3 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
  I 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 ago
I 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.

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 ago
I 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 ago

I 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.