FBI mystery ‘honey pot’ site
p2pnet news | Freedom:- “The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique,” says CNET News.
It’s using honey-pot posts to trap potential wrong-doers.
The US agency is posting hyperlinks purporting to be, “illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them,” says Declan McCullagh.
A review of legal documents shows courts have approved of this technique, “even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who’s using an open wireless connection - and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police,” says the story, going on:
“Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI’s hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car.
“Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.
“Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes ‘attempts’ to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.”
The implications are sweeping, McCullagh correctly notes.
“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.”
The story says Vosburgh’s attorney, Anna Durbin, is trying to overturn the jury verdict before her client is sentenced, says CNET, going on >>>
“In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, Durbin added: ‘I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they’ve brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this.’”
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,” says the story, adding:
“When asked what would stop the FBI from expanding its hyperlink sting operation, Harvey Silverglate, a longtime criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge, Mass. and author of a forthcoming book on the Justice Department, replied:
“Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of ‘entrapment,’ and so expansive in their definition of ‘probable cause,’ there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit.”
Da and Da
Meanwhile, there’s a mystery attached to the so-called ‘honey pot’ site.
The pic in the upper right is from the CNET story with the caption, “Screen snapshot: This now-defunct site is reportedly where an FBI undercover agent posted hyperlinks purporting to be illegal videos. Clicking the links brought a raid from the Feds.”
It gives http://www.da.ru/closed as the url.
However, http://www.da.ru/ is online with a 1998-2004 copyright.
Whois lists it as:
domain: DA.RU
type: CORPORATE
nserver: ns2.incru.net.
nserver: ns3.incru.net.
nserver: ns4.incru.net.
nserver: ns1.incru.net.
state: REGISTERED, DELEGATED
org: NET Limited
phone: +7 812 5780903
fax-no: +7 812 5780903
e-mail:
registrar: RUCENTER-REG-RIPN
created: 1998.03.28
paid-till: 2009.04.01
source: TC-RIPN
The ‘Da’ is the same but it doesn’t look like any kind of honey pot site.
So did the FBI in effect hijack it, abandoning it when it had served its purpose? Did it rent it? Or what?
The FAQ (top pic) page is no help.
It says, ‘Under construction,” but when you enter http://www.da.ru/closed (as per the CNET pic) you get, “The site you are looking for is closed, due to non-ethical and/or abusive activity.”
Mysteriouser and mysteriouser. But there’ll be a simple explanation. Right? 
Stay tuned.
[NOTE - p2pnet is running a special reader's survey. It only takes 20-30 seconds and it'd be a huge help if you'd fill it in. Please click here. Cheers! And thanks ... Jon]
Also See:
CNET News - FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects, March 20, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
That’s sad. Human curiosity being punished. I’ve always thought that it is wrong to hold a tall glass of water in front of a thirsty person and punish them for grabbing it and taking a drink. Same thing to having undercover cops posing as prostitutes and nailing (no pun intended) the people who drive up and solicit them. Everyone at some time in their life has done something “wrong” and to punish them so severely for a minor faux pas or a moment of weakness is simply wrong.
This is more than ever proof that EVERYONE needs to download and use a Tor (Vidalia) client for all of their web surfing. Then you don’t need to worry about this kind of invasion of privacy.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Is it not ironic that we are outraged that Muslims want to kill and maim people for drawing a picture while here in the so-called civilised West we punish somebody for LOOKING at a picture. Worse, there isn’t any picture but since they were ready to look, punish them all the same.
Will a “download this illegal movie” site be the next outrage?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
“Whoops, I accidentally clicked the wrong thing, my trackball/mousepad isn’t exactly accurate, it isn’t my fault that it went bonkers on me! I’m innocent!”
March 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
what happens when people start flinging those links around as jokes on IM services and/or making joke sites with autoredirects to the sting sites …..
March 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
da.ru is a redirect service. YOURNAME.da.ru is the redirect they provide and one of them is mentioned in the source article on CNet. da.ru/closed is shown for a redirect that was cancelled for abuse.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Everything has its benefits. Hints:
* worms infecting unpatched machines and using IE to download stuff
* blacklists of IP addresses of anti-p2p companies
March 20th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“da.ru is a redirect service”
Thanks
Cheers!
March 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Firefox extension needed here.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
What’s about reasonable doubt? GONE?
It is so easy to click on unwanted links! Many spywares and others malwares are actually relying on this!
This is why most of the time my browser is in high security mode.
Yet how many times did I clicked unintentionally on unwanted advertisements links!
A couple of time I did opened this way one of these annoying adults porn site that open 10 or 15 windows faster than you can close them until you raised your firewall to block all incoming traffic. This web sites typically try to hack your computer! To prevent unintentional clicking disable the click taping on your touch pad if you have one and try to avoid mices with more than 3 buttons.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:00 am
So someone can post these links in a forum and tell people that they can download a game for free and then every poor sucker who clicks on the link will end up in prison because the FBI thinks that they were looking for kiddie porn?
It scares the crap out of me that any judge would allow such a charge to actually go to trial, or that someone could be convicted on nothing more than visiting a web site. How many truly innocent people will have their lives ruined because of others reposting such links?
Also, the fact that someone can be sent to prison for “attempting” to download child pornography is flat out wrong. So much stuff on the net is mis-labelled that probably 90% of adult porn downloaders could be convicted of such a charge for simply downloading the wrong thing by accident.
Greorge Orwell was right; Now we’re prosecuting people for “thought-crime”.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:34 am
Dont’ know if this has been said before, but what’s worse is that somebody could create a website (ordinary site about something common (and legal) which people would visit daily like a TV show site or something) with a popup that leads directly to the FBI’s honeypot trapping anyone who visits that site when they had absolutely no ill intentions at all.
March 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
hellllloooo, ppl…
7 = USA Country Code
812 = Washington D.C. Area Code
578 = US Government Pre-fix
If you do a search for “da.ru”, Google automatically takes you to that site!!!!! grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
it is easier to catch an inocent than a guilty because an innocent has nothing to hide (or so he think!)
This is why they do this. It is the easy way to pretend doing their job as law enforcement.
This FBI guys are lazy and are just Bowlshiting their way arround.
It is like the RIAA pretending to catch file sharer just by having an IP address! What a fraud! And there is judges stupid enought to believe them!
Another exemple is Gatanamo bay. 90% of those locked in Gatanamo are inocent bystander that have nothing to do with ever ElQuada and the Talibans. This is why they torture them. To Fabricate evedences and once again to pretend that they are efficient against El Quada and the Taliban.
May be this guys is a pedophile but frankly the evidence are rather thin and in this case their is more than reasonable doubt.
I say that if this is the way they keep us safe let fire all these lazy butts and take care of our safety ourself.
We don’t need no freaking FBI!
March 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Quote: We don’t need no freaking FBI!
AMEN
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
And that is why they will never find Bin Laden cause they are too busy catching people clicking on hyperlinks. People always click on things for curiousity. There are sites that you can report other sites that show child porn and child abuse. Although those sites do say not to be actively looking for sites to report cause it may be illigal in your area to view.
But I agree with it being entrapment cause if it wasnt there then you wouldnt click it. I dont know why they botehr setting up sites like that. There are hundreds if not thousands of sites all ready created with huge numbers of members. They just need to keep raiding those sites and track down the members of those. Cause they have to pay to join those sites and there credit card numbers and address’ are logged in. Kind of hard to beat that in court.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
“If you do a search for “da.ru”, Google automatically takes you to that site!!!!! grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Only for people stupid enough to use Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” button on the front page. A normal search will never take you directly to a web site. Personally, I always go directly to the advanced search page.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
^^ Never used ‘I’m feeling lucky’ in my life
Cheers!
March 24th, 2008 at 5:49 am
=============COMPLETELY READ THIS ARTICLE AND SPECIFICALLY THE PICTURES==============
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html
The FBI supplied an affidavit showing that his IP had five different accesses. He attempted to download a file, refreshed, then tried to download another. Then… SIX HOURS LATER… he returned to the site and tried to access another file two more times.
This is not a random click, this is not curiosity or a spoofed link, this is blatant interest in illegal material. The FBI used the logs for this to uncover his identity and get a search warrant issued, there was no spontaneous raid.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:32 am
It took years to find the bottom of this page. I’ve known of murderers who spent less time in jail than for the crime outlined. Meanwhile what happens to the actual perpetrators of these sex crimes, and those who deal in it, film it, and post online? Never hear anything about it. What happens to all those of a certain large religious persuasion who believe it acceptable to rape any girl over 3 years of age? The proof is in their book. Nothing ever done to even prevent it? No. A sad perverse world in need of a complete overhaul.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Then there’s nudist colonies and beaches that children attend. Plus they take photos at these. It’s ok to stand naked in front of a naked child but a crime worth 10 years jail to look at a photo of him/her. Nudists also share their photos online which is ok. Plus it may be ok to photograph or paint a picture of a naked child if it is called art. Where is the logic in all this? There’s also a large trade in pics of scantily clad young girls which is said to be all legal. Legal, yes; but if you are found with these photos it implicates you as a pedophile, no? Yes. Crazy.