6 ms·

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? I

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.
        kasdaskdqwe 11y ago
        Crossposting to reddit.com/r/iamverysmart
        NullCharacter 11y ago
        And be sure to link me the post please.
        logfromblammo 11y ago
        > The laws are created and managed by people put into power by the governed. I see from the apparent sincerity behind your comment that I have lived in Chicago, and you have not. The way the system works is that you vote, the government pretends to care what you think, and it continues to do whatever the hell it was doing as before, only with minor tweaks to its public relations budget. It's still better than the alternative, which is an armed regime controlling your life without pretending to care what you think. Libertarian fantasies notwithstanding, most people need to join an armed cartel in order to realize a better quality of life, and no one really benefits from whitewashing over that. The real world reads Machiavelli, a Modern Approach, and the politics of money, fear, and control are now very nearly perfected. It works "pretty well" only for a minority of wealthy backers. It's very easy to find someone faring worse than you under the prevailing political system. In 4000 years, the mechanics of human political power structures have remained largely unchanged, while technology has improved by many orders of magnitude.
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

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.
        kasdaskdqwe 11y ago
        Crossposting to reddit.com/r/iamverysmart
        NullCharacter 11y ago
        And be sure to link me the post please.
        logfromblammo 11y ago
        > The laws are created and managed by people put into power by the governed. I see from the apparent sincerity behind your comment that I have lived in Chicago, and you have not. The way the system works is that you vote, the government pretends to care what you think, and it continues to do whatever the hell it was doing as before, only with minor tweaks to its public relations budget. It's still better than the alternative, which is an armed regime controlling your life without pretending to care what you think. Libertarian fantasies notwithstanding, most people need to join an armed cartel in order to realize a better quality of life, and no one really benefits from whitewashing over that. The real world reads Machiavelli, a Modern Approach, and the politics of money, fear, and control are now very nearly perfected. It works "pretty well" only for a minority of wealthy backers. It's very easy to find someone faring worse than you under the prevailing political system. In 4000 years, the mechanics of human political power structures have remained largely unchanged, while technology has improved by many orders of magnitude.

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