Talk:Operation Pin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Operation Pin is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

	Pornography Portal This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)

[edit] See Also

Does anyone know why the see also link points to Perverted-Justice entry? I saw nothing that had anything to do with Operation Pin so I removed it. --DizFreak 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that someone went ahead and added it back in without reason. Operation PIN has to do with Child Porn, Perverted-Justice is not law enforcement nor does is child porn in their mission statement. Deleting again. --DizFreak talk 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be an appropriate see also to have. While they're not directly related to each other, they're both sting efforts to catch pedophilic predators. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)