minimize the time someone could look through their trash?

ETA- forgot to add- why would this surprise anybody? This is the society we live in today- warrantless wiretaps, people being held indefinitely without hearing or legal representation, suspension of habeus corpus... welcome to the "bastion of freedom."

[Projammer]

Originally Posted by flight

What about WPA with MAC filtering?

WPA is a much better option and what we're preparing to transition to where I work.

MAC filtering is good, but by no stretch of the imagination should it be considered secure. There are many wireless adapters that you can configure to present any MAC you specify. And just a few minutes of sniffing an active network will net you several valid MACs to use.

[Cervaise]

Originally Posted by Lightnin'

Many people rely on their home computers for their livelihood. The first thing the FBI does in situations like this is they seize the computers- and it's notoriously difficult to get the hardware back in any reasonable amount of time. It would be a major disruption to my career- to others, it might very well mean the difference between paying that month's rent or not. Thirty minutes, while it was enough for Vosburgh to destroy a hard drive, would not be enough time for me to gather all of my files and programs. I'd be screwed. If I was working on a contract job at the time, I'd have no way to continue the job.

And don't forget- they take ALL computers, all computer hardware, telecommunications gear, and even utility bills.... all because you clicked on a link.

I think the only thing that would slap some sense into the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would be to show them just how easy it is for someone to plant inappropriate images onto a computer.

What he said.

Bricker, if you're seriously implying with your patented rhetorical gotcha game that the mere clicking of a link provides sufficient grounds for one's life to be destroyed for six months at minimum while the fathanded feds poke through every last molecule of one's world, then maybe it really is time to tear everything down and rebuild it from scratch.

[E-Sabbath]

If it was good enough for the Secret Service in Operation Sundevil, it's good enough for Child Porn now.

[Derleth]

Bricker, you know law but I know technology.

The FBI is playing with things it obviously does not understand. There is no authentication in any of the protocols. No layer, from Ethernet up to HTTP, makes any serious attempt to verify who you are. Yes, some of them can be encrypted. That not only doesn't provide authentication, it is also beyond the capacity of the average non-technical user.

Furthermore, the Internet isn't just used by humans clicking links in web browsers. It's used by programs like this one running this page, that trawl the web automatically and grab whatever images they find. Is running a program like that now prima facie evidence that I have an intent to look at child pornography?

Finally, of course, there is the problem of spyware: A compromised machine can do anything. Right now, they mainly send spam. In the future, with this policy in place, they could become a positive danger to life and property.

The evidence is a joke. Any competent computer expert not actually committing perjury would be honor-bound to poke holes in it until it was like unto flimsy swiss cheese. The invasions and the accusations and the lives destroyed are worse than a joke. The mere accusation of pedophilia is equivalent to a conviction in the public eye, and every honest person knows it.

[wring]

Originally Posted by Derleth

[The evidence is a joke. Any competent computer expert not actually committing perjury would be honor-bound to poke holes in it until it was like unto flimsy swiss cheese. The invasions and the accusations and the lives destroyed are worse than a joke. The mere accusation of pedophilia is equivalent to a conviction in the public eye, and every honest person knows it.

absolutely. THere was a local case a couple of years ago, a special ed teacher was accused of attempted child molestation. Prosecutor held a frigging news conference, named names, showed picture, school, of course, immediately suspended the man.

Problem was, the 'evidence' was a fucking joke. It consisted of emails sent to the child. Prosecutors and police didn't even check the trail to see where the fucking emails were sent from. They just looked at the goddam name on the email. It was a bogus free account, set up by and sent by a friend of the accusor.

A few days after the news conference, the same set of folks had to hold another one saying "oopsie".

The accused? Died of stress related heart attack a short time later.

Keep in mind that the 'criminal geniuses' who came up with this scheme and managed to get by the prosecutors and cops were underaged special ed kids.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Bricker, you know law but I know technology.

The FBI is playing with things it obviously does not understand. There is no authentication in any of the protocols. No layer, from Ethernet up to HTTP, makes any serious attempt to verify who you are. Yes, some of them can be encrypted. That not only doesn't provide authentication, it is also beyond the capacity of the average non-technical user.

Again, though, the issue is probable cause. Nothing more.

Your objection seems to be that the execution of a search warrant and the seizure of computer equipment, with no other action taken, is the equivalent of a criminal charge and conviction, or is at least so onerous that more than simple probable cause should be required to undertake it.

I don't agree with that analysis.

Nor do the courts that have considered the issue.

Now, you may gnash your teeth at this truth, but that's the bottom line. That's the state of the law in this country right now.