FBI creates fake website to catch Pedo's

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
You don't live in reality because you dismiss the possibility that someone sees the link and does indeed spread it around outside assumed child porn communities. That it might not have happened in this case does not at all mean that it can't and won't happen in the future. BTW, even if you don't additionally obfuscate the URI you can draw other assumptions about the content if you see 4yo_suck. Not everyone has child porn on their minds all the time plus it sort of needs some knowledge of English to recognize it as such.

I live in reality because I understand that while that's a possibility there are a good number of facts that rule it beyond probability. This link was visited by the particular person on the very day it was posted, which lessens the chances of dissemination by other people. It's also HIGHLY skeptical that someone would send their friend child pornography as a joke. It is explicitly labeled, and since that this is a Doctoral resident that teaches college History classes in the U.S. it's a pretty safe be that he speaks English.

Of course, that alone wouldn't be enough to convict the man, but it's enough to send out the FBI to search. If they had got there and NOT found him destroying hard drives that still managed to have a few files of underage girls on them, he wouldn't have been convicted.

The reality of the situation is that the circumstances surrounding the search warrant are very clear and it makes absolute sense they would investigate it. Should someone have been the victim of a prank in the future, or whatever, that can be dealt with on its own, hence why we have a whole legal system.

~Jason
 

Hadmar

Queen Bitch of the Universe
Jan 29, 2001
5,558
42
48
Nerdpole
What about sending disguised child porn to your enemies or total strangers you don't give a **** about. Or posting it on a random forum for **** and giggles? A random *chan board could be a nice target. Total strangers would get in trouble for nothing. If they get convicted or not is beyond the point because you can set the gov on someones ass for child porn. I hope you know what this means for the persons private life.

The only thing that goes against a high probability is that a would be attacker wouldn't know that a link is monitored and so wouldn't know what to choose as ammunition. But I doubt that's impossible. And that it happened on the same day does not make much of a difference.
 

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
Look, in order to try and "get" other people, the person would have to

1) click on the child pornography link in the first place
2) somehow have the mysterious prescience to know that it is a plant from the FBI
3) send that link to someone else

In which case:

1) they've already visited that site and will be busted
2) Gosh we're giving random pedo's a lot of credit aren't we?
3) innocence of victim easily provable.

Summary: This isn't a significant worry. The system has provided no false positives so far and silly people on the internet saying it's POSSIBLE in no way makes it an actual PROBABILITY.

~Jason
 
Look, in order to try and "get" other people, the person would have to

1) click on the child pornography link in the first place
2) somehow have the mysterious prescience to know that it is a plant from the FBI
3) send that link to someone else

In which case:

1) they've already visited that site and will be busted
2) Gosh we're giving random pedo's a lot of credit aren't we?
3) innocence of victim easily provable.

Incorrect. I don't have to visit a site to link you to it. I could post the url right here, right now for you to click on. I've never been there, I don't know what it looks like. You, unknowingly go to it, becuase I've told you either that it's a pedo site, OR it's a game site showing off UT4 beta stuff.
 

Hadmar

Queen Bitch of the Universe
Jan 29, 2001
5,558
42
48
Nerdpole
I lose interest in this.
3) innocence of victim easily provable.
I wouldn't say that but I'm not going into that. However, even if you are found innocent there's a good chance your private life is shattered, you lost your job and everyone you know will still have doubts about your innocence. Just because they didn't find anything doesn't mean you really didn't do anything, you know? Fun times guaranteed.
 

Trynant

Manic Brawler
Jan 31, 2002
2,019
1
38
Quiet Island
trynant.wordpress.com
I know I'm going to regret posting in this thread but....

Incorrect. I don't have to visit a site to link you to it. I could post the url right here, right now for you to click on. I've never been there, I don't know what it looks like. You, unknowingly go to it, becuase I've told you either that it's a pedo site, OR it's a game site showing off UT4 beta stuff.

You do have to know what the site url is to link it, and how would you know that if you're not an FBI agent or a pedophile? And even if you do know the proper site address of a pedo site that is secretly a sting operation, dragonfliet's still right about the innocence of the victim being easily provable.

You're right about the internet be a place filled with people who will do malicious acts, but what you're talking about is implausible for all the reasons dragonfliet has stated.
 

TossMonkey

brown bread?
Sep 4, 2001
6,101
7
38
40
Great Britain.
quakeguy.tumblr.com
I was sure I posted in a similar thread to this not long ago. This is far too difficult to police because there are too many variables to consider... like how do you know that your pc isn't riddled with kiddie porn because your 14 year old son was downloading them?

All the FBI should do is continue to crack down on websites that host this stuff and find people in dodgy IRC chatrooms or however this stuff is distributed (probably just p2p programs I would expect). But entrapment is a very poor way of catching criminals for this type of crime (and one of the reasons why most forms of entrapment is an illegal practice for the british police).
 

Zur

surrealistic mad cow
Jul 8, 2002
11,708
8
38
48
But entrapment is a very poor way of catching criminals for this type of crime (and one of the reasons why most forms of entrapment is an illegal practice for the british police).

Traps are probably the best way to catch monsters. Then you must hold public beheadings because creatures that are so vile as to corrupt the young must be cleansed. Be wary of the offspring as they might become monsters too. The King will be pleased with this as his subjects will become more loyal to him to thank him for his protection.
 
Last edited:

Adelheid

Bernstein
Jan 23, 2008
1,022
0
0
44
Nowhere.
Traps are probably the best way to catch monsters. Then you must hold public beheadings because creatures that are so vile as to corrupt the young must be cleansed. Be wary of the offspring as they might become monsters too. The King will be pleased with this as his subjects will become more loyal to him to thank him for his protection.

Ironically enough I think this is alot closer to the truth of the matter than anyone will ever realise.
 
You do have to know what the site url is to link it, and how would you know that if you're not an FBI agent or a pedophile? And even if you do know the proper site address of a pedo site that is secretly a sting operation, dragonfliet's still right about the innocence of the victim being easily provable.

You're right about the internet be a place filled with people who will do malicious acts, but what you're talking about is implausible for all the reasons dragonfliet has stated.

Well of course you have to know what it is to link to it. He said that you had to click on it to share it. Which you don't.

The link is posted all over 4chan and various other sites. They are making it the new "rickroll". Doing exactly as I had said. Hiding the real url with a fake one and saying "check out this hot chick 18+" etc. You click on it and you are taken directly to the FBI site.

Now, the FBI doesn't know this, they think that you are there to download child porn. Which you weren't, but they don't care. They see the fact that you clicked on a link and went to a site that was supposed to have CP on it. That's how they see it.

You still end up with them knocking at your door and harrasing you. And the possible loss of your computer and anything else in your house.

Doesn't any of that make any sense to anyone? or is it just me?
 

Airmoran

Construct
Nov 9, 2004
2,075
0
0
How do you rickroll someone into downloading 5 separate files named "4yo suck"? Yeah, one file, fine. But all 5? That raises flags.

I'm not exactly aware of how the FBI singles out potential suspects, but if they gather hundreds of random IPs, they probably employ data mining techniques to narrow out the random "blips" from truly suspicious activity. My guess is that the FBI ain't stupid. They'll diligently investigate a possible pedophile before wasting money and credibility by chasing ghosts. Activity matters. It's an incredible waste of energy to investigate *all* IP addresses.

At any rate, saying that "they don't care" is pretty asinine, especially if you don't have any evidence to support this claim. I'm guessing if the FBI realizes that one of their links has become "the new rickroll", then they'll also realize that their sting operation has failed. Seriously, what good is a buncha IP logs if *none* of them raises particularly suspicious flagged?
 
Last edited:

Adelheid

Bernstein
Jan 23, 2008
1,022
0
0
44
Nowhere.
16, 17 on the 26th of May... um... not that I know her date of birth or anything... Look, she's legal here, OK?
In Iceland, where she works, she's been legal since she was 14 :D