Talk:Operation Pin

Untitled
Why does the article state that Operation Pin is effectively committing a criminal offence? They are advertising/running fake sites so they would fall outside of the legislation...--Purple strain 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
I removed the following paragraph:


 * It is also a controversial scheme. In the United Kingdom at least, it is an offence to advertise locations where indecent photographs of children are shown or distributed. If Operation Pin's websites do indeed "'look like the real thing", their operators would be committing a criminal offence under UK law (the Protection of Children Act 1978, section 1(1)(d)).

This paragraph appears to contradict content stated earlier in the article. The article says that the sting sites would not contain any actual child pornography; they will only claim to show or distribute it, and it sounds like the Act makes it an offense advertise actual access to it. If this argument has actually been used against the operation, and can be properly sourced, then it can be included. But without such a source, it appears to be someone's personal analysis and a faulty one at that. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Importance of this article for the wikiproject law enforcement: Discussion
This article, regardless of it's quality, is of high importance to the law enforcement project. It deals with several countries participating in an international project that had consequential decisions made for the future of law enforcement and laws regarding entrapment/honey-pots. The legality of honey-pots being used in the U.S. is questionable as it is regarded by many as entrapment, which is not a legal practice by law enforcement in the U.S.  Entrapment typically occurs when law enforcement induces or encourages individuals to commit crimes they would not have otherwise committed.eximo (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)