@Davi O -
This is a common misperception about the nature of entrapment.
Entrapment can only be the result of action by a member of law enforcement (or another government agent).
Entrapment is a defense to an accusation that a person committed a crime. Basically, if a law enforcement agent caused you to commit an illegal act that you would not have otherwise committed, then you may claim as a defense that you were entrapped. If, on the other hand, it's something that you would do anyway, and the law enforcement agent just gave you the opportunity to do it, then you may not succeed with the entrapment defense.
For an entrapment defense to succeed,
1) The idea for committing the illegal act must have come from the law enforcement agent and not from the accused;
2) The law enforcement agent must have coerced, persuaded or otherwise convinced the accused into committing the illegal act. Simply giving a person the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading the accused to commit the crime; and
3) The accused was not ready and willing to commit the illegal act before the law enforcement agent spoke with him/her.
Thus, for example, a honeypot is not entrapment because (a) it usually isn't set up by law enforcement, (b) the idea for attacking it doesn't usually come from a law enforcement agent, and (c) the attackers are rarely coerced or persuaded by law enforcement agents to attack the honeypot. Even if a honeypot were set up by law enforcement, without the persuasion/coercion element, the defense of entrapment is not available to the attacker.