Child Porn entrapment of webmasters, blog authors, email recipients and any web-browsing citizens

Child pornography makes it easy to entrap any citizen. Child pornography laws that severely penalize anyone for mere inadvertent possession of so called child porn (which may consist of 15 year old fully clothed adolescent girls dancing and gyrating -[Knox vs. USA — Copine scale]).

As the antifeminist incessantly points out, any man or boy that ever browsed any porn site may have potential child pornography pictures on his computer or his web browser cache. Now that "The Simpsons" cartoons can be called child porn, anyone can be subject to child pornography stings.

And if s/he does not have child porn on the computer, that can be easily remedied. CP can be sent via spam emails, or the person can be entrapped to accidentally access it. No more need to frame someone by planting a pound of cocaine in his or her car. Just entice him to unknowingly visit a child porn site and his life is over.

Child pornography possession is a strict liability crime 2 3 4 5 6.  No intent, no knowledge is needed. Setting someone up is the perfect crime. And the entrapped’s property can be confiscated.

Dangerous entrapment of webmasters and blog authors | Inquisition21

The new form of entrapment is clever and deadly. A dissident has to be both reasonably successful in his activities and a danger or embarrassment to the police to be worth ‘taking out’. If he is reasonably successful, it means that he is being read over his web site and perhaps in spin-off media reports and is exposing facts which are embarrassing or even dangerous for the police. This in turn makes it likely that he has one or more professionally-managed web sites hosted by a server which provides him with daily statistics over a control panel. If, in addition, he is a good writer or employs good writers, traffic to his site will grow as will the number of links from other web sites. These links will come from two sources: from simple lists of ‘recommended’ web sites or from mentions in text, such as articles or in forum-type comments. If the link is a hyperlink, which is likely, it will show up in the daily statistics every time a reader of the remote web site page clicks on it, so that on a daily basis, perhaps after a 24 hour delay, the number of visiting readers from other web sites shows together with the URL of the sites and the number from each site that clicked each day. This web site, for example (inquisition21), has the good fortune to receive hundreds of such visits from hundreds of other web sites each month, some repeating every day or week and some new each day or each few days. […]

The web site www.jagforums-1.com is in fact set up with images of child pornography to entrap the innocent activist editor who is simply trying to see what new visitors to his web site are saying about his site. He makes one click on the hyperlink in the stats and he has images of little girls being involved in illegal activities, or whatever, on his screen. And even after he deletes them, unless he runs special clearing software, which takes knowledge and time, they are still on his hard drive. If the police are in cohorts with the criminal webmaster who has carried out this entrapment, they can raid before the clearance is complete.
Let us now examine some especially perverse aspects of this situation, and this editor can assure the reader that this is coming from one with very direct and personal knowledge of this situation, both as related to this web site, which has been attacked, and to the many individuals it tries to represent. First, it is virtually impossible to report this crime, for several reasons. […]

The biggest problem, however, is that you cannot safely say that you were the object of an entrapment attempt because, when you innocently clicked on the link, child porn appeared on your computer screen. This writer cannot even say here that it happened. It gets worse. If it is apparent from a brief look at the images that real children are being exploited in the course of this entrapment (although it is recognized that in most cases old images are used), one cannot report this crime. If anyone thinks that this is not so and that the police will welcome him as an innocent witness that person is naive. The seizure of one’s computers and exposure in the media are the very least of the certain consequences.

Brief Counsel: In the Digital World, What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Two years ago, in the hopes of being able to watch a "College Girls Gone Wild" video, Matthew White of Sacramento, CA, downloaded a file from Limewire.com that turned out to be child-porn. White immediately deleted the file, and thought nothing of it — until a full year later, when FBI agents came to White’s home and asked permission to examine his hard drive, and White said yes.

They initially found no evidence of any illegal activity, but after subjecting White’s hard drive to intensive forensic analysis in their lab, the Limewire file appeared — and with it the porn that Matthew had viewed (albeit momentarily) a year earlier. Although the FBI admitted that White had no current access to the porn they undeleted and despite White’s claim that he had no pre-existing knowledge of the file’s contents, the Feds arrested him.

Notwithstanding numerous publicly known complaints against Limewire.com for disguising illegal child porn files as something else, prosecutors told White he faced a 20-year prison sentence unless he took a plea bargain for three and a half years that included 10 years probation plus lifetime registration as a sex offender. Still claiming innocence, White took the deal.

Why did White cop a plea if he was innocent? Answer: possession of child-porn in any form — even unknowing possession — is a strict liability federal crime, like statutory rape. With strict liability, intent is not a factor:the act itself completes the crime. Under federal law, viewing any web content online automatically counts as possession because seeing it involves downloading images in RAM and temporarily storing (and thus, owning) them. Unless the facts are in dispute, there is no trial by jury. 

In other words: if someone sends you a download link to the Holy Bible, which turns out to be child porn, your life is over. It does not matter that you are religious, never ever intended to see any porn.According to the voodoo theory of child pornography, the act of downloading and unintentional viewing by the religious Bible seeker victimized children. Makes sense, doesn’t it?   George Orwell’s 1984 finally turned reality.

The Problem of Internet Child Pornography (a very concise analysis, worth reading)

An Offending Typology

Variations among offenders translate into different patterns of Internet behavior. Offenders vary in the level of their involvement in Internet child pornography, the degree of networking in which they engage with other offenders, their expertise in employing security strategies to avoid detection, and the extent to which their Internet behavior involves direct sexual abuse of children. The following typology of child pornography offending has been suggested:[31]

• Browsers: Offenders who stumble across child pornography but knowingly save the images. They are not involved in networking with other offenders and do not employ security strategies to avoid detection. Their browsing is an indirect abuse of children.

If you stumble across child pornography you are indirectly abusing children. A macabre joke, if this absurd voodoo theory would not ruin people’s lives forever

Private fantasizers: Offenders who create digital images (e.g., through morphing) for private use to satisfy personal sexual desires. These offenders do not network with other offenders, do not employ security strategies, and their private fantasies are an indirect abuse of victims.

An indirect abuse of victims that don’t exist is a good reason to imprison someone for a decade and ruin his life forever.

It makes more sense to burn a witch on the stake for having caused  a real hail storm that really happened.  Only Robert Kurzban can explain such nonsense:

• To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none | Human Stupidity

Browser

A browser may come across child pornography unintentionally (for example via spam) but then decide to keep it. This is an offence if it can be proved they formed the intention to possess the material. In the absence of a confession, this may be shown by surrounding circumstances, such as repeat visits to a site. Whether a person is an accidental browser or not is a question of fact.

Wrong. As we saw before, if he does not decide to keep it, if he decides to delete it, it does not matter. If forensics can recover the deleted image, then he indirectly abused a child and thus deserves to suffer for the rest of his life (I wish I were joking, but this idiocy is serious)

Private fantasy

If a person has a private fantasy involving sex with a child, no offence is committed. If that fantasy is preserved as something more than a thought, then an offence may be involved. The representation of that fantasy in text or digital format on a computer may be sufficient to constitute the possession of child pornography even if the offender has no intention of sharing it with any other person. The case of Lenny Lawson, referred to above, is an example of a private fantasy collection in video format. For the offender engaged in private fantasy the risk of exposure is low, but it could occur in a number of ways: by tip-off from someone else with access to the computer or data storage device; in the course of searching a computer for evidence of other offences; when a computer is being serviced; when a computer is stolen; or even when a computer has been accessed remotely by a third party.

Trawler

Among trawlers there is little or no security employed and minimal networking of offenders. Taylor (1999) lists three motivations. The sexually omnivorous user is oriented to a range of sexually explicit material of which child pornography is simply a part but not the focus. The sexually curious user has experimented with child pornographic material but has not pursued it. The libertarian is driven to assert a claim to be free to access whatever material they wish  ATypology of Online Child ATypology of Online Child

The above source is very long and precise. Worth reading. Fictional children need to be protected from abuse through thoughts and viewing. Makes total sense.

Creating fictitious children under 16 Child pornography can be created without directly involving a real person. The words ‘describing or depicting’ are capable of including  text,  images  and  threedimensional objects. While these laws w e re  initially  framed  in  relation  to photographs, videos and film, the language extends to cover the development of online pornography. The offence provisions do not require a real person to be described or depicted,  and  they  include  fictional characters in  text or digi tally  created images of fictional characters.

More literature

• The Politics of Entrapment Part III
• A simple plan to ruin your boss: plant child porn on his PC
• Child pornography planted on a work computer, a house break-in and illegal wiretapping: The leadership of Germany’s HSH Nordbank stands accused of going to great lengths to rid itself of unwanted senior officials
• Virus could have planted child porn on unsuspecting man’s computer, expert tells trial
• Shaquille O’Neal had Child Pornography Planted: Lawsuit
• A handyman who planted child pornography on his boss’s computer in a bid to get promoted has been jailed.
• Planting Child Porn on Your Boss’s PC Will Make Him Totally Regret Being a Huge Jerkface
• The Problem of Internet Child Pornography
• EXCESSIVE FINES: PROPERTY FORFEITURE IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES
• FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects | CNET
• When Does the Government Cross the Line Between Trapping an Unwary Innocent Person Versus Trapping an Unwary Criminal?
• Strict Liability Crimes

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship. View all posts by Human-Stupidy (Admin)