TruthMovement an internet research-guide for students and scholars. Best viewed in Chrome Browser

Blog Search

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Years of Jail for "clicking on child porn link". But lynching videos are legal.


Years of Jail for "clicking on child porn link". But lynching videos are legal.

Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link” & possessing 2 grainy tiny thumbnail pictures of nude adolescents. But lynching videos are legal.

Possession of videos depicting vigilantism, lynching mob killing people, child beating, gang killings, and Hollywood movies glorifying gore, torture, and violence, that is perfectly legal! Real physical toddler torture and abuse gets less punishment then possession of nude adolescent photos. Human Stupidity at its worst.!

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.
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html

Raiding the house of a suspect of nonviolent crime. Throwing him on the ground and handcuffing him instead of a dignified arrest notice. The government specifies the amount of jail he can get:

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of 45 years imprisonment, a mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment, a $750,000 fine, 3 years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $300.
Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2007/mar/vosburgh.html

This is totally insane witch hunt, I have no better words for this. Criminalizing ATTEMPTS to get DEPICTIONS of nude teenagers where nobody was harmed and where nobody committed an illegal or dangerous act.

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 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.
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html

Vosburgh was convicted on these counts: “clicking on an illegal hyperlink” and “possessing a hard drive with two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren’t having sex, but their genitalia were visible)” “From the FBI’s perspective, clicking on the illicit hyperlink and having a thumbs.db file with illicit images are both serious crimes.” (all quotes from above cnet article)

So what’s next? Posting links to illegal drugs, prostitutes, etc? I would not doubt it. So I guess, if I renamed a video on my YouTube channel, and called it “13 year old strips naked,” and someone clicks it, I can report them to the FBI? If that is the case, then I’m sure a lot of people will be in prison very soon….
Source: http://www.corrupted-justice.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84065&sid=a291d4643a58de015a94e8d1bb02521f

Read this article, it says it all!

Everyone with an internet connection should be scared to death!

[...] child porn is the “crimen exceptum” of our generation. What is the “crimen exceptum”? It is the designated crime for which normal law and the processes of justice are suspended – heresy, witchcraft, being a Jew in Nazi Germany, child sex abuse, child porn, and so on. Note how child porn has been used to transform the Internet into a tool of repression and fear and a powerful device for the police and prosecution state

[..] by 1984, [George Orwell's] predictions appeared not to have happened, all had become fact by 2004. The person to be most feared by a young man is a beautiful, sexually attractive young woman. Children are also to be feared as organizations representing ‘child rights’ and the government urges them to confide in the state and not to trust their parents whom they now should spy and inform on. There is a constant war against a vague enemy
The crimen exceptum is central to every inquisition, whether it be heresy, witchcraft, being a Jew, a Red under the bed or today one accused of child sex abuse or accessing child pornography. The crimen exceptum requires the suspension of due process and all real processes of justice. You do not need to be tried and convicted, merely accused. Today?s crimen exceptum of either child sex abuse or accessing child pornography are the most potent of any ever possessed by a phase of the inquisition, which is why the current inquisition is so deadly. The crimen exceptum is already expanding into more general pornography, but here we deal with sex abuse and child pornography, the second the most powerful of the two. As the population comes under more control in the totalitarian state, as in America, the crimen exceptum of inappropriate sex may change to dissent/enemy of the state (heresy)

Source TechRepublic: Click the wrong link and wind up in jail
Most recent news about Vosburgh’s appeal:

Internet Message Board User Convicted on Child Pornography Charges
U.S. v. Vosburgh, Case No. 08-4702 (C.A. 3, Apr. 20, 2010)

Roderick Vosburgh appeals his conviction for possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and attempted possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). We will affirm.
http://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Communications/Internet-Message-Board-User-Convicted-on-Child-Pornography-Charges/14/10959

More Links: http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-fbi-agents-posting-bogus-links-and.html Interesting Site:http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/

Share with your friend, if you like it, or if you hate it.
Related Notes
FBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspectsFBI posts fake hyperlinks to snare child porn suspects Agency disseminates hyperlinks purporting to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raids the homes of anyone willing to click on them....
http://www.inquisition21.com; Chapter 07. The grandstandersapp-07 Chapter 07. The grandstanders There were several social factors that allowed police, prosecutors and experts to maintain a perjury industry in which the mounting of an adequate defence was diff...

“Child Porn” Witch Hunt: Insane Laws

Child Porn” Witch Hunt: Insane Laws


Child Pornography” is a relatively new crime, invented in the last few decades. Simple possession of “child pornography” in a computer cache (an automatic storage of browsers) can yield extreme jail sentences, higher then for crimes like non-sexual child mutilation, violent beatings, attempted murder. I will, however, list a host of absurd illogical facts and laws, mainly from Europe.
  1. Language gets distorted on purpose, for propagandistic effects, worse then under Nazi Minister Goebbels 
    • in most countries’ laws, children are under 14 years old
    • pornography normally are sexually explicit actions, not nude solo acts
    • now, suddenly, by definition, under 18 year olds are “children”, and nude photos are pornography. Well, erotic youth photos does not sound as jail-worthy as “child pornography”
    • in Europe, specifically in Germany, pictures of someone “appearing under 18″ (scheinjugendlich, scheinminderj√§hrig) now is being redefined as “child pornography”. In other words, a young looking 25 year old, that looks like a 17 year old youth, is being called a child.
    • I write “child pornography” in quotes, because a picture that neigher contains a child, nor is pornographic can be called “child pornography”
  1. Until the 1980ies today’s “child porn” was main stream entertainment.
    • main stream Hollywood movies like the Blue Lagoon showed underage sensual nudity and and pretended sexual intercourse of underage actors pretending to be underage people. A clear case of child porn by today’s laws
    • British newspaper “page 3″ nude girls were routinely 16 years or older
    • German youth magazines had nude teenage photos, routinely, partially for sex education
    • nudes of all ages, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years old, were shown in publicly sold magazines about FKK, the german nudity culture
    • in Germany nude bathing is wide spread, on beaches and rivers even inside cities like Munich, nudes of all ages can be seen live. So photos of what everyone can see at any time didn’t really look like a crime.
    • Antique greek statues show little nude boys with their sexual organs
    • In Holland and Denmark, hard core porn with 16 year olds was legal. If someone legally bought or downloaded this, now he is a hard core criminal facing decades of jail. I wonder what the reason is for these laws. Who will be protected by these penalties? Interestingly, most of these movies were quite tastefully erotic, different from many abusive porn movies sold nowadays with over 18 year old actresses (for a negative example, do NOT look at germangoogirls.com).
  2. Why can a photo of a perfectly legal act be a heinous crime?
    • In Europe, Sex with 16 year olds is perfectly legal. So why a photo or movie of such a perfectly legal act is a very serious crime? Production, possession, passing on
    • maybe it is a crime if a 16 year old looks into the mirror while having sex? If he films himself and looks at the movie, obviously that is a heinous crime.
    • what if our 16 year-olds get caught by a surveillance camera. Who then is the criminal? What if security personell looks at the surveillance movie. Should they delete it or turn in to police?
  3. What is the purpose of these laws? Do they protect children or adolescents?
    • Prohibiting movies that were legally produced in highly civilized countries like Netherlands does not protect anyone. It seems that nobody got damaged when shooting the movie under such perfectly legal circumstances. If anyone got damaged, it is too late to fix it. The movie has been shot already, nothing can be changed. It only prevents the girls or the studio from receiving more income.
    • Prohibiting drawings, photoshop art, etc: no child was harmed producing this.
    • watching photos or videos of nude adolescents makes people pedophile so that they will abuse and rape children”. A desperate attempt to justify the absurd.

    • Problems:
    • no proof exists for that watching porn makes people rapists, nor watching child porn makes people child rapists.
    • It seems to be the opposite. , watching porn can be cathartic so people will NOT become violent
    • Why don’t laws prohibit violent movies, chainsaw massacres, shootings, beatings? I think it is very damaging to see movie heroes that never call the police but rather, as role models, beat up the bad guys with their own hands
So much stupidity. So little time to write about it.

Unfortunately, most of the literature I found is in German. Please post quotes of English texts.


This entry was posted on March 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm under Child Porn Witch Hunt. Tagged child pornographychild-pornwitch hunt

We must destroy the children in order to save them By Radley Balko


We must destroy the children in order to save them
My colleague Tom Jackman’s story about the efforts of officials in Northern Virginia to forcibly induce an erection in a teenage boy in order to pursue “sexting” charges against him has deservedly provoked national outrage. As Jackman points out, Manassas police have since backed down and now say that they won’t execute the warrant. Of course, there remains the problem of why the warrant was issued in the first place. No one in the Manassas Police Department, the office of Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert or the judge who signed off on the warrant was able to see what the rest of the country saw, here: an outrageous abuse of power and an unfathomable violation of this kid’s privacy. The Commonwealth of Virginia was prepared to create child porn in order to prosecute a 17-year-old kid for sending videos of himself to his then-girlfriend, who was 15 years old.

There’s a lot going on in this case. We can start with Paul Ebert, a dinosaur of the Virginia criminal justice system. I wrote a bit about Ebert’s history in a previous post here at The Watch about prosecutorial misconduct. The general takeaway is that Ebert, who has been in office for more than 40 years, has a long and sordid history of poor judgment yet has never been sanctioned or disciplined for his conduct. In 2011, his office was the subject of a blistering opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. As Andrew Cohen points out in the linked article, it wasn’t the first time that has happened.

But the most pressing concern here is why this kid was pursued with such vigor in the first place. The very notion that the state of Virginia would need to sexually exploit a minor in order to protect minors from sexual exploitation serves as a tidy microcosm of the “sexting” debate in general: Too many schools, police, judges and prosecutors have concluded that we must destroy these kids in order to save them.

Hormonal teenagers have been showing their bodies to one another since there have been teenagers and hormones. Sexting adds a third element to the mix: technology. Teens, sex and technology. Any two of those can spark a media frenzy and reactionary public policy. Mix all three, and you’ve got a recipe for full-blown moral panic. For a great example of how this can affect a kid, see Nancy Rommelman’s terrific 2009 piece forReason magazine, “Anatomy of a Child Pornographer,” which took an in-depth look at one such case in upstate New York.

Perhaps the best example of the absurdity of this approach is a 2007 case in Florida, in which a 16-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy were convicted of “directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child” and possession of child pornography for e-mailing explicit photos to one another. The two hadn’t broken the law by having sex, only by creating, sending and possessing photos of their sex. In upholding the convictions, a Florida appellate court judge wrote, “Mere production of these videos or pictures may . . . result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved. Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors’ careers or personal lives.” The state of Florida had to protect these two minors from the theoretical damage to their lives or careers that might have been done had the photos been released by turning them into convicted child pornographers.

In a 2009 case, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an 18-year-old man who had sent a photo of his penis to a 14-year-old girl, who had requested it. Both parties said the entire episode was a joke, and there was no evidence presented that the photo had traumatized the girl. The man clearly showed poor judgment, but his conviction came with the requirement that he register as a sex offender. You can see the motives at work behind these cases in a statement Pat Trueman, an attorney for a religious advocacy group, gave to a local TV station after the verdict:


“This was a serious offense. He was producing obscenity and distributing obscenity, and to a minor at that. . . . But he also has to register as a sex offender — and [he] may be on that sex offender registry for a lifetime. So if anyone had any doubts, sexting is a very serious crime — and kids better get to know that.”

Note that Trueman defines the seriousness of the crime not by the amount of harm inflicted on victims or the damage the act itself does to society but on the seriousness of the punishment that lawmakers have attached to it. We should know by now that when drawing up crime legislation, lawmakers aren’t always engaging in a careful consideration of costs, benefits and the proper role of punishment in a criminal justice system. They’re often driven by outrage, media frenzies and a flare-up of we have to do something syndrome. (See also: laws named after dead people.)

Also in 2009, an Indiana prosecutor defended the felony charges he brought against a 14-year-old accused of “sexting,” explaining, “We’re doing these kids a favor by bringing charges, because it will encourage them to be more discreet.” (Jacob Sullum posted on yet another series of cases from 2009 here.)

The argument in favor of saving children from sexting is that the photos could wind up in the hands of a sexual predator. Perhaps that has happened, but I’ve followed this issue for several years, and I don’t recall a single such incident, much less a trend of them. I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s a good idea for minors to send explicit photos of themselves to one another. But there’s simply no evidence that the harm they’re imposing upon themselves by doing so justifies treating them as criminals.

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit returned some sanity to the discussion by blocking a Pennsylvania prosecutor from using the threat of felony charges to force three girls to attend a six-month “educational program” about teenagers and sex. In this case, the girls weren’t even nude. The court sensibly found that the prosecutor was infringing on the parents’ right to oversee the upbringing of their own children. (Leaving this issue to parents to handle — imagine that!) In a rare bit of political comeuppance for prosecutorial overreach, local outrage over the case cost District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. reelection. 

There are other issues at work here, too. In an effort to register their contempt for child exploitation and sex crimes, lawmakers have defined sex offenses so broadly that a teen sending an explicit photo to a boyfriend or girlfriend can qualify. Typically, when critics point out that a new law could be used in ways lawmakers never intended, supporters point to prosecutorial discretion. They argue that it’s ridiculous, even insulting, to suggest that a prosecutor would twist a law to bring charges against someone in ways the law clearly never intended — or that a judge would allow it. That police, a prosecutor’s office and a judge all saw nothing wrong with forcibly inducing an erection in order to pursue charges against a 17-year-old kid puts the lie to that argument.

Sex isn’t the only context in which we’re ruining kids under the pretense of saving them. We’re protecting kids from drugs by arresting and jailing them for marijuana possession. We’re protecting them from the (mostly nonexistent) problem of school violence by assigning law enforcement to patrol middle and high school campuses. The presence of law enforcement means that kids who were once reprimanded, assigned detention or possibly suspended for infractions such as fighting, throwing food or truancy are now fed into the criminal justice system.

And that’s the final lesson here. These stories are all symptoms of our increasing tendency to use the criminal justice system to “fix” the sorts of problems once addressed by families, schools, religious organizations and other civic institutions. 

Perhaps the best thing we can do to help kids right now is to stop the people who are trying to save them.

Justice on Trial !!! "I have clients who have lost everything: their jobs, their homes, their marriages, their children and their health," Saltrese said.

Justice on Trial !!! "I have clients who have lost everything: their jobs, their homes, their marriages, their children and their health," Saltrese said.
Justice on Trial !!! "I have clients who have lost everything: their jobs, their homes, their marriages, their children and their health," Saltrese said.

South Florida ICE official arrested on child porn charges

South Florida ICE official arrested on child porn charges

The following from 2011
Anthony Mangione faces three charges related to child pornography, the Justice Department says.

Anthony Mangione faces three charges related to child pornography, the Justice Department says.

Miami (CNN) -- The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for South Florida has been arrested on child pornography charges, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.

Anthony Mangione, 50, of Parkland, Florida, was charged in a three-count indictment unsealed Wednesday with transportation of child pornography, receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography, authorities said in a statement.

"According to the indictment, between March 2010 and September 2010, Mangione allegedly transported and received visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct," the statement said. "The indictment also alleges that Mangione possessed electronically stored messages that contained additional images of child pornography during the same time period."

Mangione was arrested Tuesday by FBI agents and made an initial appearance Wednesday in federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida.

During the appearance, Mangione pleaded not guilty to the charges, according to CNN affiliate WPTV. Both the prosecution and the defense requested that he undergo a psychological evaluation, and the judge approved that request.

"The government has concerns that given the magnitude of the charges, that he might melt down," defense attorney David Howard told WPTV. "So there is ... real concern, and it's going to be addressed."

Attempts to contact Howard on Wednesday were not immediately successful.

Mangione, a 27-year law enforcement veteran, wore a gray jumpsuit with "federal prisoner" on the back in court Wednesday, and his hands and feet were shackled, WPTV said. He made no statement during the hearing.

He was being held in the Broward County jail, according to jail records.

A law enforcement official who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media said Mangione has been on leave from his job at ICE. WPTV reported that he was placed on paid administrative leave in April amid a federal investigation into four images on his home computer he allegedly received via e-mail.

According to its website, ICE targets and investigates child pornographers, child sex tourists and facilitators and human smugglers and traffickers of minors, among others. The agency developed Operation Predator, which it describes as "an initiative to identify, investigate and arrest child predators and sexual offenders."

If convicted, Mangione faces up to 20 years in prison, the Department of Justice said. He also faces a term of supervised release from five years to life following his prison sentence and he will be required to register as a sex offender.

"On the arrest of our former (special agent in charge) in Miami, we have cooperated fully in that investigation," ICE Director John Morton said Wednesday morning when asked about the case during a news conference on another matter. "We'll see how things unfold today, and beyond that, we don't have any comment."

The case is being investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the FBI, the Department of Justice said. Broward County referred questions to federal authorities, and the FBI referred them to the Department of Justice.

CNN's Ashley Hayes and Athena Jones contributed to this report.

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations By Glenn Greenwald


How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
By 

1,156

A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit


One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.


Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”


By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.


Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:






Featured photo - How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:
GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”


Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.


The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:



No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardianin the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.


The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”


Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.


Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).


But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?


Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:








Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:






The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:
We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag 

operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?


As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”


These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.


Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.


Documents referenced in this article: 

Marshall Frank: Just one click can lead to child pornography conviction

Imagine being a middle-aged man with a respectable job and good family. You have one weakness: pornography. One day, you receive an email with a hyperlink, clearly stating it's a graphic video with children in pornographic situations. Curiously, you click the link and download a site. A few days go by and you're suddenly whisked off to jail. All the decency within your life is erased by a single click of the mouse.

Curiosity energizes and ennobles. Thoreau said, “The  greatest  compliment  that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought, and attended to my answer.”   Listening lifts people. Curiosity keeps people coming back whether there is a new gadget or not, because they know they might learn something new. Law Enforcement has learned from the social sciences on how to cultivates curiosity which make their, “child porn pull marketing”work. Curiosity keeps people engaged long after they present their daily, “Gothic melodramas” where they stand behind a podium all lined up in front of the camera or on the front page of the news papers. There they demonize child porn and connect you to their pedophile drama while pretending to shut it down. They are providing a person not just titillation but assurances by them they are our righteousness protectors.  A curious person would want to find out more because thats human nature.

This is happening right now this very minute to someone somewhere in the USA.  Kitty Wolf of CautionClick.org says every 60min. someone's home is is being searched and they are being carted off to jail. Understand; these people have done nothing more than look at a picture nothing more what so ever NO CONTACT, NO HARM, NO ABUSE, NO CHILD.  If you think you are immune don't be mistaken; they just haven't got to you yet. What is legal today is being made illegal as legislators state and federal pass laws against their own inner demons.  This cognitive dissonance is translated into law and we pay the price as a civilized society.      

Witch hunts alchemized the pornography scare which later became a more general panic over child sexual abuse with NO empirical evidence to support their claims. Fears and worries about children’s vulnerability to adult sexual desire has reified the therapy and child abuse industry. They have taught themselves to uncover abuse in every female patient’s past; It’s very lucrative. They saw profanity in the form of abortion, divorce, homosexuality, premarital teen sex, and sex education everywhere encroaching on sanctity. To them, it made sense that adults, with Satan as chief gang-banger, were conspiring in, “rings” to rape innocent children. Such myths have survived because they are useful for the left as well as for right conservative and patriarchal agendas. 

Marshall Frank: Just one click can lead to child pornography conviction

Marshall Frank is an author and retired Miami police detective who lives in Melbourne. Online: MarshallFrank.com.
4:00 AM, Nov 29, 2011
Imagine being a middle-aged man with a respectable job and good family. You have one weakness: pornography. One day, you receive an email with a hyperlink, clearly stating it's a graphic video with children in pornographic situations. Curiously, you click the link and download a site. A few days go by and you're suddenly whisked off to jail. All the decency within your life is erased by a single click of the mouse.
Worth it?
I know a 48-year-old man who is otherwise a fine and caring person with a clean record. He didn't know that law enforcement was monitoring downloads of child porn sites. All the cops had to do is identify his computer, its owner and its location. At 6:30 in the morning, a knock at the door derailed his life forever. Hauled off to jail, his computer was impounded and his residence searched.
Watching child porn on a computer can render a first-time offender a minimum sentence of five years in federal prison. The offenders are not limited to the low end of society. Arrests have been made of many in respectable professions, including teachers, clergy, attorneys and doctors.
There are facts that consumers (viewers) of child pornography on the Internet should know. The chances of getting caught are great because Big Brother is watching. When caught, the consequences will be life-changing. After prison, it requires registering as a felony sex offender. Finding a job will be tough. It will decimate a reputation.
The impact goes beyond jail. Innocent people often are subjected to fallout from the ripple effect. Spouses and other family members must often revert to welfare systems for support while living under a cloud of humiliation. Children have to face a shame in a school environment. Many families move to another state.
One little click.
While hard statistics are not available, there have been several reports around the country of child porn defendants awaiting trial who have committed suicide.
One might argue that the mere viewing of child porn is not nearly as egregious as the production and distribution for profit. That may be so, but the intent of lawmakers is to diminish the demand which (hopefully) would ultimately diminish the supply. So far, not so good.
The prisons are rapidly filling with consumers of child porn. While drugs and immigration offenses still comprise the bulk of federal crimes, the FBI claims that arrests for consumers of child porn have skyrocketed 2,500 percent since 1996, as new technology has allowed law enforcement to easily track sources of website downloads. The FBI has made more than 10,000 arrests for child porn since 1996. That doesn't include the thousands of arrests made by local and state law enforcement.
In federal prosecutions, the conviction rate is 95 percent. Inmates are not usually paroled until they've served at least 90 percent of their time.
For the cops, it's easy stats. Local police have stepped up their investigation of child porn viewers on the Internet. All it requires is technically savvy officers and a little patience.
Like fishing in a trout pond.