5 ms·
This is less like a drug or prostitution sting where the mark is arrested before the contraband can be consumed, and more like a hired hitman sting where the vi
by Zuider 10y ago
This is less like a drug or prostitution sting where the mark is arrested before the contraband can be consumed, and more like a hired hitman sting where the victim is actually murdered.
From a moral point of view, Child pornography is de-ontologically wrong. Nothing can justify its existence. Even if such a sting managed to shut down the entire industry, it would be moot to attempt to argue for its moral goodness in consequentialist terms.
The FBI could have used other means to establish criminal intent in the visitors to the websites along with the fact that they had used Tor to search out and visit those websites in the first place. They could have made prospective viewers engage in a series of incriminating acts such as requiring them follow a series of links with the promise of finding the material, or making them refresh the page. There was no need to provide the actual offensive material in order to make a solid case.
- corecoder 10y ago> They could have made prospective viewers engage in a series of incriminating acts such as requiring them follow a series of links with the promise of finding the material, or making them refresh the page. I find this part very interesting: is this well established, that is, is it clear before the law which acts are surely incriminating? Is clicking on a link enough to establish intent?
- adventured 10y ago> Is clicking on a link enough to establish intent? Legally no it's not, that's a very weak binding and they know it. That's why any type of sting - whether cp or other - will attempt to get the user to sign-up, view content, or otherwise willfully provide personal information (eg a credit card).
- clifanatic 10y agoI seem to recall that it was enough to get those "catch a predator" TV show guys: the fact that they showed up at a specific location was enough to get them successfully prosecuted.
- Zuider 10y agoI wonder how one would establish a calculus of intent in such a situation? It would have to be established that the accused was fully intent on the end goal and was of the belief that the steps taken would facilitate achieving that end goal. It seems intuitive that each successive deliberate step would compound, and even double the certainty of guilt. More steps, more certainty. In this context, the first three steps would already have been taken. Firstly to acquire the Tor browser in order to hide one's identity, secondly, to learn how to search the darknet, thirdly, to have searched out and visited such sites. At this stage, the FBI apparently short circuited the process by providing the actual material, the viewing of which is a crime in itself. Further steps could consist of following clearly labeled links, clicking on thumbnail images whose import was clear, even if they were blurred. This would show knowledge, and to a lesser degree, intent. Intent could be established by sending the perpetrator on a fool's errand of repeatedly following links and thumbnails without ever achieving their goal.
- hx87 10y ago> From a moral point of view, Child pornography is de-ontologically wrong. From your point of view. You can't make an argument by just rejecting an entire perspective in moral philosophy. Otherwise I'd be equally right in flat out rejecting deontology.
- Zuider 10y agoI don't reject the consequentialist perspective. I believe that de-ontological and consequentialist positions can be both validly used, and even that if they clash in their implications, one perspective can take precedence over the other. For instance, although Kant held that lying is wrong from a de-ontological perspective, telling a lie would certainly be the right thing to do to protect someone from being murdered. Consequentialist reasoning prevails here. The moral question here is whether the FBI did the right thing in allowing the compromised websites to continue in operation. There has been some interesting discussion on this point. I think that they shouldn't have, and furthermore, that they did not even need to do so in order to achieve a conviction.
- lambertsimnel 10y agoHow do you determine which position prevails? Is there a moral theory of everything?
- Zuider 10y agoI don't know if there is, or can be a general theory of morality, but that does not preclude the possibility that there may exist special cases that offer clear resolution, or that, even though we lack a general theory, there may be enough understood and agreed upon to live by. For instance, it is clearly moral to lie to a psychopathic killer in order to prevent a murder.
- hx87 10y agoHow do you determine which system of morality prevails in this particular case? Your intuition might tell you that deontology is the dominant mode here, but my intuition tells me the opposite.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoSomehow in the context of the surveillance state I find myself arguing in favor of the FBI, but here goes: Child abuse is the least defensible crime that could exist. As such, CP rings tend to be understandably paranoid and risk-averse. If anything appears to give the impression that they are being monitored, you can say goodbye to the arrest of another monster lurking in the shadows. That's why it's necessary to sting as many people at a time when the authorities get their chance, because once the window closes, anyone who gets away can either go off the grid or distribute in another ring, perpetuating their crime and thereby increasing demand for CP. It's pretty ugly to think about a federal agency knowingly distributing child pornography. I often wonder what kinds of psychological effects it has on the Bureau's agents. But child abuse is a horrible thing, and it is difficult to consider anything but the swift and absolute elimination (arrest and elimination from the network, not execution) of producers, distributors, and the abusers themselves.