Rick Rolled+

[SphereOfFeetMan]

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-989915 ... g=nefd.pop

The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.

Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.

A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who's using an open wireless connection--and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.

Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.

Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes "attempts" to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.

The implications of the FBI's hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography--and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages. The bureau could register the "unlawfulimages.com" domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on.

"The evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Vosburgh specifically intended to download child pornography, a necessary element of any 'attempt' offense," Vosburgh's attorney, Anna Durbin of Ardmore, Penn., wrote in a court filing that is attempting to overturn the jury verdict before her client is sentenced.

In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, Durbin added: "I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they've brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this."

Durbin did not want to be interviewed more extensively about the case because it is still pending; she's waiting for U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage to rule on her motion. Unless he agrees with her and overturns the jury verdict, Vosburgh--who has no prior criminal record--will be required to register as a sex offender for 15 years and will be effectively barred from continuing his work as a college instructor after his prison sentence ends.

How the hyperlink sting operation worked
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical" activity.

In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic."

Some of the links, including the supposedly correct one, included the hostname uploader.sytes.net. Sytes.net is hosted by no-ip.com, which provides dynamic domain name service to customers for $15 a year.

When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.

With the logs revealing those allegedly incriminating IP addresses in hand, the FBI sent administrative subpoenas to the relevant Internet service provider to learn the identity of the person whose name was on the account--and then obtained search warrants for dawn raids.

The search warrants authorized FBI agents to seize and remove any "computer-related" equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any "addressed correspondence" sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements, and credit card statements.

While it might seem that merely clicking on a link wouldn't be enough to justify a search warrant, courts have ruled otherwise. On March 6, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Nevada agreed with a magistrate judge that the hyperlink-sting operation constituted sufficient probable cause to justify giving the FBI its search warrant.

The defendant in that case, Travis Carter, suggested that any of the neighbors could be using his wireless network. (The public defender's office even sent out an investigator who confirmed that dozens of homes were within Wi-Fi range.)

But the magistrate judge ruled that even the possibilities of spoofing or other users of an open Wi-Fi connection "would not have negated a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of child pornography would be found on the premises to be searched." Translated, that means the search warrant was valid.

Entrapment: Not a defense
So far, at least, attorneys defending the hyperlink-sting cases do not appear to have raised unlawful entrapment as a defense.

"Claims of entrapment have been made in similar cases, but usually do not get very far," said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "The individuals who chose to log into the FBI sites appear to have had no pressure put upon them by the government...It is doubtful that the individuals could claim the government made them do something they weren't predisposed to doing or that the government overreached."

The outcome may be different, Saltzburg said, if the FBI had tried to encourage people to click on the link by including misleading statements suggesting the videos were legal or approved.

In the case of Vosburgh, the college instructor who lived in Media, Penn., his attorney has been left to argue that "no reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vosburgh himself attempted to download child pornography."

Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal hyperlink; knowingly destroying a hard drive and a thumb drive by physically damaging them when the FBI agents were outside his home; obstructing an FBI investigation by destroying the devices; and possessing a hard drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible).

The judge threw out the third count and the jury found him not guilty of the second. But Vosburgh was convicted of the first and last counts, which included clicking on the FBI's illicit hyperlink.

In a legal brief filed on March 6, his attorney argued that the two thumbnails were in a hidden "thumbs.db" file automatically created by the Windows operating system. The brief said that there was no evidence that Vosburgh ever viewed the full-size images--which were not found on his hard drive--and the thumbnails could have been created by receiving an e-mail message, copying files, or innocently visiting a Web page.

From the FBI's perspective, clicking on the illicit hyperlink and having a thumbs.db file with illicit images are both serious crimes. Federal prosecutors wrote: "The jury found that defendant knew exactly what he was trying to obtain when he downloaded the hyperlinks on Agent Luder's Ranchi post. At trial, defendant suggested unrealistic, unlikely explanations as to how his computer was linked to the post. The jury saw through the smokes (sic) and mirrors, as should the court."

And, as for the two thumbnail images, prosecutors argued (note that under federal child pornography law, the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" does not require that sex acts take place):

The first image depicted a pre-pubescent girl, fully naked, standing on one leg while the other leg was fully extended leaning on a desk, exposing her genitalia... The other image depicted four pre-pubescent fully naked girls sitting on a couch, with their legs spread apart, exposing their genitalia. Viewing this image, the jury could reasonably conclude that the four girls were posed in unnatural positions and the focal point of this picture was on their genitalia.... And, based on all this evidence, the jury found that the images were of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and certainly did not require a crystal clear resolution that defendant now claims was necessary, yet lacking.

Prosecutors also highlighted the fact that Vosburgh visited the "loli-chan" site, which has in the past featured a teenage Webcam girl holding up provocative signs (but without any nudity).

Civil libertarians warn that anyone who clicks on a hyperlink advertising something illegal--perhaps found while Web browsing or received through e-mail--could face the same fate.

When asked what would stop the FBI from expanding its hyperlink sting operation, Harvey Silverglate, a longtime criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge, Mass. and author of a forthcoming book on the Justice Department, replied: "Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of 'entrapment,' and so expansive in their definition of 'probable cause,' there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit."

Emphasis mine. Somebody doesn't like you? Well then. They can just Rick Roll you right into that site.

[Crissa]

Holy crap.

That's so far into entrapment I'm not sure even how they get the warrants.

But that just goes to show you what 28 years of Republican judges will approve of... 'For the children'.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

This is like something from The Onion. Truth or not?
I'm not sure whether to laugh or stock up on armaments to fight my own government, because according to those definitions of a pedophile (having even glanced add 'loli-chan' porn accidentally, even once) they might as well raid me now.
...Along with a sizable chunk of all other internet users.

[Koumei]

I was going to say "I just saw the news video on that, here's the link" and provide a regular, non-entrapment Rickroll. But then I decided it'd be too obvious, and it's old. If the police are doing it, it's old.

[Draco_Argentum]

"The outcome may be different, Saltzburg said, if the FBI had tried to encourage people to click on the link by including misleading statements suggesting the videos were legal or approved. "

Doesn't sound like a Rick Roll unless "This is a link to a crap Rick Astley music video." counts as a Rick Roll.

[Edit]Tags[/Edit]

[SunTzuWarmaster]

It's the ultimate Rick Roll if you link to the FBI child porn site and the FBI come and break down the person's door. That's what the Rick Roll+ was referring to.

[Crissa]

Draco: The article stated that the FBI could not, did not, include trackback information.

In other words, they have no idea if he clicked on their hyperlink or a copy of it somewhere else. His computer would say, but apparently they didn't have that evidence in court.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Ah, missed that line. Hmm, wait till the /b/tards decide to pull this.

[Koumei]

I wouldn't be surprised if they already have, to be honest.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I wouldn't be surprised if they already have, to be honest.

Yeah, they have. And watch out if you're and exit node for Tor. There's a chance the FBI will be stealing every piece of electronic equipment you own. I mean, you probably won't be going to prison unless you're a pedo too, but a raid would still suck.

[Crissa]

Luckily, it depends upon which state you're in at the time - the feds still have to pull a local jury.

So I'm not as afraid of this out here in District 9, but... Other sections of the country may not be so lucky.

Where's that map of Dumbfuckistan when it's applicable?

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

[Koumei]

Yeah, they have. And watch out if you're and exit node for Tor. There's a chance the FBI will be stealing every piece of electronic equipment you own. I mean, you probably won't be going to prison unless you're a pedo too, but a raid would still suck.

Not that I'd ever click on something that promised/suggested child porn, but if I did get Rickrolled onto the site, or was an exit node for Tor, then I'm not sure what kind of authority the FBI even have over here in Australia. Assuming they even care enough to make the trip across the world, do they even have any of their regular FBI rights?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Not that I'd ever click on something that promised/suggested child porn, but if I did get Rickrolled onto the site, or was an exit node for Tor, then I'm not sure what kind of authority the FBI even have over here in Australia. Assuming they even care enough to make the trip across the world, do they even have any of their regular FBI rights?

I seem to recall a similar incident where some names were released to British law enforcement from an FBI 'sting'. Eventually a number of people were exonerated (mistaken identity, people with hacked networks or freeloaders), but by that point all of them had their lives ruined and at least one had committed suicide.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Also, keep in mind whatever the police seize is theres unless you pay ten grand for a hearing to get your stuff back.

Well, ten grand or 10% of what it's worth, whichever is more.

[JonSetanta]

Whew. I'm a mere hair-width of a state north from Dumbfuckistan.

I had a theory: if thousands of btards deliberately sought out the FBI trap links and viewed them, and not only thumbed noses and so on but RickRolled websites to redirect to those very same links, the population of so-called 'offenders' would become so vast that the whole fucktarded plan would eat itself.
At least, I hope.

So far, lately /b/ is just caught on that Japanese-speaking white girl on YouTube that has a series of videos where she just grins and google-eyes the camera and then waves goodbye. "Magibon" or something. Cute, nice boobs, but a little too autismsy, really.
And yet.. she has
Millions.
Of.
Viewers.

Millions.

[Crissa]

The current no-fly list contains over 900,000 individuals (not to mention homonyms and synonym names, as that's how it searches.)

Recently the state of California was sued because the state law (put in by initiative, IE, a vote by the people and not legislators) makes it illegal for anyone on the sex-offenders' list to live inside the city limits of San Francisco because there is no place not 1000m from a school, church, etc (there's about a dozen things on the list). The case has yet to be resolved.

It's a good idea, though, but it doesn't help the guys already caught.

-Crissa

[angelfromanotherpin]

The no-fly list is absolutely moronic, and not just in its implementation, but in its basic concept.. People considered clear dangers should be arrested - not inconvenienced. People not considered clear dangers should be left the hell alone. It's a punishment without a crime, unless you consider criticizing the Bush administration a crime, which is a factor for being put on the list.

[Koumei]

The other day I tried to argue that having public Health Care is really a good thing, and wanting it doesn't make you a communist, and how America could easily afford it if Bush didn't set trillions of dollars on fire on the failed war on drugs and randomly invading foreign countries.

Someone told me that thinking is what led to 9/11. And also that everything is in fact to blame on the Democrats before Bush.

9/11 is becoming the new Godwin's rule: someone will eventually use it to "prove" their point, and upon doing so, will instantly lose the debate.

Goddamn moronic Bush administration and their dumb ideas. "Your name is similar to that of someone else who doesn't like our chimpanz- I mean, our president. So you can't fly."

[SunTzuWarmaster]

The real thing that concerns me is how we take away the rights of "sexual offenders" ALL THE FREAKING TIME.

Really, these are people that committed a crime, then went to jail for it, then served time for it, and then got out. Then, after they have paid their debt to society, they can never be hired in certain places BY LAW, and other places are discouraged from doing so. In Texas, they are required to put a sign in front of their house, and are included the the national registry along with name, photo, and home address.

Then you get quotes like this coming out:
"The rights of children should always take precedence over the rights of offenders." - co-founder of the Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation

"If you commit a sex crime in Texas, you're considered an adult," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. Some 2,000 of the state's 35,000 sex offenders are juveniles, she said.

Really, 2 17 year olds having sex with each other brands them for life.

And the resistance to stick up for the rights of "sexual predators" is so sharp that it is absurd. A friend of mine had a sexual offender living down the street from him that was a stand-up guy. He lived in a house that he owned, and was a plumber/handyman by trade. He was 39 years old, but 20 years ago, when he was 19, he was dating a 17 year old girl (who had sex with him). After the relationship ended, she cried foul, and now he is life-branded. Bullshit. Really, just bullshit.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The big problem is laws that make no distinction between a young adult who had consensual sex with a slightly underage girlfriend vs. a predator who exploits prepubescent children. Or even in states that allow a judge to draw such a distinction (like Ohio), judges often put the most severe tag on the 19-year-old who had sex with a 17-year-old anyway.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I know I didn't mind being "raped" by my girlfriend.

[JonSetanta]

I know I didn't mind being "raped" by my girlfriend.

Or as mine says, "You can't rape the willing."

[angelfromanotherpin]

"Sir, did you rape that girl?"
"Man, I tried, but no matter how freaky I got, she refused to withhold consent."

[Crissa]

The law, however, used to be that you couldn't legally rape a spouse or girlfriend.

Ya know, because they consented when they accepted the guy's initial attentions.

-Crissa