FBI let alleged pedo walk free rather than explain how they snared him In a surprising and worrying move, the FBI has dropped its case against a man accused of downloading child sex abuse images, rather than reveal details about how they caught him. Jay Michaud, a middle school teacher in Vancouver, Washington, was arrested in July last year after visiting the Playpen, a dark web meeting place …
And on a related note, the proper legal term in the US is child pornography. Not "child sex abuse images", which is just propaganda. It's entirely possible for an image to be child pornography without depicting any kind of abuse. A certain class of selfies popular with teens these days would be the most obvious example.
"It's entirely possible for an image to be child pornography without depicting any kind of abuse."
I've heard of cases where people have been done for junk mail in their letter box containing pictures of childrens clothing or fully clothed children, tho how much is urban myth and how much is reality I cannot say. If some of what I have haerd is true images can be considered child porn without even containing children.
I've heard of cases where people have been done for junk mail in their letter box containing pictures of childrens clothing or fully clothed children, tho how much is urban myth and how much is reality I cannot say.
The UK has laws on this topic that seem to be specifically designed for entrapment.
The mere fact that you have such images in your possession is enough, so if you send a USB stick to someone and then tip off the police anonymously is enough to have this person arrested as the police is focused on proving guilt, not finding any reasons for innocence.
People doing this to their business competitors or political rivals stand a good chance of making that work or cause at least a good 2 years of misery for the recipient and family while PC Plod "investigates" and the case makes its way to a date in court (people under investigation are no longer allowed near their own children without 3rd party supervision and are generally barred for any work with children like football clubs etc).
It's a vile trade, but UK laws seem to be designed to allow 3rd parties to use it to further their own agenda which raises questions about the motivation of having it on the books with so few safeguards against abuse.
"Virginia Roberts Affidavit" a teen diary of Randy Prince Andy at Orgy Island....
FBI is less concerned with disclosing methods than discovery of selective enforcement.
The power structure is pedo based, "Where is Eric Braverman" series on YouTube....
cause at least a good 2 years of misery for the recipient and family while PC Plod "investigates" and the case makes its way to a date in court (people under investigation are no longer allowed near their own children without 3rd party supervision
Op ORE is a good example of Plod blackmailing people to plead guilty AND subsequently end their own lives when Plod publicise them despite assurances against it
regarding 'entrapment' etc.
I once received spam mail with an attached photo of a kid and the lower half of a naked male with what appeared to be "something pornographic" on the kid's face, obviously meant to represent something specific, and the kid was fully clothed. Someone online suggested it was probably photoshopped and that they used Pina colada for the 'visual effect', to skirt the child pornography laws. Still, something like that isn't welcome in your e-mail inbox...
I still submitted it (with headers) to an FBI online 'reporting' web site (probably ifccfbi.gov or similar)
there have also been frequent-enough cases where an image site gets a brief upload of such material, maybe 5 or 10 minutes before it's taken down. that's when you go to your intarweb cache and purge, purge, purge. can't do much about the need for 'brain bleach' though.
on a lighter note...
"the admission that the FBI had been distributing such images and videos online troubled many"
Sorta like "Fast and Furious" without the guns
Also, in certain jurisdictions, for reason I can't comprehend, even cartoons can be classified as "Child pornography" by the law...
Anyways, this case will just lead to the Feds applying the good old art of Parallel Construction universally in the future.
"Also, in certain jurisdictions, for reason I can't comprehend, even cartoons can be classified as 'Child pornography' by the law..."
which is assinine, because NOW it's just "moral police" and not protecting actual children from exploitation...
which, of course, is why child porn is illegal, because actual CHILDREN were victimized in its production. [sane laws would focus on THAT aspect alone, and leave the rest out of it]
Having the misfortune to be born in America does not excuse illiteracy. The word is derived from the greek παῖς • (paîs) m, f (genitive παιδός);, (not to be confused with the Welsh pais=petticoat) and traditionally in real English was spelt pædo-whatever. Pedo-philia sounds like one of those odd Latin/Greek hybrids like tele-vision.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Especially if the zero day is not yours and you bought it.
My (educated) guess would be that they bought the zeroday from Alisa Shevchenko's company or another person/company under an embargo order. Either that or bought it from criminals on the same darknet they were supposed to investigate.
So revealing the zero-day would result in them being in clear violation of a presidential Embargo order - trading with a prohibited person/company or trading with criminals.
... have to let this one go, because if we say how we got him, we might jeapordise future investigations'.
Time passes.
Future investigations are, um, investigated.
'We, um, have to let this one go, because if we say how we got him, we might jeapordise future investigations.'
What's wrong with this picture? To me, pretty much everything. The Bad People don't get put away, and the Bad Things keep happening. So what if telling folk how you got the evidence _does_ increase the chance the Bad People won't fall for it next time? At least _some_ Bad People get put away.
Yes, I know. Bigger fish to fry and all that. But if you know you won;t wan t to put your evidence on the table, don;t bother prosecuting. And if you're not in the business of prosecuting? Get off my bloody law-enforcement lawn!
I know. I'm an Idiot... sigh.
"So what if telling folk how you got the evidence _does_ increase the chance the Bad People won't fall for it next time?"
I think the concern in this case - and the stingray cases - is that the evidence was obtained illegally.
I've been wondering lately - well, actually, for a long time - if the FBI is a criminal enterprise at its core.
How many scandals with their labs falsifying forensic evidence and committing perjury in court? And agents working with the mob? Its always something.
Maybe a long overdue housecleaning is on its way....
Or maybe not.
> ... have to let this one go, because if we say how we got him, we might jeapordise future investigations'.
Or 'on-going' investigations. The FBI may have a major investigation underway (not necessarily a paedophile case but something else that uses ToR) and they don't want to take the risk that disclosing the details of the NIT would allow criminals to check their PCs to see if they were under investigation as well.
It's all a bit what-if though. It's just as likely that the FBI decided that, in this case, he was a 'user' rather than a 'dealer' in paedophilia and there are bigger fish to fry.
"It's all a bit what-if though. It's just as likely that the FBI decided that, in this case, he was a 'user' rather than a 'dealer' in paedophilia and there are bigger fish to fry."
@2+2=5
I sincerely hope that you're wrong.
Because if you're right.... that suggests that the FBI is more concerned with those who host the sites and are generally in it for the money (read as FBI wants to "confiscate" the cash to support the next office party) as opposed to the "users" who are an actual real danger to children as they are the ones who are getting their rocks off to pics of underage kids and are likely to try it on for real.
"that suggests that the FBI is more concerned with those who host the sites and are generally in it for the money (read as FBI wants to "confiscate" the cash to support the next office party) as opposed to the "users" who are an actual real danger to children as they are the ones who are getting their rocks off to pics of underage kids and are likely to try it on for real."
Gotta ask 2 things. Is there any money in it? Coz I've heard that most of these sites are sharing sites like pirate bay only for even more evil shit.
And I also gotta ask if these people geting their rocks off are gonna do it? How many times have you watched a movie where lotsa people get killed? How many people have you killed? How many people view rape fantasy sites and other shit like that? How many of these people go on to watch that shit? How many of these guys would have the balls to even approach a kid? Do the images protect our kids after all?
> Do the images protect our kids after all?
One thing is certain. Unless the images are cartoon/CGI then one or more real children have been abused and exploited to make it. Stamping out the incentive to create images like that will protect children other than mine, and that's a fine objective, right there.
Unless the images are cartoon/CGI
Under UK Law, even cartoon porn images are illegal. As are images of people well above the age of consent dressed up as children in a pornographic setting. Yes, we have totally bollocksed laws.
Stamping out the incentive to create images like that will protect children
There are two assumptions in that single sentence; that such prosecutions will have any impact whatsoever on the incentive, and that reducing the supply of images will prevent further abuse.
I don't think we have any data on the first - although it can be shown that, in situations like drug use, a relaxation of the law can show a decrease in use, I don't think that sort of study is applicable here. In short - we can't know.
But as to the latter - child abuse has been with us for millennia[1], so it's unlikely that we'll actually be able to stop it. There is an argument that says that a paedophile getting his rocks off to an image of an abused child is one that's not actively abusing another child; if this is the case - and I've not looked for studies so I don't know - then reducing the supply of images is actually likely to cause increased future abuse.
And that's the trouble with getting too emotional over various sorts of crime; although we'd obviously all like child abuse to stop forever, picking remedies because they "feel right" can often make the problem worse rather than better. It's entirely possible that the real solution is public dismemberment of anyone actually caught abusing children[2], but possession of child pornography be permitted to those who have registered themselves as being at risk of committing such an offence.
Or matbe it's something else entirely. Without objective studies, we'll probably never know.
Vic.
[1] My old classics teacher told us that the Ancient Greeks believed women were for procreation, boys for recreation.
[2] It concerns me significantly that copying an image - by, for example,downloading it from the Internet - is considered "creating an image" under UK law, and so is punished in a similar fashion to actually holding the camera whilst a child is being abused.
Or 'on-going' investigations. The FBI may have a major investigation underway (not necessarily a paedophile case but something else that uses ToR) and they don't want to take the risk that disclosing the details of the NIT would allow criminals to check their PCs to see if they were under investigation as well.
Is there a statute of limitations on child-sex crimes? Maybe it's easier to let him apparently go now and keep him under observation while they finish the ongoing investigations, then pick him up & charge him later, rather then risk blowing other cases now?
The Bad People don't get put away, and the Bad Things keep happening.
Actually, they don't have to convict or even really get into the trial. The alleged perp has been convicted in the court of public opinion just by being arrested and charged with the offense. The media grabs it and the next thing one knows is that their name is spread nationwide. Any potential employer who Googles them gets the full story. Friends, neighbors, etc. will shun them.
So reality is... they don't need to put them away or try them to ruin the alleged crim.
So reality is... they don't need to put them away or try them to ruin the alleged crim.
So, a faceless, powerful, non-transparent, poorly accountable organisation should be allowed to do this stuff? If the FBI have got code running on his computer, they could have put the stuff there themselves. Whilst that is unlikley, how much do you trust the FBI and in particular each and every one of its staff?
For the FBI as an institution it would be a very good way of silencing whistleblowers, wouldn't it? And for employees, a great way of abusing their position to exact revenge?
Trust the FBI? Right... about as far as I can toss them. J. Edgar didn't do their reputation any favors with many of the stunts he pulled but he did set the precedent. LEA's have been pulling this kind of stuff for a long time... and getting away with it. The War on Drugs is a good example also. where the cops planted evidence because they knew the person they planted it on was a bad person.
It's more than a bit scary.
This post has been deleted by its author
"So reality is... they don't need to put them away or try them to ruin the alleged crim."
So true. there's no coming back from even a weak accusation. Look at McMartin trials in the us and how long they had to fight for and how many believe they're guilty even now. All the proof of your innocence in the world doesn't heal the damage of one accusation.
"So reality is... they don't need to put them away or try them to ruin the alleged crim."
"Alleged" is a key word here. No conviction so in the eyes of the law he's innocent. I think we can expect the lawsuit to follow PDQ.
Investigation of crimes should be properly conducted so that the prosecution are able and willing to stand over their evidence.
"Alleged" is a key word here. No conviction so in the eyes of the law he's innocent.
Sure. But if all his friends and neighbours have been told of the investigation, are they going to think he's an innocent man, or are they going to decide that he;s a filthy paedo that got off on a technicality? That's not a sentence that is likely to end, either.
I think we can expect the lawsuit to follow PDQ.
That will probably be good for all of us - but is unlikely to help the defendant in question.
Vic.
>if you're not in the business of prosecuting? Get off my bloody law-enforcement lawn!
My guess would be that this is strategy, either hoping to get a judge to nod it through without them having to reveal or as a drip, drip, drip effect that they can use when they get around to asking to be officially allowed to not reveal the evidence. "See how many paedophiles we would have put away if it weren't for this pesky law saying we have to disclose the evidence!"
Hard cases make bad law.
Sure, on the face of it, the FBI dropping this case would seem to imply they would need to drop the 'future cases' they are trying to protect.
There are two likely explanations.
One is that they don't want to divulge the code as it would allow protections against vulnerabilities they are actively exploiting in a 'bigger' case. Therefore, they wouldn't be protecting themselves from scrutiny by refusing to release the code. (IF that's how it is . . . )
The other is that they are expecting to have laws made that prevent them having to disclose this information in the future - potentially using this case as a springboard: "unless we can circumvent due process, paedophiles will go free!".
Actually, whether the former is true or not, the latter is almost certainly on the cards. They've already got a nice bill waved through that allows them the 'right' to circumvent some of that due process - so far as warrants go.
Police everywhere seem to be fighting child porn and the distribution of images in the same manner as they do the distribution of drugs. In the case of the images they appear to concentrate their efforts on those who download the pictures for viewing. It's the same as going after the casual drug users. What they really need to be doing is going after the people who are creating the images. They are the ones truly hurting the children.
The FBI had control of a server and they go after the people who downloaded images. There was the opportunity to find out who uploaded them. Get those people and work up the chain until you find out who shot the photos. Then you lock them away for life. Make them fear for their freedom if they create child sex abuse images. They certainly don't feel that way now.
"Then you lock them away for life. Make them fear for their freedom if they create child sex abuse images. They certainly don't feel that way now."
Many places have long sentences or death penalty for murder. Many people still murder. Most people think they'll never be caught.
We need a better approach which treats the root cause of this and fixes them before they fuck up someones life, not after. And we need to make it so they're not afraid to come forward and get help before they do anything bad. I know if I felt that way towards kids I'd wanna hide it real deep coz no fucking way would I dare admit that in todays society!
I remember reading a BBC article about a German program (Project Dunkelfeld) that uses behavioral therapy to stop paedophiles from offending or re-offending.
(Found it: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33464970)
It remarks that in German there is patient confidentiality, but in the UK therapists must report admission of abuse. So in the UK, there'd be a smaller pool. Forget prison, I'd expect they'd be most afraid of ending up on the sex offenders' register.
"We need a better approach which treats the root cause of this and fixes them before they fuck up someones life, not after."
only a 'feel' solution is likely to come out of this line of thinking, which means more gummint, stupidER laws, and a whole lot of emotion and getting NOTHING accomplished. no thanks.
How about this: you punish criminals as HARD as you can, keep them out of peaceful society for as LONG as you can, and actually _ENFORCE_ death penalties without decades of "appeals" dragging it on indefinitely?
There is actual _EVIL_ in the world. There are people who will go out of their way to do criminal act to get money or pleasure [or whatever], even if their skills and intelligence could otherwise get them employed, eventually making MORE money than they'd get doing illegal crap, or else they have enough money to do LEGAL things rather than ILLEGAL ones.
I've known a couple of these *kinds* of people: an uncle, and a friend's brother. Both are dead, and you COULD say their own evil/selfish lifestyle contributed to a short lifespan, as well as outright victimizing others (or society in general) from time to time.
It's not society's fault, their parents' fault, or anybody ELSE's fault but their own. They, by their VERY NATURE, seek to do evil things without giving a crap about how much it hurts others (or society in general). Sometimes people call them 'sociopaths', or even 'psychopaths', but I have a better term: CRIMINALS. And you PUNISH criminals, get them away from the peaceful and orderly people, by INCARCERATING them for as LONG as you can legally do so.
Fixing the root cause of THAT can only be done by eliminating the aberrations (criminally-minded people) from the bell curve of human nature. Or, you can just lock them up and keep them away from potential victims, which generally works every time it's tried...
The problem is that a lot of these images could be hanging around now for 50 years or more. That would mean that the "creator" would probably be well past their 70's.
I would guess that content creation is quite low these days, so it is much easier to fight against those who consume this type of stuff and HOPE that someone who might be considering making content or even viewing it thinks to themselves "I am going to get caught".
It would be like taking down a drug baron. If you take down one guy that runs 20% of the US snort powder... The news can report about 1 guy... So if your a user you think, my chances of being that 1 guy is impossible - use away. See the thinking here?...
Honestly this type of honeytrap that was set up by them is wrong, as they become the dealers. Saying that, they have proof of who did visit so the guy should not be let off.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
