I think there is a pretty strong case that those are different.
In the case of selling drugs (assuming that drugs are harmful, and so on, which is obviously debatable), then selling and delivering the drugs to users causes tangible harm that wouldn't happen without the sale of the drug.
In the case of child porn, the child porn has presumably already been created - they're not filming new child porn and distributing that, I presume. So the bulk of the harm is already done. The direct harm from pedophiles downloading that porn and viewing it is minimal. The problem with the child porn is that it needs to be filmed/created in the first place, which involves child abuse, a direct and immediate harm, and that people who enjoy child porn are asserted to eventually graduate to abusing children themselves (a more distant and hypothetical harm, which is negated by arresting those people after having identified them).
So, whilst I also dislike the police's actions in corrupting tools useful for free speech, I don't see that letting the server run for another two weeks to identify more users, and actively selling and distributing drugs for two weeks, are equivalent.
You're right that it may not be morally equivalent, but that's not really relevant to the legal analysis. Possessing and distributing child porn is a crime, regardless of whether you believe it directly causes harm. So the grandparent's question remains: Does the FBI operate under different laws?
There are laws which set out exceptions to other laws. Law enforcement agencies "qualify" for these exceptions in the actioning of their duty if and only if they are respecting any limitations present in those exceptions and all law not explicitly updated by those exceptions.
Though I'm no lawyer, nor am I even an American, so what do I know?!
As a related-but-not-really-directly for instance: in the UK the emergency services (including the police) have exceptions allowing them to break certain driving related laws, but while doing this they must display their presence obviously, with at least the flashing lights and where necessary their sirens, so other road users are aware that a speeding vehicle may be about to enter their locality and can safely respond to that circumstance. The blues and twos are not just to get people to move out of the way, they are to inform other road users that you are there and may be speeding or performing other manoeuvres that are not normally permitted (or, at least, are generally frowned upon). Though while the exceptions allow breaking other rules in certain circumstances, there are both specific exceptions to the exceptions (there are limits to how fast the police can go in urban areas and so forth) and they are always couched in wording that means that general due diligence must be followed (the police are expected to use their judgement so even if operating within the set limits they could be reprimanded & charged if they cause damage/injury/death and it is successfully argued that no reasonable person would have taken the offending action under those circumstances.
Of course with agencies like the FBI there is a greater level of secrecy, so enforcement is more difficult. Who watches the watchers when the watchers can arrest/detain/prosecute you for watching?!
Depends to what extent. A cop who is being reckless to the extent of putting others at harm should be charged with such a crime. It is like when a cop goes to shoot a suspect without any concern as to who is behind the suspect. Cops are allowed to break laws, but only when they do not cause direct and significant harm to someone.
For example, taking drugs is legal for an undercover cop. Forcefully drugging some bystander is not.
>> Should a cop get a ticket for chasing a speeder?
A cop does not get to go speeding on the highway in order to sneak up on speeders from behind. (s)he does get to break the law a bit (speeding) once a speeder has been identified in order to catch them. Unfortunately the justification for this seems to be that it's the most practical way to catch them. I don't mind the practice, but I'd prefer a better justification. Got one?
I see, so in that case I guess prison guards should be sent to jail for kidnapping and holding people against their will. I mean, if you're going to take your reasoning to its natural conclusion...
Hint: violence is not illegal per aw, it's only illegal when done by someone other than the state, in a way that violates the laws of the land. To exist, a state must maintain a monopoly on violence - and in order to maintain that monopoly it must from time to time use or at least threaten violence. At least, that's how it works today. Perhaps in the future that will change...
It is in the interests of society that its police be held to the same rule of law as everyone else, or to an even higher standard.
But in this case, it is equally legal for a prison guard to hold a duly convicted criminal against his will as a private citizen, because the criminal's right to roam free was suspended by judicial order in the sentencing phase of his trial.
The logical standard for permitting police to engage a fleeing suspect with a high-speed chase is by determining that the suspect would present a greater threat to the public if allowed to escape than the damage that could occur during the pursuit.
Since innocents have been killed in the past by both fleeing suspects and police pursuit vehicles, one might suspect that police would only start a hot pursuit for known-violent murder suspects, and for everyone else, radio in a description of the vehicle and its passengers so that other cops further ahead of it can block traffic or throw down spike strips. Unfortunately, this is often trumped by the de facto "adrenaline standard".
The fact of the matter is, cops who speed can be ticketed for it. But then the cop who issued that ticket to another cop is overwhelmingly harassed by her peers as a "traitor" to the cop culture. (search: florida "donna watts" "fausto lopez" 2011) The net result is that police are held to a lower standard of law than everyone else, and that creates a culture of corruption.
>> I see, so in that case I guess prison guards should be sent to jail for kidnapping and holding people against their will. I mean, if you're going to take your reasoning to its natural conclusion...
Exactly! How did you guess I'm against forced imprisonment and consider it kidnapping?
The answer, unequivocally, is yes. More precisely, they operate under different sections of the same laws that you and I do.
Police conducting undercover operations frequently break the law. For example, they might bribe someone, or pay money for stolen goods. They may even use illegal drugs.
Yes, imagine if undercover cops weren't allowed to abuse a child. All a drug lord would have to to figure out if someone was a cop was ask them to abuse a child and then shoot them in the head if they refuse. Sure there is probally a false positive issue but I doubt they care.
Of course, you're assuming that the undercover drug lords are intelligent. Is this the case? Have they figured out how to make efficient use of the information resources at their disposal? Intriguing question.
In the case of selling drugs (assuming that drugs are harmful, and so on, which is obviously debatable), then selling and delivering the drugs to users causes tangible harm that wouldn't happen without the sale of the drug.
In the case of child porn, the child porn has presumably already been created - they're not filming new child porn and distributing that, I presume. So the bulk of the harm is already done. The direct harm from pedophiles downloading that porn and viewing it is minimal. The problem with the child porn is that it needs to be filmed/created in the first place, which involves child abuse, a direct and immediate harm, and that people who enjoy child porn are asserted to eventually graduate to abusing children themselves (a more distant and hypothetical harm, which is negated by arresting those people after having identified them).
So, whilst I also dislike the police's actions in corrupting tools useful for free speech, I don't see that letting the server run for another two weeks to identify more users, and actively selling and distributing drugs for two weeks, are equivalent.