Cyber Crime Question?

[StrangeLife]

There is no "broader sense" when it comes to the use of the term "entrapment." It's a legal definition, not a social or colloquial one. To entrap someone, under the legal definition, is to present them with a situation and then foster an environment in which they would act against their norm. This group, as far as can be discerned, did nothing to 'lure' anyone to 'Sweetie.' They simply posted a CGI picture.

Bending the rules isn't that easy.

The law usually put a lot of weight on "intent" when evaluating legalities. In jurisdictions where entrapment is against the law I'm quite certain the court will recognise the clear intent behind the use of this image.

 

[subdued_passion]

There is no "broader sense" when it comes to the use of the term "entrapment." It's a legal definition, not a social or colloquial one. To entrap someone, under the legal definition, is to present them with a situation and then foster an environment in which they would act against their norm. This group, as far as can be discerned, did nothing to 'lure' anyone to 'Sweetie.' They simply posted a CGI picture.

Remember the perverts identified are located "all over the world, from America, Europe, but also from countries like India, Japan, Korea”. The term entrapment does include sting operations in most nations for e.g. my country as well as The Netherlands (relevant since it was a Dutch rights group that conducted the operation). Even where sting operations are not considered illegal there atleast ethical concerns over their use.

Also in many places, entrapment is not limited to law enforcement agencies alone.

As to the second part of your question, of course I can believe that a group that created a CGI child "just sat in some corner of the Internet . . ." Child predators are not passive by nature, waiting for some kid to come their way. They seek out their prey. They look for it. No one would have to do anything other than post a simple picture of an underaged child in order to garner their attention. They wouldn't have to do a damn thing otherwise. The predators will reveal themselves based on their comments and requests, as was revealed in the original article.

A 10 year old in chat? Pervs just happen upon them, just happen to offer money? How would the payments be made? If someone is saying, here take $10 dollars and switch on your cam, how exactly was that money going to change hands? Do you get where I'm going with this?

As someone who was once involved in numerous sting operations, I can tell you that it takes very little to attract the attention of someone already predisposed to committing a crime. Whether you agree with the policy of stings or not, it does not change the fact that when a sting is performed properly, there really isn't a whole hell of a lot a law enforcement agency has to do to build a case. The criminals reveal themselves readily enough.

This is a whole other discussion.

 

[sr71plt]

They seek out their prey. They look for it. No one would have to do anything other than post a simple picture of an underaged child in order to garner their attention.

Hell, all I have to do on Literotica to get hits from lechers in the PM system is to post a story from one of my female alts.

 

[sr71plt]

Bending the rules isn't that easy.

The law usually put a lot of weight on "intent" when evaluating legalities. In jurisdictions where entrapment is against the law I'm quite certain the court will recognise the clear intent behind the use of this image.

This isn't a government agency doing this. It's an advocacy group. I'm pretty sure their intent is preventative. Shine a light on some responders and it gives all the rest of them out there something to think about in responding.

Where has there been any mention in the reporting of this of a hookup between this group and law enforcement?

 

[slyc_willie]

Bending the rules isn't that easy.

The law usually put a lot of weight on "intent" when evaluating legalities. In jurisdictions where entrapment is against the law I'm quite certain the court will recognise the clear intent behind the use of this image.

Which is why it hasn't gone any further than merely exposing potential pedophiles. Had this been an actual law enforcement operation, they most likely would not have used a simple picture.

 

[slyc_willie]

Remember the perverts identified are located "all over the world, from America, Europe, but also from countries like India, Japan, Korea”. The term entrapment does include sting operations in most nations for e.g. my country as well as The Netherlands (relevant since it was a Dutch rights group that conducted the operation). Even where sting operations are not considered illegal there atleast ethical concerns over their use.

Also in many places, entrapment is not limited to law enforcement agencies alone.

No, but sting operations are. Stings aren't the same as entrapment. Entrapment happens when a sting operation isn't performed correctly.

A 10 year old in chat? Pervs just happen upon them, just happen to offer money? How would the payments be made? If someone is saying, here take $10 dollars and switch on your cam, how exactly was that money going to change hands? Do you get where I'm going with this?

It isn't about whether a transaction could be made, it's that an offer to do so was made, unsolicited, by various persons after seeing the picture (and, ostensibly, from viewing some kind of profile). For many jurisdictions, that would be enough to prove intent to commit a crime.

Again, though, this wasn't a law enforcement agency conducting this action. Certainly, no arrests could be expected to come out of it. The apparent aim of the rights agency, from my point of view anyway, was to cause embarrassment and bring attention to the problem.

This is a whole other discussion.

Indeed it would be.

 

[SecondCircle]

...what's up with all the pedophilia discussions today?

 

[slyc_willie]

...what's up with all the pedophilia discussions today?

Topic of the week?

 

[sr71plt]

This one has been ongoing for a couple of days. There are others running on the forum?

 

[subdued_passion]

No, but sting operations are. Stings aren't the same as entrapment. Entrapment happens when a sting operation isn't performed correctly.

You are arguing semantics based on US legal jargon.

The law against sting operations and caught on camera confessions was passed after the notorious Tehelka sting operations by journalists in India.

So instead of arguing on the term how about this: do you agree that the group misrepresented itself with the purpose of catching paedophiles. They did not limit their scope to their local territory. They used highly suspect techniques in identifying the individuals.

It isn't about whether a transaction could be made, it's that an offer to do so was made, unsolicited, by various persons after seeing the picture (and, ostensibly, from viewing some kind of profile). For many jurisdictions, that would be enough to prove intent to commit a crime.

You did not get where I was going with my questions. I don't buy the group's claims that they didn't lure or bait. Why would an internet perv offer money for services? Online predators who prey on victims in chatrooms use their charm to seduce their victims at most they offer gifts. Money is mentioned only where you see a payment set-up already in place. There's something suspect either with the sites hosting these chatrooms or with the group's operation itself.

Again, though, this wasn't a law enforcement agency conducting this action. Certainly, no arrests could be expected to come out of it. The apparent aim of the rights agency, from my point of view anyway, was to cause embarrassment and bring attention to the problem.

Embarrassment to whom? No government agency would publish that list.

In my opinion this was a donation drive for their Netherlands chapter.

Indeed it would be.

It's a fool's errand to argue reason with a man proclaiming from atop mountains of experience.

 

[slyc_willie]

It's a fool's errand to argue reason with a man proclaiming from atop mountains of experience.

No, it's more of a waste of time going around in circles for the sake of extending an argument for argument's sake. I've more than said my piece. If you want to quibble over details just to make yourself feel better, by all means have at it.

 

[subdued_passion]

No, it's more of a waste of time going around in circles for the sake of extending an argument for argument's sake. I've more than said my piece. If you want to quibble over details just to make yourself feel better, by all means have at it.

I agree.

I also stand by my initial post, that Terre des hommes stunt was just a donation drive.





(I must say I curious about what you must have initially posted that you felt the need to return and edit almost 12 hours later. And if you had to use the emoticon, means you're not cool. )

 

[sr71plt]

I sorta think you've just been irrelevant to the issue of the thread for about a day and a half.

 

[StrangeLife]

This isn't a government agency doing this. It's an advocacy group. I'm pretty sure their intent is preventative. Shine a light on some responders and it gives all the rest of them out there something to think about in responding.

Where has there been any mention in the reporting of this of a hookup between this group and law enforcement?

If you can trace the persons responsible to a country where slander is against the law and the picture isn't deemed to be porn, they could face charges and open themselves to a civil suit.

 

[sr71plt]

If you can trace the persons responsible to a country where slander is against the law and the picture isn't deemed to be porn, they could face charges and open themselves to a civil suit.

Yep. I've posted as much--several times. I've repeatedly posted that the problem I saw was in the care an advocacy group would take to get it right. And I can't see where your post as anything to do with the one of mine you quoted.

 

[StrangeLife]

And I can't see where your post as anything to do with the one of mine you quoted.

I understood your post as an allegation that because no government agency is involved there's no possibility of legal repercussions. I see that differently.

 

[sr71plt]

I understood your post as an allegation that because no government agency is involved there's no possibility of legal repercussions. I see that differently.

Then you haven't read my posts correctly. But given your posts across the forum today, that doesn't surprise me a bit.

 

[StrangeLife]

Then you haven't read my posts correctly. But given your posts across the forum today, that doesn't surprise me a bit.

"Don't read what I write - read what I mean," eh?

Very well - I shall take note of your critique and endeavour to work on improving my esp skills...

 

[sr71plt]

"Don't read what I write - read what I mean," eh?

Very well - I shall take note of your critique and endeavour to work on improving my esp skills...

No, you are assuming more than I posted. But this can stop now. I find you just too bizaro.