Is This Wrong?

FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects

I was browsing the other day and saw that headline. Clicking on it and reading the article I found myself torn.

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.

That seems awful Orwellian, doesn't it? Sort of a "thought crime" type of justice?

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.

I'm sorry for quoting so much of the article, but I think its important to get an idea of what happened here. Mr Vosburgh was charged and convicted of attempting to download child pornography and while I agree that child pornography is heinous and perpetrators of such activities should be punished to the full extent of the law, there still seems something wrong with law enforcement enticing people to commit a crime and then arresting them when they do so.

Its like trying to get out of a marriage by hiring someone to seduce your spouse and then accusing them of being unfaithful. Yes they strayed, but would they have done so had not the temptation been thrown at them?

On the other hand, one might say that the means justifies the ends: a person who encourages child pornography to be made by being a consumer of it is now in jail so the end result is worth the questionable tactics. And its hard to argue with that because its such a terrible crime.

But are we in a slippery slope situation? Would the same tactics be OK to catch, say, a tax evader? Well probably not because most laws are not worded to be against the "attempt" to do something unlike "attempts" to download child pornography.

But let's say someone takes that fake link to a government server and emails it to people without explanation of what it supposedly leads to? And they click on it, see static, and shrug and go about their business only to be a victim of a dawn raid the next day by the FBI and police? Their good named drawn through the mud because the government thinks they are trying to download child pornography, and neighbours looking aghast at them even after their named is cleared when their computer and home is torn apart looking for more evidence. Its a scary scenario but completely possible.

Or perhaps they are using an unsecured wireless network and their IP address shows up in the server logs while its their neighbour borrowing a ride on their connection? Even though the innocent will most likely be found innocent, is the possible destruction of their good name justified by the capture and conviction of actual attempters of child pornography downloads.

As you can see, I'm torn. While fighting child porn at every turn is important, I don't like much the idea of enticing people to commit crimes in order to do so. It just feels wrong, dishonest... or maybe just unrighteous. But maybe its worth it.