This is an important story. It effects you as an American, a Domainer and as an internet user.
It starts with child porn. I know everyone’s knee jerk reaction once they hear child porn, is put the bastard away.
I know. I agree.
But you need to understand what went on here.
What the government did.
What happened here can happen to you, there are many things the government says are illegal, including owning certain domain names, if the Snowe bill passes.
So let’s begin. I will comment after the story.
This is a story that appeared in Cnet news and was written by Declan McCullagh.
Roderick Vosburgh, was a doctoral student at Temple University, and also taught history at La Salle University.
His home was raided in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on a hyperlink that was planted by the FBI, which posted hyperlinks to a site that purported to be for illegal videos of minors having sex.
Federal agents knocked on Vosburgh’s door around 7 a.m. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him”
They had a search warrant which authorized them to “seize and remove any computer-related equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any addressed correspondence sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements, and credit card statements.”
Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes “attempts” to download child pornography.
Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and he faces three to four years in prison.
“”””The implications of the FBI’s hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography, and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages.””””
“””””The bureau could register the “unlawfulimages.com” domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on.””””
“”””””While it might seem that merely clicking on a link wouldn’t be enough to justify a search warrant, courts have ruled otherwise. On March 6, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Nevada agreed with a magistrate judge that the hyperlink-sting operation constituted sufficient probable cause to justify giving the FBI its search warrant.”””””””
“”””””From the FBI’s perspective, clicking on the illicit hyperlink is a serious crime.”””
“”””Civil libertarians warn that anyone who clicks on a hyperlink advertising something illegal, perhaps found while Web browsing or received through e-mail, could face the same fate.””””
So let’s be clear here. What happened is this guy clicked on a link.
He could not download any movies or pictures from the site the link went to because the site the FBI set up, had no pictures or content on it, so nothing could have been downloaded.
He did not subscribe or attempt to subscribe to a service.
He did not give his credit card or other personal information to the “site”.
He did not fill out any forms on the site.
He was not in a chat room trying to lure children.
He did not transmit any pictures to anyone, or send any images to anyone.
He clicked on a link.
He clicked on a link for something that is illegal.
He is going to jail.
The really scary part of this is that a lot of things are illegal.
A lot of things that many of us consider no really illegal.
Buying prescription drugs on the internet is illegal.
The government can send you an e-mail with an offer to purchase Viagra and if you click on the link the Feds will be at your door.
You don’t have to buy, you just have to click.
It will not stop there. The possibilities are endless. There are thousands of federal crimes.
Being domainers we tend to look around the internet a lot. See what is going on. See new landing pages. Look for affiliate programs.
We are always looking to see where domains we may be interested in buying or getting on the drop go to or point to in Google search results.
Look around, click around. We all spend a lot of time doing it.
I get well over 2,000 pieces of junk mail a day, each asking me to click on something.
For all of you that think the government will be rational or reasonable in their enforcement of the Snowe bill, be warned they do not play that way.
Once you give the government power over something it’s almost impossible to curb their use of it.
The same government that is putting people in jail for sending spam, can now send you spam, and if you click on a link in the spam, can put you in jail for that.
Did you see the story a few weeks ago that the US had the highest percentage of its population in Jail, in the world?
The US now has 1% of it population in jail. More than China, More than all these “axus of evil” countries like north Korea and Iran. More than anywhere.
You trust your government to treat you right? Not to over enforce a law.
Did you know until 1913, there was no income tax in the United States? Up to then the courts ruled that a tax on income or labor was unconstitutional.
So an amendment to the constitution was proposed, and in 1913 the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was ratified.
When it was voted on congress and ratified by 75% of the states you know what the general tax rate was??
1%
And the tax was a graduated tax, so only the “big” guys, the high earners, would have to pay it.
Do you know what percentage of the population was subject to income tax based on their income when it was first passed?
1%.
Yes only 1% of the US population made enough money in 1913 to be subject to the Federal Income Tax.
It was a classic case of; “well if it’s not going to effect me it’s OK”; “If only the “big” guys are going to have to pay, it’s alright”.
“The one’s who have the most to lose, should worry about it not me.”
So how did that work out for all of you, not so “big” guys?
How did it happen that such a great idea that would only effect 1% of the population now effects 100% of it?
Because once you give the government power, it’s impossible to control.
Be warned.
Be careful where you click.
Fight hard before allowing your rights to be given away, even if you think it’s only going to effect the “big” guys.
Because it never stops at that.
I read yesterday these same excuses on domain boards of why they had not joined the ICA.
“Let the “big” guys do it.
“Let the one’s with the most to lose do it.”
“The government isn’t going to enforce it.”
“They certainly aren’t going to enforce it against me.”
“They are not going to set up a task force to come after domainers”
Yea right.
Sure
Sleep well at night thinking that, after all you may have to wake up early one morning to answer a knock on your door.
Imagine you build a small app to crawl the web, it clicks all links, all from your IP address. Imagine you highlight a 100 random url’s and open in tabs (as a domainer I did that many times before, using firefox addon called Linky)). How about that?
This is really scary stuff.
Sahar
Sahar
Never thought of that, but your right, automated programs, robots all could click on that one wrong link planted by the government and the feds are at the door
This will turn into a nightmare for the gov. just like the nightmare of the record industry suing housewives…the pendulum will have to swing back soon…crazy shit though
Although the potential of this law is scary, it seems as if this guy was up to absolutely no good – right?
Alex
Bottom line is the guy clicked on a link.
Maybe he was curious, maybe he is a freak, the point is it doesn’t matter.
The government can use this same scam to go after fine people doing nothing wrong other than clicking on links posted somewhere or e-mailed to them
Tim
Well so far, one guy is off to jail.
Don’t know how it’s going to turn into a nightmare for the Government, think its more lightly to be a nightmare for internet users
This system just gives the IP address of the user, but DOES not prove who clicked it.
If you have a wireless setup that is not secure(it is very common) in your home, what if some one randomly walks into your wireless bubble, clicks and walks away?
So how can they prove you clicked?
Jeff
Jeff–
I believe that the “unsecured wifi” defense has already been banned in court. I’m sure every single person arrested for any crime involving a computer in the last 5 years has thought to use that same argument.
if the link he clicked on started a movie, would they be ok to prosecute him?
All of you are getting way ahead of yourselves. Click a link, go to jail!!! What kind of BS is that? Next thing you know you’ll be posting supernatural stuff, ghosts, aliens and a mold of the Virgin Mary on grilled cheese sandwich.
Am I the only one that understands this article? The FBI just used the “link clicking” for probable cause to get a search warrant and get in the guy’s house. They already knew he is a pedophile freak and they knew if they get a chance to raid his house they will definitely find some “memorabilia” enough to lock him in. I don’t see any problem with this. It’s not mentioned what they found in his house because the author is twisting this around to prove a point. I don’t have any FBI surveillance in front of my house, send me some links, I’ll click on them all day long, let’s see what happens.
On the other hand I completely agree with the last remarks that majority of people will not lift a finger if it’s not concerning them personally.
Phil
Ok let’s use your premise, so you click on a link and you are fine with the government on that basis coming into your home, seizing everything you have an go through it to see what you got.
Wow
You are missing the point. Let’s say that you are the FBI and you know some guy is a pedophile and you want to put that freak behind bars. Now the evidence you have is not substantial enough to hold in court of law. To get more evidence you send him a link to a bogus website that triggers enough suspicion that will give reasons for a search warrant. Basically you are going after a hunch that there is more proof at his house.
If there is more proof at his house, and this guy is truly a pedophile, my question is what could possibly be wrong with FBI’s method of catching this freak that could possibly hurt mine or someone else’s child?
Phil
Great theory, but this is NOT what happened.
The FBI set up a link so they could track anyone who clicked on it, without knowing anything about the person who would click or did click, then they showed up at the door
Why don’t you read the full article then we will talk
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nl.e703
Somehow, the part about him destroying evidence while the FBI was banging on his door, and the actual evidence that they recovered after that attempt didn’t make it into your blog post. The guy got off lightly.
Peter
There is no getting away from the fact that the FBI knocked on the guys door for clicking on a link.
If the FBI knock on your door your not going to be happy even if they find nothing else.
Matter of fact the crime this guy was convicted of had nothing to do with anything but the click.
The click was the crime
Normally I’d be outraged too and I DO think it’s dangerously overreaching AS DESCRIBED but the problem with this post is: It was NOT AS DESCRIBED.
He did not click on a link in a SPAM MAIL. He clicked on a link in a KIDDIE PORN FORUM that said it WAS A LINK TO KIDDIE PORN.
Another teensy problem, THEY FOUND KIDDIE PORN on his computer even after he destroyed a hard drive and a usb drive when he saw the feds at the door.
He was not “arrested for clicking on a link” he was arrested for possessing child pornography and destroying evidence.
GREAT post – The One that controls the Nation (Government) decides who is guilty and who not and set’s the rules – That is called Democracy – Welcome to the 21st Century of FREEDOM
Germ
The guy was charged with four crimes one of which was destroying evidence but he was not convicted of that. Quoting directly from the article:
“”The judge threw out the third count and the jury found him not guilty of the second. But Vosburgh was convicted of the first and last counts, which included clicking on the FBI’s illicit hyperlink.””
The scary part of this case is not the case itself as much as the implication of the case as laid out by the author
“The implications of the FBI’s hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography–and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages. The bureau could register the “unlawfulimages.com” domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on.”””
What he is saying and what the government does is start with the worst circumstances it can find.
Ok Child porn, the worst, we all agree.
Then they go after a guy who clicked on a link on a board.
They get the court to go for the method.
Next they will send e-mails for child porn, trying to get some one to click on that.
Next they will send out e-mails for viarga and get someone for clicking on that.
It will continue.
That is how it works
Jeff
The someone else clicked on the link defense, using a unsecured wifi connection was specifically address by the court and rejected
Admin:
Again you leave out that which supports your assertion and leave out what demonstrates this is a broader, more complex issue.
True, the judge threw out the 3rd charge, obstruction and he was found not guilty of the 2nd, destroying evidence. But he was convicted of the 4th which was possessing a hard drive that contained child pornography.
I DO agree the first charge, click on a link sounds VERY scary but again, let’s put it in proper context.
The link in question was not on a random, innocent website it was posted on a kiddie porn forum AND it was, in THIS instance, identified as a link to illegal material.
Should this be an accepted way to catch criminals? My gut agrees with you and says no. Yet, it is hard to argue that in this case it seems to have proven effective. They used the link to show reasonable suspicion this individual was engaged in child pornography, obtained a search warrant and were proven correct. It’s precisely because of assholes like this guy the feds can make this kind of argument.
It did surprise me to learn that clicking on a link is in and of itself considered a crime. Had they not actually found illicit material however, I don’t think he would have been convicted solely of the first count.
In the attempt to defend our right I feel it is VERY important to choose our battles carefully. I will not defend this guy. Show me an instance when this law is used to convict someone who is not also convicted of a more serious offense and I will join in in condemnation.
I will not speak out when they come for the child pornographers because I am not a child pornographer.
When they come for innocent web surfers that did nothing but click on links I will speak out because that would be wrong.
The feds always pick the best case for them against the weakest defendant to set a precedent.
This will be the subject of tomorrow’s post
admin
also if you want to check out the original story on cnet, you will see well over 225 comments and 90% of them have the foresight and understanding to appreciate the harm that was done here and what can be done by the government in the future
I strongly agree that the result proves an effective way to catch a true criminal. Maybe the topic of this conversation should be whether or not you (admin) and everyone else trusts the government, FBI, enough to enforce this method of catching criminals? We are all talking about an innocent surfer clicking on a link and being sent to jail and I’m strongly convinced this will not likely happen. It is however possible that this method will evolve into a secondary measure to issue warrants in hopes of finding more evidence. This opens doors for ways of catching other criminals not only people engaged in child pornography. We all know Al Capone was guilty of many crimes but was sentenced to jail for tax evasion.
If this happens then there will be many useless search attempts resulting in nothing but invasion of privacy that will ultimately render this method unsuccessful and therefore illegal. We all know the FBI will not allow that and try to prove its effectiveness. Stop and think for a second about the makers of child pornography. Remember that scene in Running Scared when the boy unknowingly gets kidnapped and sent to a lavish apartment full of toys and cameras. Imagine how many problems will be solved if we take away their audience.
On another note, if we leave child pornography out of this since it’s a very touchy subject. Does everyone here believe that it’s justified to make CPC profit out of TM domains? For example, as unreal it sounds to me but youtupe.com sold for $25,000 on SnapNames. Someone decided to make profit out of someone else’s endless efforts and millions spent on advertising. I mean if you like youtube and want to make money with it take the $25k and buy google stock.
I believe it’s a huge task to enforce TM and regulate domains but hey this will create companies and jobs and on top of it raise google’s stock. The result will distribute money to people who truly deserve it.
With saying this I would hate to see this issue go in a direction of reverse domain hijacking and people thinking they are the rightful owners of a domain just because they registered a TM.
Phil
The answer to your question is yes there are many people and companies that are fine with this.
Especially those who have done domain tasting.
Last week a lawsuit was filed against a company that has over 4,000,000 domain names and thousand and thousands of typo’s of trademark names
Do you have more info on the lawsuit? Who is the company with 4 mil domains?
Looks fishy that the government would stoop that low to get someone. Using that as a pretense to raid the house where they did find evidence. So they did catch the guy, but very very fishy.
Talk about the thin blue line. Wow the government is a bunch of scumbags going after scumbags. So I don’t expect to see any of them in heaven. Face it our government is run by
two faced liars…I think this is how Hitler got started. Scary.
Phil
UltraRPM who ever they are
Here is a link to the suit:
http://www.loffs.org/neimanmarcus-v-ultrarpm
I think the point of the discussion ins’t if in THIS very case the guy is actually guilty or not, but wether the methods used by the Government are valid ones or not.
It calls my attention that the FBI didn’t record the “referrer” website along with the IP address. The “referrer” is part of the browser’s request for any page, all browsers implements this and you cannot disable this feature (in fact, it’s a method used to validate the access to a website). The logs shown in the article only stated the IP address, while in order to strengthen the proof value it should include:
– the “referrer” (to claim it was the original link and not a “copy” sent by e-mail or found in another site)
– the browser brand and version (it’d be a good point to prove a match to the one installed in the prosecuted computer, and to disregard crawling robots)
Other information could be usefull as well, for example, the order every URL from images in the web page were requested (this would certainly tell appart a robot from a browser, and even browsers brands and models from their behavior). In fact, the browser sends a LOT of usefull data able to tell appart your computer from the next one, that would be usefull as a proof. But they rely ONLY in the link!
And even proving someone actually activelly clicked the link doesn’t prove the intention. Let say you’re just curious to get to know the way internet reflects our culture, or to what extent internet is actually a crime threat. As a citizen up to endorse these Government actions, you’re entitled to reach the information allowing you to know as much as the Government does about the actual threat and the way crime develops in the web. So you just look around, you get thoursads of images download in your computer cache (even if you didn’t even INTENT to watch), you click on links promoting illegal activities JUST TO GET TO KNOW THEM, but for the Government, this would be the same than becoming a CONSUMER of the illegal stuff.
As for this guy, he was a teacher. I think a teacher MUST get to know the threats childrens faces everiday. But the Government now deprives us all from the right to KNOW.
The implications are bold. The Government (as if it were not a res-pulbican entity) preserves for itself the right to tell wich behavior is criminal or not, while forbiding the taxpayers to even research the subject to agree or disagree with the Government criteria. We have to blindly believe in the Government (even if as part of a jury)!
Moreover, this is a well known method to control the population behavior and way of thinking, one proven usefull for totalitary regimes: people STOP doing things because of the fear, “just in case” they become suspects and (because of what I said before), “automatically” guilty as charged.
The problem relies on the answer to this question: Do you preffer a) to have innocents in jail if this ensures all the criminals were jailed, or b) to have crimminals walking free if this ensures no innocent were jailed?
If you picked (a), then you’d endorse the Government discussed criteria, if you picked (b) you’d be against it. As citizens, the answer to this question shapes two very different societies, and our lack of reaction will let other people shape the society we and our childrens will live in.
Foreigner
very interesting post.
I think if you look back at the history of the US you will find times when the county was more concerned with preventing putting innocent people in Jail than finding every possbile criminal and sending them to jail.
The philosophy of the function of jails has changed though the year as well. At time the US had thought prison were for reeducation and reforming people. Now we simply want to punish them.
This is an ebb and flow.
Right now we are living in “the put them all away” mode at all costs.
This is why over 1% of the US population is now in prision.
Holding people without charging them, prision torture, taking people to other countries so they do not enjoy the supposed protections of the constitution so the government can do their dirty work, is all part of the current put them jail mentality.
To answer your question, no i don’t trust the government to act fairly and really try to seek the truth, but rather to get convictions as politics demand them