For 12 days between February and March, 2014, the FBI was the worlds largest peddler of images and video depicting child sexual abuse on the internet.
In an attempt to catch criminals uploading, viewing, sharing and downloading these files, the US government authorized members of the FBI to run an operation Operation Pacifier of dubious legality to catch pedophiles visiting Playpen, the worlds largest child sexual abuse site.
There is something tawdry and sick about FBI agents peddling porn, says famed civil rights trial attorney Norm Pattis.
In speaking with attorneys about Operation Pacifier, I heard words like: shocking, disgusting, and vile; they werent talking about the pedophiles.
Playpen
Playpen launched in August of 2014 as a dark web site only accessible by The Onion Router, commonly known as TOR. Through use of TOR, users are able to access the Deep Web while routing web traffic around the world in an attempt to anonymize their browsing.
Its not foolproof, but its the best weapon a Web user has to remain anonymous online. And anonymity, when peeking into the darkest corners of the web, is paramount.
Due to the nature of the site in question, I didnt want to dig too far, but from FBI testimony on the topic, it contained files mainly images and video of some of the most extreme child abuse imagery one could imagine as well as advice on how sexual abusers could perpetrate their crimes without being caught.
For all intents and purposes, Playpen was amongst the darkest of the dark corners of the web.
Operation Pacifier
February 20, 2015 was an unremarkable day for Playpens users. At the surface, the site was operating as usual, but behind the scenes its server had been seized by FBI agents at a web host in North Carolina and moved to a secure government-controlled facility in Virgina.
No one noticed. And really, how could they?
For fear of raising suspicions amongst Playpens users, the FBI left the site fully operational while they sought a warrant to track users through what it refers to as network investigative techniques or NIT.
NIT, is a vague term for an exploit the FBI uses to gain access to a network or device. In this case, malware.
To be clear, fully operational means just that. For two weeks, users had the ability to upload new files, view existing images or video and communicate with other pedophiles. Basically, it was business as usual, only the FBI was piloting the ship.
From February 20 until March 4, 2015, the FBI continued to operate Playpen while infecting users computers with malware in hopes that it would lead to identifying information, such as an internet protocol (IP) address.
During its 12 day reign as the king of all child sexual abuse sites, the FBI garnered some 1,300 of these IP addresses.
Sting operations featuring Deep Web honeypots arent new to the FBI.
In 2011, the bureau used NIT albeit a different type of exploit on three hidden services (Deep Web websites) hosting lewd images and of minors. Users of these services were targeted through a Flash application that would ping a users real IP address back to an FBI-controlled server rather than routing the traffic through TOR, as intended.
But this operation, in comparison, was small potatoes in comparison to Pacifier. The FBI was only able to collect 25 IP addresses.
With Pacifier, the FBI went bigger. To catch a criminal, it seems, you have to become one. And thats exactly what the FBI did, at least according to the legal professionals involved in the case.
Was the operation legal?
First, its important to understand that what the FBI did resides very much in the grey area of our legal system. As much as I tried, securing a conclusive and concrete answer to the legality of the FBI running this type of site proved elusive.
New York attorney Joseph Potashnik informed me that in federal cases this kind of conduct by law enforcment is legal. He wasnt alone.
An attorney who preferred not to be named remarked that it was not only legal, but it was abused by the government on a regular basis in other cases hes tried, citing an officer that committed a *** act with a prostitute and then charged her with prostitution.
Oddly enough, he wasnt the only attorney to use that reference.
Others, like attorneys Mark McBride and Norm Pattis disagreed. According to McBride, who has defended these types of cases before, Its definitely not legal.
Attorney Christopher Eskew noted that it wasnt legal, but it wouldnt be a case the US government would prosecute.
In short, there isnt a clear answer as to the legality of what the FBI did. The agency did secure a warrant, but the warrant was strictly for the usage of the NIT, not running a lewd site disseminating explicit images and video of children.
Its not even clear if the federal judge that signed the warrant understood the scope of what he was authorizing.
A Motherboard piece detailed this exchange between Judge Robert J. Bryan and defense attorney Colin Fieman, who is representing one of the accused, Jay Michaud:While Judge Bryan didnt sign the warrant used to charge Michaud, it speaks to the complicated nature of understanding the scope of the malware under broad and vauge guidelines within its request.
There are several additional pages of transcripts that show Judge Bryan attempting to figure out just what this NIT is, and how it was going to be used.
All told, the court spent more than two hours on definitions and descriptions of NIT.
Lack of understanding aside, there are also issues with the warrant itself, most notably, jurisdiction.
Fieman, and Michauds other attorney, Linda Sullivan, argue that the warrant is limited to persons and property in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Keith Becker, an attorney for the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a hearing, that the warrant, clearly requested the authorities to deploy to computers wherever located.
Michauds attorneys then proceeded to call into question the legality of the sting operation itself, stating:
In this case, its easy to see that the need to catch a criminal overshadowed the FBIs desire to stop the flow of information, which arguably, is more important. Sullivan and Fieman argued that the harm caused by the dissemination of child sexual abuse images is summed up on the DOJs own website:
At this point, the only thing we can be clear about in terms of legality was that were really not sure, but it doesnt seem as if it matters whether the FBI broke any laws.
As Eskew put it, its highly unlikely the government would prosecute FBI agents.
Do the ends justify the means?
Leaving the attorneys and judges to decide legality, its much easier to debate whether the methods the FBI used to catch pedophiles justified the means.
No one would argue the benefit of apprehending those that are creating and distributing child sexual abuse images and video, but is it ever appropriate to display these images to pedophiles in an attempt to catch them?
Pattis eloquently states:
I spoke with both the FBI and DOJ regarding this matter. According to DOJ spokesperson, Peter Carr:
While it wasnt actively contributing to the cache of images, videos or links, the FBI was facilitating the practice for others who were doing just that. No matter where you stand on legality, this has to bring questions of morality to the table. Is not actively contributing enough to negate government responsibility in Operation Pacifier?
McBride doesnt think so, taking down 10 perverts does not outweigh the damages of even one image being disseminated.
Its hard to argue his logic. If capturing and releasing a sexually explicit image of a child is a crime against the victim, every time its viewed and passed on is akin to recommitting the crime, only this time with a new offender. McBride was unwavering in this belief.
In other sting operations, investigations have revolved around enticing users into registration through use of suggestive, but not explicit, images of minors.
Lets attempt to quanitfy the success of this operation.
Playpen had a total of 215,000 members. Operation Pacifier collected 1,300 unique IP addresses and led to 137 users charged, meaning, nearly 90 percent of those tracked were never charged with a crime nearly a year after the investigation concluded.
Whats not quantifiable is the reach of these images and just how much the governments operation, or the facilitation of pedophilia, did to benefit or damage child sexual abuse rings.
At the end of the day, you have to weigh the ends, 137 men charged, against the means, being complicit in the dissemination of sexually explicit imagery, and attempt to make a judgement call as to whether becoming a criminal is worth catching one.
Source:TNW
![218929.jpg](http://cdn.8bb.co/t/218929.jpg)
In an attempt to catch criminals uploading, viewing, sharing and downloading these files, the US government authorized members of the FBI to run an operation Operation Pacifier of dubious legality to catch pedophiles visiting Playpen, the worlds largest child sexual abuse site.
There is something tawdry and sick about FBI agents peddling porn, says famed civil rights trial attorney Norm Pattis.
In speaking with attorneys about Operation Pacifier, I heard words like: shocking, disgusting, and vile; they werent talking about the pedophiles.
Playpen
Playpen launched in August of 2014 as a dark web site only accessible by The Onion Router, commonly known as TOR. Through use of TOR, users are able to access the Deep Web while routing web traffic around the world in an attempt to anonymize their browsing.
Its not foolproof, but its the best weapon a Web user has to remain anonymous online. And anonymity, when peeking into the darkest corners of the web, is paramount.
Due to the nature of the site in question, I didnt want to dig too far, but from FBI testimony on the topic, it contained files mainly images and video of some of the most extreme child abuse imagery one could imagine as well as advice on how sexual abusers could perpetrate their crimes without being caught.
For all intents and purposes, Playpen was amongst the darkest of the dark corners of the web.
Operation Pacifier
February 20, 2015 was an unremarkable day for Playpens users. At the surface, the site was operating as usual, but behind the scenes its server had been seized by FBI agents at a web host in North Carolina and moved to a secure government-controlled facility in Virgina.
No one noticed. And really, how could they?
For fear of raising suspicions amongst Playpens users, the FBI left the site fully operational while they sought a warrant to track users through what it refers to as network investigative techniques or NIT.
NIT, is a vague term for an exploit the FBI uses to gain access to a network or device. In this case, malware.
To be clear, fully operational means just that. For two weeks, users had the ability to upload new files, view existing images or video and communicate with other pedophiles. Basically, it was business as usual, only the FBI was piloting the ship.
From February 20 until March 4, 2015, the FBI continued to operate Playpen while infecting users computers with malware in hopes that it would lead to identifying information, such as an internet protocol (IP) address.
During its 12 day reign as the king of all child sexual abuse sites, the FBI garnered some 1,300 of these IP addresses.
Sting operations featuring Deep Web honeypots arent new to the FBI.
In 2011, the bureau used NIT albeit a different type of exploit on three hidden services (Deep Web websites) hosting lewd images and of minors. Users of these services were targeted through a Flash application that would ping a users real IP address back to an FBI-controlled server rather than routing the traffic through TOR, as intended.
But this operation, in comparison, was small potatoes in comparison to Pacifier. The FBI was only able to collect 25 IP addresses.
With Pacifier, the FBI went bigger. To catch a criminal, it seems, you have to become one. And thats exactly what the FBI did, at least according to the legal professionals involved in the case.
Was the operation legal?
First, its important to understand that what the FBI did resides very much in the grey area of our legal system. As much as I tried, securing a conclusive and concrete answer to the legality of the FBI running this type of site proved elusive.
New York attorney Joseph Potashnik informed me that in federal cases this kind of conduct by law enforcment is legal. He wasnt alone.
An attorney who preferred not to be named remarked that it was not only legal, but it was abused by the government on a regular basis in other cases hes tried, citing an officer that committed a *** act with a prostitute and then charged her with prostitution.
Oddly enough, he wasnt the only attorney to use that reference.
Others, like attorneys Mark McBride and Norm Pattis disagreed. According to McBride, who has defended these types of cases before, Its definitely not legal.
Attorney Christopher Eskew noted that it wasnt legal, but it wouldnt be a case the US government would prosecute.
In short, there isnt a clear answer as to the legality of what the FBI did. The agency did secure a warrant, but the warrant was strictly for the usage of the NIT, not running a lewd site disseminating explicit images and video of children.
Its not even clear if the federal judge that signed the warrant understood the scope of what he was authorizing.
A Motherboard piece detailed this exchange between Judge Robert J. Bryan and defense attorney Colin Fieman, who is representing one of the accused, Jay Michaud:
Do the FBI experts have any way to look at the NIT information other than going to the server? Judge Bryan asked.
Your Honor, they dont go to the server, Colin Fieman, replied.
Where do they go? How do they get the information?
They get it from Mr. Michauds computer.
They dont have his computer.
Thats what the NIT is for, Fieman explained.
There are several additional pages of transcripts that show Judge Bryan attempting to figure out just what this NIT is, and how it was going to be used.
All told, the court spent more than two hours on definitions and descriptions of NIT.
Lack of understanding aside, there are also issues with the warrant itself, most notably, jurisdiction.
Fieman, and Michauds other attorney, Linda Sullivan, argue that the warrant is limited to persons and property in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Keith Becker, an attorney for the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a hearing, that the warrant, clearly requested the authorities to deploy to computers wherever located.
Michauds attorneys then proceeded to call into question the legality of the sting operation itself, stating:
There is no law enforcement exemption, or statutory exemption for the distribution of child *****graphy.
Once an image is on the Internet, it is irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever
As Eskew put it, its highly unlikely the government would prosecute FBI agents.
Do the ends justify the means?
Leaving the attorneys and judges to decide legality, its much easier to debate whether the methods the FBI used to catch pedophiles justified the means.
No one would argue the benefit of apprehending those that are creating and distributing child sexual abuse images and video, but is it ever appropriate to display these images to pedophiles in an attempt to catch them?
Pattis eloquently states:
They claim they do so to draw out defendants, and defeat the market for prohibited images, yet the demand for the images remains the same. Lawmen cant stamp out desire; they can only join the fray, becoming as twisted as the folks they prosecute.
While [shutting Playpen down] would end the trafficking of child *****graphy taking place on that one website, it would do nothing to prevent those same users from disseminating child *****graphy through other means At no time in an operation like this does the FBI post any images, videos, or links to images of child *****graphy. Any posting of child *****graphy images and links are done by users of the website, not by the FBI.
McBride doesnt think so, taking down 10 perverts does not outweigh the damages of even one image being disseminated.
Its hard to argue his logic. If capturing and releasing a sexually explicit image of a child is a crime against the victim, every time its viewed and passed on is akin to recommitting the crime, only this time with a new offender. McBride was unwavering in this belief.
In other sting operations, investigations have revolved around enticing users into registration through use of suggestive, but not explicit, images of minors.
Lets attempt to quanitfy the success of this operation.
Playpen had a total of 215,000 members. Operation Pacifier collected 1,300 unique IP addresses and led to 137 users charged, meaning, nearly 90 percent of those tracked were never charged with a crime nearly a year after the investigation concluded.
Whats not quantifiable is the reach of these images and just how much the governments operation, or the facilitation of pedophilia, did to benefit or damage child sexual abuse rings.
At the end of the day, you have to weigh the ends, 137 men charged, against the means, being complicit in the dissemination of sexually explicit imagery, and attempt to make a judgement call as to whether becoming a criminal is worth catching one.
Source:TNW
Son düzenleme: