This is an interesting article.
From Declan McCullagh’s posting today over on CNet:
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.
Read the full article.
If the link says child porn here, then by clicking it, you are saying, Yes I want to see child porn.
And what is the FBI supposed to do? Make the link a actual working link to real child porn?
Give me a break!
@Doug
Sweet (insert deity) no! Of course I know you’re joking but, ponder it like this. What if some smartass sent out a spam message with “buy cheap penicillin” and a link to some twisted site (yes, I’m reaching) but, then 10% of the audience click on one of these links. Are they guilty of attempting to download?
What if there are four adults living in the same home all sharing one computer and one of them accidentally click on the link due to spam. How are the FBI going to find out which one did it if all users didn’t know who did it? And do it really bother to arrest someone who accidentally click on it due to spam. If I say one thing the FBI needs to worry about, it’s getting rid of the spammers, not the users. In this generation we had more spammers online than we had users and now the FBI themselves are turning into spammers but in a more cowardly stupid way.