7 ms·

This is the same as cops offering to sell drugs or sex and then busting the buyers.

by aezell 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 10y ago
Except that when the cops run drug or prostitution stings, they don't actually provide drugs or sex, do they? I thought they offered without actually having the product, then nail the buyer based on their intent to buy. Actually providing the sting targets with illegal material seems a lot shadier.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Pandering, or "offering or promoting prostitution" is still a crime.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    But it's effectively a secondary crime, like selling drugs. If no one ever used heroin, we wouldn't criminalize it (as indeed we don't criminalize selling other random chemicals). The general pattern for drug and prostitution stings is that the police will commit those secondary crimes, but intervene before allowing the primary crime to happen. In this case, they pretty much committed the primary crime at length before acting.
    - 75j 10y ago
      > If no one ever used heroin, we wouldn't criminalize it (as indeed we don't criminalize selling other random chemicals). In a way [0], the US does preemptively ban chemicals, regardless of whether that chemical has even been synthesized or used recreationally yet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
      - Bartweiss 10y ago
        Fair enough, but I think the logic of the point stands. We don't criminalize baking soda, we're just trying a Minority Report sort of approach to things that are likely to be used rather than playing catch-up with known-psychoactive analogues. Certainly the metaphor bit still applies - selling and importing these things are only banned because of their abuse potential, not because the chemical is seen as intrinsically bad.
    - klodolph 10y ago
      No, with drugs the more serious crimes are distribution and possession, it is not illegal to consume illicit drugs. It seems like the usual pattern for drug busts goes the opposite way as you'd expect—bust a user and use them to get the dealer.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Bartweiss 10y ago
        In terms of sentencing and bust structure, yes. Pursuing dealers is more effective (and cheaper) than pursuing users. But I stand by the point of the metaphor, which is that we criminalize distribution because of use. If you couldn't use it, it wouldn't be illegal. So even when flipping users, the intent is to run stings without letting the primary 'event' of drug use happen. That seems like the key difference between drug stings and this sting.
- stray8 10y ago
  How are you suppose to do a pornography bust on the internet without actually providing some product?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't know, but "you can't bust people if you don't do X" is not a good argument for X being OK. Not all criminals must be caught, and we generally value the integrity of law enforcement over catching every single bad guy.
  - pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
    How are you supposed to get rid of 6,000,000 jews without killing them? you're all idiots.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    If the police took over a site they've got evidence from crimes already committed. They need to identify the perps though, they could do something with drive-by malware downloads that paired the usernames from the site with people subsequently trying to gain access. The police/authorities should be able do that whilst respecting the victims by not themselves peddling underage porn. That seems like the police would have enough to arrest people and do a full investigation of their computer storage. Then should corroborating evidence be found they could charge the people; publishing details of convictions later. It seems that by continuing to run the site that police enabled crimes which otherwise might not have been possible.
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    That's up to law enforcement to figure out. It's none of our business. We live in a society with rules, and laws. We can't have law enforcement, or anyone breaking laws to catch a criminal. We were suspose to be following the constitution, or at least using it as a guide. That's what makes law enforcement challenging. I would rather have law enforcement make arrests without breaking laws themselfs. I don't even like RICO statues. I think they took the easy way out. Law enforcement is paid by taxpayers to catch criminals without taking shortcuts. It should even be a grey area. It should be black and white. For as long as I can remember, sadly they have taken the easy way, and stomped on the constitution. Every state has differnt statues. I never liked it. Every time I get pulled over for driving past 11:59 p.m. on a Friday; I'm reminded how inefficient, or law breaking---law enforcement is, or just lazy. Yes--just lazy.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  In some states the cops are legally allowed to rape people. C.f.: http://time.com/38444/hawaii-police-prostitutes-sex/ http://time.com/38444/hawaii-police-prostitutes-sex/
  - qz_ 10y ago
    > hawaii police prostitutes sex Now that's a headline I can get behind
  - mnx 10y ago
    My reading is that they are legally allowed to have sex, not rape. Whether that has led to abuses is a serious issue, but saying "legally allowed to rape" is misleading.
    - Alex3917 10y ago
      They're allowed to have sex with sex trafficking victims who have been kidnapped and are being held hostage. I don't see how calling that legal rape is misleading.
      - mnx 10y ago
        The article doesn't mention that, but you are right.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but they weren't 'legally' allowed to do this (iow it was still a crime), they were just immune from prosecution.
    - joering2 10y ago
      ... and at the end of the day -- what's the difference?? edit: second thought: I don't think it matters if something is done illegally, unless there is some penalty attached to it, no?
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  I was under the impression, at least in the case of drugs, that they do actually provide them. Although maybe that's only in cases of deep cover infiltration, rather than the eventual sting per se.
foobarbecue 10y ago
It's a little bit like that in certain ways, but it's certainly not the same. They simply didn't turn off the servers immediately after gaining control of them.
namecast 10y ago
That depends: do they typically bust the buyers after they've bought real drugs and already used them? It's all fake bags of white powder that never get used, yeah? For me this sort of hinges on whether actual child pornography was distributed (and then, i imagine, consumed and re-distributed by pedophiles) in the name of making a bust.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I mean, I think some real drugs get sold, but usually its selling stuff from the evidence locker and busting buyers before they can use it. There's no real equivalent to "after the sale, before the harm is done" in a case like this.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    There's also a difference between compromising pictures of real people and non-identifiable non-human bags of powder. Bags of cocaine don't have dignity that the law should be striving to protect.

This is the same as cops offering to sell drugs or sex and then busting the buyers.

by aezell 10y ago

This is the same as cops offering to sell drugs or sex and then busting the buyers.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 10y ago

Except that when the cops run drug or prostitution stings, they don't actually provide drugs or sex, do they? I thought they offered without actually having the product, then nail the buyer based on their intent to buy. Actually providing the sting targets with illegal material seems a lot shadier.

wavefunction 10y ago
Pandering, or "offering or promoting prostitution" is still a crime.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  But it's effectively a secondary crime, like selling drugs. If no one ever used heroin, we wouldn't criminalize it (as indeed we don't criminalize selling other random chemicals). The general pattern for drug and prostitution stings is that the police will commit those secondary crimes, but intervene before allowing the primary crime to happen. In this case, they pretty much committed the primary crime at length before acting.
  - 75j 10y ago
    > If no one ever used heroin, we wouldn't criminalize it (as indeed we don't criminalize selling other random chemicals). In a way [0], the US does preemptively ban chemicals, regardless of whether that chemical has even been synthesized or used recreationally yet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      Fair enough, but I think the logic of the point stands. We don't criminalize baking soda, we're just trying a Minority Report sort of approach to things that are likely to be used rather than playing catch-up with known-psychoactive analogues. Certainly the metaphor bit still applies - selling and importing these things are only banned because of their abuse potential, not because the chemical is seen as intrinsically bad.
  - klodolph 10y ago
    No, with drugs the more serious crimes are distribution and possession, it is not illegal to consume illicit drugs. It seems like the usual pattern for drug busts goes the opposite way as you'd expect—bust a user and use them to get the dealer.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      In terms of sentencing and bust structure, yes. Pursuing dealers is more effective (and cheaper) than pursuing users. But I stand by the point of the metaphor, which is that we criminalize distribution because of use. If you couldn't use it, it wouldn't be illegal. So even when flipping users, the intent is to run stings without letting the primary 'event' of drug use happen. That seems like the key difference between drug stings and this sting.
stray8 10y ago
How are you suppose to do a pornography bust on the internet without actually providing some product?
- mikeash 10y ago
  I don't know, but "you can't bust people if you don't do X" is not a good argument for X being OK. Not all criminals must be caught, and we generally value the integrity of law enforcement over catching every single bad guy.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  How are you supposed to get rid of 6,000,000 jews without killing them? you're all idiots.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  If the police took over a site they've got evidence from crimes already committed. They need to identify the perps though, they could do something with drive-by malware downloads that paired the usernames from the site with people subsequently trying to gain access. The police/authorities should be able do that whilst respecting the victims by not themselves peddling underage porn. That seems like the police would have enough to arrest people and do a full investigation of their computer storage. Then should corroborating evidence be found they could charge the people; publishing details of convictions later. It seems that by continuing to run the site that police enabled crimes which otherwise might not have been possible.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  That's up to law enforcement to figure out. It's none of our business. We live in a society with rules, and laws. We can't have law enforcement, or anyone breaking laws to catch a criminal. We were suspose to be following the constitution, or at least using it as a guide. That's what makes law enforcement challenging. I would rather have law enforcement make arrests without breaking laws themselfs. I don't even like RICO statues. I think they took the easy way out. Law enforcement is paid by taxpayers to catch criminals without taking shortcuts. It should even be a grey area. It should be black and white. For as long as I can remember, sadly they have taken the easy way, and stomped on the constitution. Every state has differnt statues. I never liked it. Every time I get pulled over for driving past 11:59 p.m. on a Friday; I'm reminded how inefficient, or law breaking---law enforcement is, or just lazy. Yes--just lazy.
Alex3917 10y ago
In some states the cops are legally allowed to rape people. C.f.: http://time.com/38444/hawaii-police-prostitutes-sex/ http://time.com/38444/hawaii-police-prostitutes-sex/
- qz_ 10y ago
  > hawaii police prostitutes sex Now that's a headline I can get behind
- mnx 10y ago
  My reading is that they are legally allowed to have sex, not rape. Whether that has led to abuses is a serious issue, but saying "legally allowed to rape" is misleading.
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    They're allowed to have sex with sex trafficking victims who have been kidnapped and are being held hostage. I don't see how calling that legal rape is misleading.
    - mnx 10y ago
      The article doesn't mention that, but you are right.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but they weren't 'legally' allowed to do this (iow it was still a crime), they were just immune from prosecution.
  - joering2 10y ago
    ... and at the end of the day -- what's the difference?? edit: second thought: I don't think it matters if something is done illegally, unless there is some penalty attached to it, no?
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
I was under the impression, at least in the case of drugs, that they do actually provide them. Although maybe that's only in cases of deep cover infiltration, rather than the eventual sting per se.

foobarbecue 10y ago

It's a little bit like that in certain ways, but it's certainly not the same. They simply didn't turn off the servers immediately after gaining control of them.

namecast 10y ago

That depends: do they typically bust the buyers after they've bought real drugs and already used them? It's all fake bags of white powder that never get used, yeah? For me this sort of hinges on whether actual child pornography was distributed (and then, i imagine, consumed and re-distributed by pedophiles) in the name of making a bust.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I mean, I think some real drugs get sold, but usually its selling stuff from the evidence locker and busting buyers before they can use it. There's no real equivalent to "after the sale, before the harm is done" in a case like this.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  There's also a difference between compromising pictures of real people and non-identifiable non-human bags of powder. Bags of cocaine don't have dignity that the law should be striving to protect.