So, a site was made by a pedophile, they got that guy, and then kept the site online so they could make further arrests of people who viewed the site.
That's a massively different picture than what you get by reading the article, and the headline 'FBI's deep web child porn ring'. It wasn't FBI's child porn ring, it was this guy's child porn ring.
> ...and then kept the site online so they could make further arrests of people who viewed the site.
> That's a massively different picture...
No, it isn't. The USG treats every instance of child pornography as a separate occurrence of a crime against the child. That is the way they've structured it so that they can convict as many people as possible, not just the individuals responsible for production. In this case the USG, by their own standard, committed an untold number of crimes against these children by keeping the site up and acting as a distributor. There is no difference between this and them setting up a honey pot full of CP.
So you didn't read any of the stories linked in the comment you replied to? First one, top of the page:
"...including more than 9,000 files that users could download directly from the FBI. Some of the images described in court filings involved children barely old enough for kindergarten."
That's what the site had before the FBI took charge of it and replaced the CP with malware. Where's the evidence that they distributed CP and not just cp.jpg.exe?
In the court filings described by the previously linked stories, one of which I quoted in the comment you just responded to. What do you think they were charging people with, intent to download cp.jpg? Are you having such a hard time believing that the USG would distribute CP that you are mentally blocking all the evidence available to you? Because I have bad news for you, they've done much worse than that.
but after the creator is in jail, it's 100% the fbi that host and promotes the site.
there are law against entrapment. but when fbi agents get on a chat room anonymously and send someone a link "want to see this illegal content?" now the person who could have zero interest in the matter will just want to check it out to see if it's true, for whatever reason, which could very well be to report to the authorities if it is true. but now, since the person was entrapped, the fbi can just deny the anonymous entrapment and prosecute the person for arriving on the site by their own means and drive.
You have to be more active than just stumbling across it. If you stumble onto CP accidentally and either report it to the police (only) or delete it and show no one, you're fine. Read the USC if you're curious about the details, but no, you can't get busted just because you ran into it.
Entrapment only comes into play if you convince someone to commit a crime they weren't already predisposed to commit. So if you give them a link that says "here's CP" and they download half the site and add it to their collection, it's hard to argue that the cops made you collect CP. In general, if all the police did is provide you a chance to commit a crime and you did so, you were busted, not entrapped.
> when fbi agents get on a chat room anonymously and send someone a link "want to see this illegal content?" now the person who could have zero interest in the matter will just want to check it out to see if it's true, for whatever reason
Yeah, sure. I see a link saying 'child porn click here' and I click that link just out of curiosity. Sure.
> which could very well be to report to the authorities if it is true
You can report it to the authorities without needing to click the link (as any sensible person would do).
so everyone who is a little dumb should be in jail? nice.
remember that there was a famous uk singer that was entrapped just like that since 4 years or so ago. can't remember the name though... he had a foundation to fight child abuse. he spent years reporting links he found to no effect, so he started to collect hard evidence and was busted for possession of that material. he had a hard time fighting the charges, and he might very well be really guilty after all, what I'm telling if just the news as I've read at the time.
That's a massively different picture than what you get by reading the article, and the headline 'FBI's deep web child porn ring'. It wasn't FBI's child porn ring, it was this guy's child porn ring.