←back to thread

This 'College Protester' Isn't Real. It's an AI-Powered Undercover Bot for Cops

(www.wired.com)
235 points colinprince | 4 comments | 17 Apr 25 13:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
nekochanwork ◴[17 Apr 25 15:45 UTC] No.43718533[source]▶
SCOTUS ruled in Mathews v. United States (1998) and in Jacobson v. United States (1992) that the government cannot induce a person to commit a crime, then arrest that individual for that crime.

Now the government is rolling out fully-automated entrapment bots.

replies(6): >>43718597 #>>43718661 #>>43718759 #>>43718803 #>>43719338 #>>43719814 #
netsharc ◴[17 Apr 25 16:03 UTC] No.43718759[source]▶
The FBI has been doing a lot of prodding people to say they hate the country, and then telling them to do a bombing, and then providing them with a (fake) bomb, and then telling the public "We caught another terrorist!": https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human...

Also reminds me of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/gretchen-whitmer...

replies(4): >>43719291 #>>43719838 #>>43721309 #>>43723198 #
sfn42 ◴[17 Apr 25 19:46 UTC] No.43721309[source]▶
I have to say that if someone is far enough gone that they can trivially be convinced to bomb innocent people then I'm fine with this type of entrapment. Great work, go ahead and lock them up for life.
replies(1): >>43728221 #
nativeit ◴[18 Apr 25 14:06 UTC] No.43728221[source]▶
They are banking on precisely this kind of “common sense” rationalizing of removing civil rights.
replies(1): >>43729380 #
1. sfn42 ◴[18 Apr 25 16:09 UTC] No.43729380[source]▶
The civil right to be willing but currently unable to commit terrorism?
replies(1): >>43731278 #
2. fc417fc802 ◴[18 Apr 25 19:45 UTC] No.43731278[source]▶
The civil right not to be led by the nose by a government agent to commit a crime. They are relying on people doing exactly what you're doing here - convincing themselves that if it was possible to lead them into it then they deserved it so the ends justify the means.
replies(1): >>43731525 #
3. sfn42 ◴[18 Apr 25 20:20 UTC] No.43731525[source]▶
Yeah I get your point, and I generally agree for minor offenses like buying drugs or prostitution or whatever. But if someone can trivially be convinced to murder a bunch of people then the world is better off with them locked away.
replies(1): >>43731716 #
4. fc417fc802 ◴[18 Apr 25 20:44 UTC] No.43731716{3}[source]▶
I do see what you're saying. However this debate isn't unique to this specific scenario. The exact same reasoning can be applied to other violations of due process. Historically that was viewed as a particularly dangerous slippery slope and thus we have the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree, despite that this can easily result in (for example) a mob boss walking free. Perhaps caution is warranted when considering abandoning well established principles?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree