Amazon.com Widgets

FBI seize and operate child porn sites: Should the evidence be allowed in court?

  • Yes, The Evidence Should Be Allowed

    Evidence should be allowed in court for these cases because it shows proof of breaking the law. People responsible for hearing a court case or deciding a verdict will make their best judgments when those judgments can be based on absolute evidence no matter how difficult the truth may be to see or hear.

  • Yes, the evidence should be allowed in court.

    Yes, the evidence should be allowed in court because it is important for them to show what they found. The faces should be blurred, but in order to get the correct call from the judge, all evidence needs to be available. It might be difficult, but it is the only way.

  • It's Absolutely Absurd

    On the one hand you have a claim that the pictures are inhernetly bad themselves, But that it's somehow ok to have them or OPERATE A WEBSITE DISTRIBUTING THEM in order to. . . Catch a few people that only viewed them.

    It means that law enforcement is saying that there is in fact nothing inherently wrong with the images, Only in *why* someone has them.

    It's a contradiction. Either the law punishing people for viewing them is illegitimate or law enforcement committed a far more heinous crime then any of them did. It cannot be neither.

    Frankly, I'm inclined to say that they did not err (morally, There are still other procedural problems that should exclude the evidence - you can't have them breaking the rules) in running the site but not because they didn't fuck up, But rather because there wasn't really any harm done. That also means though that those that viewed those images haven't really done anything either.

    If you think those people should be convicted, Then multiply their sentences by 100 for each and every cop involved in this farce.

  • No, I don`t think so.

    This was such an obvious attempt at judge-shopping for a warrant, I have to wonder if there isn't strategic element. Even more, than terrorism, child pornography is a hot-button topic. You can get almost anything by saying 'child porn'. Especially when it's the real thing, not "is she 15 or 18" that sometimes gets lumped into the term.
    First, why go to a magistrate judge? Perhaps because the judge has a reputation of being a rubber stamp. This technique of planting malware on remote machines while operating a criminal enterprise might not pass muster with other judges. But once you get convictions, there is a precedent that lets you go after much less reviled crimes. Next is online harassment, followed by online 'slander'.
    Even if that ultimately fails, and it has, the FBI now has the perfect example to take to congress to ask for expanded warrant powers, or even the authority to do this without warrants.
    It does initially sound a bit far-fetched, but much less so after the iphone efforts. Someone at the FBI is definitely thinking strategically about how to expand their powers through judicial precedents and legislative action using carefully-selected cases.

  • They should not operate them.

    The FBI should not be operating child pornography sites, and any evidence relating to it should be dismissed. This is entrapment. They should find lawful ways of catching predators without committing a crime themselves. There is a problem with the FBI if they think this is a lawful and appropriate way to take down criminals. It is strange.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>