6 ms·

"The setup was seized in February 2015, but law enforcement allowed it to run for two additional weeks as a way to monitor its nearly 215,000 users." So the FB

by dkopi 11y ago

"The setup was seized in February 2015, but law enforcement allowed it to run for two additional weeks as a way to monitor its nearly 215,000 users." So the FBI was serving child porn for over 2 weeks to hundreds of thousands of users?

awjr 11y ago
Isn't this similar to allowing small time drug dealers to operate to get to the people at the top?
- syoc 11y ago
  No. It's similar to FBI agents selling drugs themselves for two weeks and then bust everyone buying from them.
  - rasz_pl 11y ago
    or ATF selling guns directly to crimina...oh, wait
- mikekchar 11y ago
  While I'm sure that's the rationale, I wonder if there is a difference. If the FBI seized drugs and then continued to sell them, isn't that against the law? If the FBI seized a computer and used to to distribute child porn wouldn't that also be against the law? I can see not seizing it and allowing the original operators to continue for 2 weeks. Does the FBI operate under different laws? For example, if I know my neighbour is hosting child porn on their computer and I wait 2 weeks to report them, probably I'm safe. If take his computer and host the files on the same machine for 2 weeks before handing it over to the police, I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested. What law is different for the FBI to be able to do that (if they did)?
  - liviu- 11y ago
    > If take his computer and host the files on the same machine for 2 weeks before handing it over to the police Your example is different as you haven't gotten approval from the law enforcement authorities, like they claim to have gotten in the GP's quote. I'm sure that if you ask before acting upon it your chances of being arrested are a lot lower, and although they would probably revoke your request, they might allow someone else more apt for this (e.g. FBI)
    - mikekchar 11y ago
      Not trying to be snarky, but I hope the justice system doesn't work so that to break the law all I have to do is get permission from the police... What I would like to know is what law allows them to make this kind of decision.
      - escherize 11y ago
        The government has guns and is allowed to use them morally. You aren't.
        ChristianBundy 11y ago
        > The government has guns and is allowed to use them.
        logfromblammo 11y ago
        Allowed by whom? The government. Ah. Well, I guess if it gives itself permission, that's okay then. We wouldn't want them to need consent of the governed or anything. They might say no!
        NullCharacter 11y ago
        Cute cynicism, but you elect representatives who in turn appoint people to positions of authority. That's how this works. The laws are created and managed by people put into power by the governed. I understand that may go against your Freshman sociology 101 libertarian mantra, but the real world has already sorted this out and it tends to work pretty well.
  - swombat 11y ago
    I think there is a pretty strong case that those are different. In the case of selling drugs (assuming that drugs are harmful, and so on, which is obviously debatable), then selling and delivering the drugs to users causes tangible harm that wouldn't happen without the sale of the drug. In the case of child porn, the child porn has presumably already been created - they're not filming new child porn and distributing that, I presume. So the bulk of the harm is already done. The direct harm from pedophiles downloading that porn and viewing it is minimal. The problem with the child porn is that it needs to be filmed/created in the first place, which involves child abuse, a direct and immediate harm, and that people who enjoy child porn are asserted to eventually graduate to abusing children themselves (a more distant and hypothetical harm, which is negated by arresting those people after having identified them). So, whilst I also dislike the police's actions in corrupting tools useful for free speech, I don't see that letting the server run for another two weeks to identify more users, and actively selling and distributing drugs for two weeks, are equivalent.
    - couchand 11y ago
      You're right that it may not be morally equivalent, but that's not really relevant to the legal analysis. Possessing and distributing child porn is a crime, regardless of whether you believe it directly causes harm. So the grandparent's question remains: Does the FBI operate under different laws?
      - atrus 11y ago
        Should a cop get a ticket for chasing a speeder?
        psykovsky 11y ago
        Yes. If the speeder is endangering people by driving fast so is the cop.
        swombat 11y ago
        I see, so in that case I guess prison guards should be sent to jail for kidnapping and holding people against their will. I mean, if you're going to take your reasoning to its natural conclusion... Hint: violence is not illegal per aw, it's only illegal when done by someone other than the state, in a way that violates the laws of the land. To exist, a state must maintain a monopoly on violence - and in order to maintain that monopoly it must from time to time use or at least threaten violence. At least, that's how it works today. Perhaps in the future that will change...
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    The FBI guidelines for undercover activity, including a specific discussions of permissions required to undertake criminal activity, and which activities are not allowed, are covered here: http://www.justice.gov/ag/undercover-and-sensitive-operations-unit-attorney-generals-guidelines-fbi-undercover-operations#approval http://www.justice.gov/ag/undercover-and-sensitive-operation... #GIYF
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  Or even big time drug dealers: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sin...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  No, because drug dealers are not directly harming people and they are running it. It would be like a murderer being given aid to murder more people while they go after the people at the top. Which is horrendous. And which, if I remember correctly, has happened.
danieltillett 11y ago
I am wow that there were 215,000 users! How many of these people have been charged?
- okasaki 11y ago
  The authorities have a tendency of being creative with numbers. It could mean anything really. Maybe they received 215k GET requests.
thefreeman 11y ago
Do you really have a problem with that? They didnt make the porn. It's not like removing it would prevent it from being made in the first place. They were capturing information on additional pedophiles. In what world are you trying to frame that as wrong.
- dkopi 11y ago
  Do the ends justify the means? If you're okay with the FBI running a child porn server, are you okay with the FBI creating a child porn server? How about the FBI creating its own child porn, just to catch pedophiles? How about the FBI selling drugs just to catch drug users?
  - neotek 11y ago
    Your slippery slope is ludicrous, like when homophobes insist gay marriage will lead to people being allowed to marry their pets.
  - thefreeman 11y ago
    You are grasping at straws. Yes I am OK with the FBI temporarily leaving a child porn server up to capture more pedophiles. No I am not OK with the FBI creating child porn. Use your brain. These aren't even close to the same thing.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Yet the whole reason it is illegal to possess is because possession is considered a direct act of harm against a child comparable to (though not as severe as) production.
- emergentcypher 11y ago
  It doesn't matter who made it. We consider distributing it to be a horrendous crime and yet here's the FBI, distributing it. Next you'll say that the FBI should be commissioning terrorist attacks in order to bring in more terrorists. Oh, wait...
- 11y ago

by dkopi 11y ago

awjr 11y ago

Isn't this similar to allowing small time drug dealers to operate to get to the people at the top?

syoc 11y ago
No. It's similar to FBI agents selling drugs themselves for two weeks and then bust everyone buying from them.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  or ATF selling guns directly to crimina...oh, wait
mikekchar 11y ago
While I'm sure that's the rationale, I wonder if there is a difference. If the FBI seized drugs and then continued to sell them, isn't that against the law? If the FBI seized a computer and used to to distribute child porn wouldn't that also be against the law? I can see not seizing it and allowing the original operators to continue for 2 weeks. Does the FBI operate under different laws? For example, if I know my neighbour is hosting child porn on their computer and I wait 2 weeks to report them, probably I'm safe. If take his computer and host the files on the same machine for 2 weeks before handing it over to the police, I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested. What law is different for the FBI to be able to do that (if they did)?
- liviu- 11y ago
  > If take his computer and host the files on the same machine for 2 weeks before handing it over to the police Your example is different as you haven't gotten approval from the law enforcement authorities, like they claim to have gotten in the GP's quote. I'm sure that if you ask before acting upon it your chances of being arrested are a lot lower, and although they would probably revoke your request, they might allow someone else more apt for this (e.g. FBI)
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    Not trying to be snarky, but I hope the justice system doesn't work so that to break the law all I have to do is get permission from the police... What I would like to know is what law allows them to make this kind of decision.
    - escherize 11y ago
      The government has guns and is allowed to use them morally. You aren't.
      - ChristianBundy 11y ago
        > The government has guns and is allowed to use them.
        logfromblammo 11y ago
        Allowed by whom? The government. Ah. Well, I guess if it gives itself permission, that's okay then. We wouldn't want them to need consent of the governed or anything. They might say no!
        NullCharacter 11y ago
        Cute cynicism, but you elect representatives who in turn appoint people to positions of authority. That's how this works. The laws are created and managed by people put into power by the governed. I understand that may go against your Freshman sociology 101 libertarian mantra, but the real world has already sorted this out and it tends to work pretty well.
- swombat 11y ago
  I think there is a pretty strong case that those are different. In the case of selling drugs (assuming that drugs are harmful, and so on, which is obviously debatable), then selling and delivering the drugs to users causes tangible harm that wouldn't happen without the sale of the drug. In the case of child porn, the child porn has presumably already been created - they're not filming new child porn and distributing that, I presume. So the bulk of the harm is already done. The direct harm from pedophiles downloading that porn and viewing it is minimal. The problem with the child porn is that it needs to be filmed/created in the first place, which involves child abuse, a direct and immediate harm, and that people who enjoy child porn are asserted to eventually graduate to abusing children themselves (a more distant and hypothetical harm, which is negated by arresting those people after having identified them). So, whilst I also dislike the police's actions in corrupting tools useful for free speech, I don't see that letting the server run for another two weeks to identify more users, and actively selling and distributing drugs for two weeks, are equivalent.
  - couchand 11y ago
    You're right that it may not be morally equivalent, but that's not really relevant to the legal analysis. Possessing and distributing child porn is a crime, regardless of whether you believe it directly causes harm. So the grandparent's question remains: Does the FBI operate under different laws?
    - atrus 11y ago
      Should a cop get a ticket for chasing a speeder?
      - psykovsky 11y ago
        Yes. If the speeder is endangering people by driving fast so is the cop.
        swombat 11y ago
        I see, so in that case I guess prison guards should be sent to jail for kidnapping and holding people against their will. I mean, if you're going to take your reasoning to its natural conclusion... Hint: violence is not illegal per aw, it's only illegal when done by someone other than the state, in a way that violates the laws of the land. To exist, a state must maintain a monopoly on violence - and in order to maintain that monopoly it must from time to time use or at least threaten violence. At least, that's how it works today. Perhaps in the future that will change...
- URSpider94 11y ago
  The FBI guidelines for undercover activity, including a specific discussions of permissions required to undertake criminal activity, and which activities are not allowed, are covered here: http://www.justice.gov/ag/undercover-and-sensitive-operations-unit-attorney-generals-guidelines-fbi-undercover-operations#approval http://www.justice.gov/ag/undercover-and-sensitive-operation... #GIYF
higherpurpose 11y ago
Or even big time drug dealers: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sin...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
No, because drug dealers are not directly harming people and they are running it. It would be like a murderer being given aid to murder more people while they go after the people at the top. Which is horrendous. And which, if I remember correctly, has happened.

danieltillett 11y ago

I am wow that there were 215,000 users! How many of these people have been charged?

okasaki 11y ago
The authorities have a tendency of being creative with numbers. It could mean anything really. Maybe they received 215k GET requests.

thefreeman 11y ago

Do you really have a problem with that? They didnt make the porn. It's not like removing it would prevent it from being made in the first place. They were capturing information on additional pedophiles. In what world are you trying to frame that as wrong.

dkopi 11y ago
Do the ends justify the means? If you're okay with the FBI running a child porn server, are you okay with the FBI creating a child porn server? How about the FBI creating its own child porn, just to catch pedophiles? How about the FBI selling drugs just to catch drug users?
- neotek 11y ago
  Your slippery slope is ludicrous, like when homophobes insist gay marriage will lead to people being allowed to marry their pets.
- thefreeman 11y ago
  You are grasping at straws. Yes I am OK with the FBI temporarily leaving a child porn server up to capture more pedophiles. No I am not OK with the FBI creating child porn. Use your brain. These aren't even close to the same thing.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Yet the whole reason it is illegal to possess is because possession is considered a direct act of harm against a child comparable to (though not as severe as) production.
emergentcypher 11y ago
It doesn't matter who made it. We consider distributing it to be a horrendous crime and yet here's the FBI, distributing it. Next you'll say that the FBI should be commissioning terrorist attacks in order to bring in more terrorists. Oh, wait...
11y ago