Thread: Laws regarding Feds signing up to Private Trackers?

Have you guys seen clips of To Catch a Predator? Basically, they bust guys for being pedos, even though they haven't committed the sex act yet. They say it's "intention" so they arrest him. Why can't we say the feds who sign up to private trackers to investigate, had the intention of downloading illegal materials? Because they don't catch the pedos in the act, but claim they had intentions to have sex with a child, so why can't we say the feds have intentions to download illegally when they investigate trackers? Now that i've typed it, my argument sounds weak but i just wanted your input on it, if you have any questions just post them!

Well basically the feds are above the law. I mean, they can catch dealers by doing drug buys, where they actually buy drugs, or catch prostitutes where they actually drive up and ask for sex. My guess is that the same principal applies here. I'm not sure how they get away with it or what law allows it, but there is obviously legal precedent where this is concerned.

And anyways, wouldn't assuming intention to infringe copyright incriminate every member of a tracker? We'd all be boned, lol. Well, that's just my two cents :)

Yes please don't give them ideas lol we don't want them spreading ideas to the UK about intention to download xD

well them buying drugs to then bust you is not illegal because the act of selling the drugs is the illegal act not of buying them and the sole reason for them possessing said drugs are to have evidence to prosecute you with where if they were the one selling you the drugs you could argue entrapment now in the case of them joining a tracker it is kind of difficult to say I think it would be hard to actually build a case to any one but the owners of the trackers that will hold any merit in a court of law

Originally Posted by shadowbuild

well them buying drugs to then bust you is not illegal because the act of selling the drugs is the illegal act not of buying them and the sole reason for them possessing said drugs are to have evidence to prosecute

You are right, but they must get a permission to do so first, everything is already planed and they have a judge "ok" to get those evidences, don't believe some movies where the badass cop buy some drug to arrest the dealer.

With torrents i believe they don't do that on their home pc... they must use one in witch all the data transfered is recorded and where they can't take something to home.

Reading the replies, i now see how narrow minded i was and how childish i look now :P I used to think "NO ONE" is above the law, but ignoring corruption cannot last longer lol, i need to be more cynical :D Thanks for the replies guys, it's interesting reading your thoughts on the (potential) dangers by joining trackers, and "Moo", i'm sure the UK detectives have thought of this already, those darn bast*rds and their nanny state. I remember an Act/Bill about copyright infringement that was rushed through and got approved, any word on development?

Law enforcement is not above the law. They must strictly adhere to any and all laws. Otherwise their case is subject to being tossed out. Hence why they work so closely with the courts. This is what allows them to set up stings and work undercover. The fact is they have to document everything that's been done. They're to act as cypher's not as contributors.

And it also isn't true that selling not buying drugs is illegal. Just like prostitution is illegal on both fronts (service and payment). The difference in the former case is that the police will focus more intently on the seller because if you cut off supply you crush demand. It's much like a bottleneck theory. There's way too large a pool of addicts to make an impact against them. So the police will work their way up the chain of suppliers to cut them off at the source which trickles down and affects everyone below.

Focusing back on the world of torrents. The feds won't go after the small fish (the downloaders of torrents) because we're way too large a group. The producers of said material being torrented, however, may do so in a civil manner (as seen with the music and movie industry) in an effort to scare us. The real targets are the manufacturers of illegal software. Thus while they may go after some sites, it's mainly due to them being key contributors (producers), or easy targets (i.e. in the USA or some nation that has strict copyright laws) or someone who's making money and thus leaving a paper trail.

I think it also depends on context. Some things are considered "Coercion", which is basically when police cause a crime to be commited that would not reasonably have been committed anyway. In the cases of drug dealing and prositution it's generally done when a crime is likely to have been committed anyway.

Law enforcement is not above the law. They must strictly adhere to any and all laws

Huh? What country are you from? Oh, Canada. Well, we do things differently here in the US. The police routinely lie and everybody knows it. ("The defendant was walking down the street when the bag of cocaine fell out of his pocket." or "When I stopped the dependent's car, the gun was lying in plain view on the front seat.") But 90% of the people who are charged can't afford to defend themselves, so they cop a plea, and the judge or jury figures that even if the cops are lying, the guy is probably guilty, so they convict.

That said, criminal convictions for small-scale copyright violations aren't on anybody's radar. Civil suits by the various MAFIAA are where it's at.