Slashdot Mirror
Dateline NBC Mole Outed At DefCon
An anonymous reader writes "Dateline NBC allegedly attempted to infiltrate the DefCon hackerfest with a producer using a hidden camera. The show hoped to tape hackers admitting to illegal activities, but DefCon got wind of the plot and displayed the would-be-mole's photo before every presentation. Dateline refused to deny the planned infiltration. 'All journalists covering DefCon sign an agreement upon registering for the conference that outlines the rules, but the DefCon organizers say the mole apparently registered as a regular attendee, thereby bypassing the legal agreement. Dateline NBC is best known for its controversial To Catch A Predator series, which uses hidden cameras to tape men who are allegedly seeking to have sex with minors they met online.'"
Not that "To Entrap A Predator" was good, but this hidden camera, secret registration bull goes against just about every ethical journalistic rule I can think of. They should be charged with violations against wiretap laws for pulling this stunt.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
Attempt to carry out what is basically technological espionage against some of the best technological espionage people in the world... real smart move.
Should have been that she's a woman
They could've had some real fun with her had they not exposed her so quickly.
... did he bring the condoms and beer? In the producer's defense, I'm sure he just wanted to be friends with the hackers and talk with them, nothing more.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
By sending a -woman- to a computer hacking event. :)
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08 /03/dateline_mole.jpg - she's cute.
Aside from the fact that what Dateline does can only be called "news" in a very loose sense, isn't this the kind of BS we should be expecting from Fox News?
Or would they already be trumpeting how they got kicked out by the HACKERS ON STEROIDS?
It is easier to catch perverts than hackers, 'eh?!;-)
"I'm a dirty white tomcat, enter my world..."
Please stop.
Good for the Hackers. Fuck NBC and their bullshit. They wouldnt have presented a fair story anyways. They were out to paint all hackers in a bad light and produce yet another sensational story which i'm sure would have ended up with the word terrorism in it.
Dateline should stick to entrapment. It seems that they're far better at entrapping lonely horny guys and ruining their lives for tv ratings.
LOL! You mean.. you mean to tell me that that was going to pass as a DefCon hacker? That is just a great end to my Friday.
The only thing surprising here was that they had to be tipped off.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
should Journalists identify hemselves to the chef before eating at a restaurant under review? Reporters are representatives of their readers; I want MY reporters to be able to go anywhere without revealing their identity. When ABC's hidden cameras revealed that Food Lion was deliberately selling "iffy" meat, Food Lion sued on the basis of reporters falsifying employment applications. The courts eventually found in ABC's favor, as they should have! I'm sympathetic to hackers, but they deserve no special protection from the press.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Hell, at the very least, they could have man-in-the-middled his wifi connection. Read his report before he filed it. Maybe make some tweaks to it and see what gets overlooked and put on the air. Redirect his Google.com to goatse or something.
Posting his picture is so-- boring.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Dateline NBC is best known for its controversial To Catch A Predator series, which uses hidden cameras to tape men who are allegedly seeking to have sex with minors they met online.
Best known for that? I think they are best known for rigging a pickup truck to explode when they crashed it so that it would look good on tv.
Their credibility is a wee bit low.
...were our brethren simply walking around with bug-sweepers? It'd be nice to find out what equipment she was using to record... Our shop also does CCTV work, and I've seen some scary new models/combos of concealed cameras/DVRs available. Shirt buttons, pen cams, wall clocks, ties, even sprinkler heads...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
How can something that sounds so good, be so evil?
Still, if nothing else, that song gives me strength to stay together with my tubby girlfriend, if only to not give her up!
Hacker: Look! Behind that mask hides a reporter from Dateline NBC!
Reporter: And i would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for these meddling kids!
How was she going to fit in at a hacker conference?
They should be charged with violations against wiretap laws for pulling this stunt.
The media believes it is above the law, and from a practical sense it often is. The media confuses the absolute right to print whatever they discover with a right to do anything they care to, legal or not, in order to obtain that info. They have the former (print) but not the later (discover). However many in power are so dependent on the media to obtain or keep their positions of power they rarely go after the media.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the media is an important check to the power of government. However the law is supposed to be a check on the media's abusive behaviors.
http://amishrabbit.smugmug.com/gallery/3253654
Their first tipoff was her "Windows Vista" t-shirt.
I can see the NBC headline now... "EXPLICIT picture of Dateline journalist EXPOSED at hacker conference!"
Ratings are more important than real news, truth, or helping someone with an obvious problem. I love how when a TV station is selling ad space they market the ablity to influence the public, but when they air programs that serve to lower the ethical or intellectual standings of America, tehy claim "We just give the people what they want." Which is it? Does the public control the TV or does the TV control the public?
We are all just people.
Women tend to be good at social engineering and networking. She might be pretty good at 'hacking' horny geek brains.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
That dateline guy is really annoying and smug. He seems to take pleasure at lording over others' predicaments/fear. The predator series is just plain wrong for many reasons. It's pretty much entrapment, especially because the men are convinced by the girl at the end to enter the house even though they seem apprehensive. And what's up with the tackling every guy by the cop, even the ones who surrender? Does NBC host the show Big Brother? Because these jackasses seem to be helping bypass civil liberties by unlawfully spying on everyone and inducing them to commit and confess to stuff that is probably not even illegal, or that they would not have done/followed through on, but for the shows.
And then they would have to get consent to make an audio recording of anyone. And if they didn't, then it would be the MS NBC reporter going to jail or paying a fine.
Thinking that she would not be detected certainly puts an upper limit on the intelligence of NBC executives.
Why don't they blow up another truck with a model rocket?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And I rather doubt DEFCON can impose any boilerplate contractual terms on its' attendees. Most would revolt! Few would agree the sky is blue.
The fact that she's a she already stretches credibility, but then she had to attempt the impossible: disguise herself as a blonde as well.
Only be honest to your clergy, doctor or lawyer. Well with respect to past events that could get you into trouble, don't mention future plans to do so. ;-) Hmmm ... what if a journalist impersonated a member of the clergy, a doctor or a lawyer to get info. You know, I bet they have done it already.
I don't she will be doing tv for a while, lets just hope nbc can handle the problems that mismanged stunts bring.
revenge is dish best served cold
I hate their To Catch A Predatory series. The questionable legality should be obvious to anyone. I don't like being in a position where I'm defending alleged pedophiles, but the law is there to protect everyone, even the accused (who sometimes need extra protection because of their vulnerable position). Never at any point was there an actual child who was in danger, no actual crime was committed. It's staged from end to end and yet they completely gloss over that part when their over dramatized edited version of what happens gets aired. This sort of vigilantism is not helpful to society. NBC are the real pornographers here, and sadly it seems people can't get enough of it.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Ah, but NBC doesn't have to worry about hackers out for retaliation. What with their history of partnership with Microsoft (MSNBC) they must have the most secure computer systems on Earth.
Most. Secure. Computer. Systems.
ROFLMAO.
Oh, man, that was funny!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
but the only way to insure that DefCon can report and publish what they want is to permit MSNBC (and anyone else) to report and publish what they want.
Please detect and replace links to tinyurl.com with links to preview.tinyurl.com. This will help prevent trolls like the parent from getting away with "goatse" like images.
Ok, first one who can replace an on-the-air Dateline program with scenes from "Hackers" wins.
Can't be just an affiliate in the middle of Kansas though, it has to be a major metropolitan area.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
I want to know who the genius that decided to send a blue-eyed blonde haired female to a computer hacking event "undercover" was.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I do believe it was Dateline - but definately NBC news division anyway that back in the late 80's was trying to make a case against Ford for their pickups blowing up during side impacts. They showed footage on the air of this happening....forgetting to mention the TNT they added to make sure they got good film.
Don't remember all the consequences - but haven't trusted NBC news since then.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Interesting how many non-RTFA'ers just assume it's a guy as the mole.
Of course, my suspicion is they send a ringer.. and some other passable mole from another network (or worse) never gets outed...
On the contrary. Their terms require that members of government agencies, or working for government agencies or the press must identify themselves. These terms are quite welcome by the attendees of the conference. In fact IIRC they have a spot the fed competition every year.
Not a 'predator' - but a hacker: she tried to hack the system - by registering as a regular attendee and thereby bypassing the legal agreement). OK, so she failed - miserably - but at least she deserves the tag of 'hack' on /. :-)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
There is nothing wrong with a horny guy but there is something very wrong with a horny guy who wants sexual relations with a kid. Does it ruin their life to be on national television? Possibly. I say so be it, make them understand how serious it is.
I say if it takes something "illegal" such as using hidden cameras that no one agree's with to catch something even "more illegal", then that's fine. Catch them and make them understand. The worst is when in the early shows when there were no cops, the molester would leave and within 24 hours would try again and was caught again. I donno about you but I can't see how you can defend the man who wants sex with a kid versus the hidden cameramen spying and trying to catch these people.
And ruining their lives for tv ratings? Well, at least at the same they're showing to the viewers how molesters pull it off and then you might hopefully have parents who are more aware of what their kids do on the internet and not do jack shit until it happens to them.
Wow, "journalistic standards" from "Fox News".
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
In this day and age when you get charged with a felony for taping a police officer while he performs his duty. Wouldn't something like this violate wiretapping laws. I assume that there must be a "attempted" version of the crime.And im SURE she meant to record audio in addition to the video.
There is something deeply disturbing about this trend that NBC is spearheading. It is sick and twisted in itself to want to watch and see (AND BAIT) the 'scum of the earth' that are arrayed against You and Your CHILDREN!!! You know where the children are most safe from crime? Police States. And sadly, there are so many stupid, scared people in this country who make that deal in a heartbeat. Provided they are still regailed by entertaining tales of cruelty, sadism, and murder.
"They Thought of The Children" will be carved on the tombstones of free societies.
we are doomed. I vote for Separation of Media and State Amendment.
...had they pulled this off.
I mean, how could the average Dateline viewer *not* want to see this? What viewer in their right mind wouldn't relish to chance to see a group of balding overweight hackers, garbed in black t-shirts (with obligitary armpit stains) working on laptops for _hours_ on end?! It's TV magic!
You Got Owned!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Don't the conference rules specifically prohibit cameras? Isn't Dateline all about exposing frauds (and perverts)? Did she not falsely, nigh fraudulently, misrepresent her identity for personal gain? If you are as shocked and outraged as I that journalists of such high regard would sink to levels that one would expect from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, contact Michelle and let her know how you feel! Michelle.Madigan@nbcuni.com
Guy solicits, guy shows up with condoms and beer, which is black-and-white illegal-- what's the problem?
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Nevada, the state in question, does not require the consent of all participants in a recording. It is what you call a "one party" state, meaning that so long as one person in a conversation is aware of the recording, it is legal. So while I can't plant a mic in your house and record you, I can wear one on me and record what I hear and that's legal.
Also, most privacy laws go out the window in any sort of public venue. So even if there were restrictions, they generally don't apply if you are among a bunch of people. This would likely go double for a Vegas hotel/casino which have some of the most intense security out there. If you don't think you aren't on camera at almost all times, you are kidding yourself. Security in those places is truly impressive.
Also remember: If you want to prevent them from going undercover to your gatherings, that mean by definition you are ok with prohibiting them from going undercover to do things like investigate stores for fraud (like the Jiffylube stories). It's either ok for the press to do or it's not, you don't get a special pass.
ROFL
And where is the victim? And no fair saying something like if we didn't catch him here he'd do it again with a real underage girl. That's BS and you know it. We have a justice system based on punishing people AFTER they commit a crime not before
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Some blonde comes around covertly offering mainstream infamy, and neckbeards chase her away while recording her defeat. I'm glad that the hacker priorities are still being observed! :)
It would be pretty funny if they didn't find Dateline's other undercover reporter.
and i guess +1 toolfan
"Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
This is an expression of the idea of freedom of the press. It doesn't matter that it targeted a hacker convention. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
visit http://tinyurl.com/preview.php and set this preference via cookie, i personally can't stand clicking on a link not knowing it's destination, thanks mainly to years at slashdot
We have a justice system based on punishing people AFTER they commit a crime not before
But soliciting a minor for sex is a crime.
I don't think NBC has it head on straight for this and IMHO have gone overboard on this type of reporting. I don't care if they report on catching child molesters, and I have children myself so I am biased, but this type reporting should be catch real bad guys but I think Dateline think Defcon had some bad guys there. Like the show "Criminal Minds", the people who catch the bad guys understand the bad guys minds but the difference is that the good guys understand the consequences of those actions and don't do it.
Anyone else remember the Techno Mage episode of Babylon 5?
WHAT MINOR!? There never was an underage girl, it was an actress and a fake AIM screen name. It was a group who has the self righteous arrogance to put the word "Justice" in their name tricking men who obviously have very serious mental problems into incriminating themselves.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
they're far better at entrapping lonely horny guys-- You do know this was defcon, right?
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
If I have a gun and say I'm going to kill you because you skinned my cat but someone notifies the police before I actually go to your house, I suppose that's a good argument. After all, you were never in danger, right?
These scumbags are all adults. They engage in sexually explicit conversations with someone they believe is a 15 year-old child, which more often than not includes them sending grainy pictures of their genitals and whatnot. Then they drive hundreds of miles (sometimes across state lines) to the house of the 15 year-old. They walk in with liquor, ropes, condoms and porn videos. Sometimes they walk in naked. To meet what they believe is a 15 year-old child whose parents are not home. Apparently I'm to conclude that they just wanted to borrow an XBox game or maybe some sugar?
You'll forgive me if I think that what MSNBC is doing is valuable, even though of course they do it for the ratings. Sexual exploitation of minors is a serious problem in this country. As long as our law enforcement entities are fixated with catching evil terrorists, I'll take the media's help any day as long as they don't break any laws or infringe on anyone's constitutional rights.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
DefCon treats itself as an academic approach to hacking. They want to protect the identities of those at the event in order to enable many to discuss hacking openly, without fear of being outed. Thus, their anonymity is of the utmost importance. So, they ban filming anyone who does not agree to being filmed. She basically went in with her hidden camera, filming anyone and everyone. This is why she was rightfully outed, not any other reason.
IMHO, Dateline has always been a POS. Its crap journalism got carried over to the Nightly News, starting with Brockaw's "Fleecing of America" series, and has since dragged that news program into the ground. Though I find their Catching a Predator series interesting, some incidents have brought up very pertinent questions regarding the safety (or lack thereof) of the accused/tricked individuals.
There seems to be a growing movement among corporate media, the entertainment industry, government, and our holier-than-thou types toward monitoring, restricting, controlling, and propagandizing the internet.
Dateline is only a half-step away from alleging that policing the net would eliminate most types of crime.
And Dateline fits 3 of the 4 categories listed above.
Based on past crusades, witch-hunts, and purges the above groups will do their best to make using the web a very authoritarian experience.
Just imagine the TSA in charge of clearing users to access the web.
Hey, why not -- it works for Red China!
Dateline may be after the perv's for now, but it won't stop there.
There are just too many big interests that want to control it all.
I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
Exactly. There is no real crime there. I'm quite suspect of Datelines intentions. Dateline has a vested interest in enticing these people to show up at their "house". Their tv show depends on the influx of guys showing up.
Some of the folks that show up definatly have had records... but some folks are first timers... and no one even knows if they would have gone through with it, or not... Which they couldnt have anyways because there was no actual child invovled.
It is a TV show that makes lots of money. I'm suspect of their intentions.
I was in danger. You see in your example, we (you and I), and your gun and your intent to use it to harm me, all existed. The child is fictional, and fictional people don't have rights or protection under the law.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Why is it legal for the press to intentionally misrepresent themselves when i as a private citizen cant? If tried this it would be considered fraud at the very least.
I dont see how "freedom of the press" extends to lying, regardless of how 'noble' the cause might be. ( not that i think it is a noble cause, but im sure others do )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't think I've ever seen Fox using obviously forged documents in a fake "news" story right before an election.
CBS has done just that.
And if you don't think those docs were forged, well, I'd call you a fucking idiot but I don't want to insult all the people in this world who are merely fucking idiots.
Gotta love how the "tolerant" left is trying to shut down a news organization just because they don't lean left like most of the mass media does. But boy, the left sure does love those "news" organizations that swallow fauxtography hook, line and sinker. Who cares for the actual truth when you can have "truthy", or even "fake but accurate".
They also tried to bring Muslims into a NASCAR race with cameras to get a reaction once. http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006- 04-06-dateline_x.htm
http://www.nascar.com/2006/news/headlines/cup/04/0 6/nbc.dateline/index.html
There are plenty of sexually active 15 to 17 year olds. I dont know if they should be sleeping with 50 year olds... but i knew a girl who was 14 and dating a 21 year old in the military when i was in highschool and her parents were ok with it.
Aw man.. c'mon ... Chicks dig hackers!
It's all semantic blabber until your child is victimized, I guess. And as long as the poor pervert's constitutional rights are not being violated, I'm perfectly fine with doing whatever it takes to get him to spend a few years taking long showers with Bruno instead of trying to abuse vulnerable children.
If you have a problem with that, I suggest you write your congressman.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
As Dave Mustaine of MegaDeath said:
/., & other sites, in these posts:
"A TOUT LE MONDE!"
I haven't posted on DefCon here, since last year here:
CODING FOR DEFCON:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158231&thre shold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=13257227
BUT, this is my tiny "contribution" to your coverage of it here, this year (about security too):
"Ah, but NBC doesn't have to worry about hackers out for retaliation. What with their history of partnership with Microsoft (MSNBC) they must have the most secure computer systems on Earth." - by wytcld (179112) on Friday August 03, @08:03PM (#20109025)
Sure do, most likely, but... ONLY if their techs/admins set them up, @ the "client nodes" levels, ontop of perimiter defense protections (of course), this way, first:
APK "12 step program" 4 a secure Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA)):
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=e63 53d948ca02c86dee6df077d9a9d18&p=375355#post375355
AND, proof of the multi-platform CIS Tool 1.x (JAVA driven, & created by "the CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY") score possible, using those techniques noted above:
http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg
I challenged several *NIX oriented sites, including folks here @
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254685&cid=199 85487
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240571&cid= 19630923
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 31141
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240501&c id=19630965
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241957&cid= 19662703
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241913&cid= 19662485
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19690705
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19691091
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 22485
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244821&cid= 19736881
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245695&cid= 19761821
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=246583&c id=19779437
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252367&c id=19946243
LASTLY, & M
If they are misrepresenting themselves at jiffy lube, its just as wrong.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
this is what people get for underestimating the creative minds that run, and attend defcon, even if it got out, dateline would crash from a massive ddos attack or soumthin
destiny, chance, fate, fortune; they're all ways of claiming your fortunes, without claiming your failures. -gerrard
For me, it comes down to a simple question. Was, at any point, a child in danger? And the answer is no here. I don't have any children of my own, and probably never will, so I guess I'll never fully understand the thinkings of parents; but to me, it really seems like NBC and all the people they collaborated with are overstepping the law to make "good tv".
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I am all for her right to come in and report on activities. However, if she is filming the process, which I might add the promoters are paying for in order to make money, isn't this the same as the girl filming 20 seconds of a movie. Didn't that same girl get arrested for that filming? Why wasn't this reporter arrested? The line here is very gray and blurry...what constitutes a "reporter". If the media company is going to use the film to make money, that would seem to violate the rights of the event promoters. Just my 2 cents...for whatever they are worth.
I've seen a lot of bad legislation crafted by people whose cry is "think of the children!", and I've seen a lot of bad memes (don't talk to strangers!) spread by well-meaning parents who overestimate the risk their children are at otherwise. My distinct impression is that the majority of things categorized as sex crimes are comparatively harmless (public urination, consensual sex between an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old), but the public as a whole thinks about them (and decides on appropriate punishments) based only on the most dramatic examples (sexual abuse of young children by adults). I'm not saying that legislation intended to protect children is inherently invalid, or that teaching children to think critically about things they're told by people they don't have reason to trust is inappropriate... but I am saying that humans tend to overestimate dramatic risks (terrorism, sexual predators, airplane crashes) and underestimate everyday ones (car accidents), and overreaction is extremely easy to do.
(Your general point -- that laws making attempts to commit a crime punishable are valid, and thus that Dateline's actions are legitimate -- is something I agree with wholeheartedly; however, the argument that the specific issue of sexual abuse of children is an extremely widespread and serious problem within the United States in particular is something which I simply do not buy).
"This sort of vigilantism is not helpful to society."
And this is?
"It's staged from end to end and yet they completely gloss over that part when their over dramatized edited version of what happens gets aired."
Yeah! It's just young kids "borrowing" iPods.
(quote from article):Casey, a sexpot college student and aspiring dancer in tight jeans who is playing jailbait decoy today because her landlord dad owns this house. (Added bonus: Local prosecutors wrote her college a note so she could get out of a chemistry test.) Casey gabs to potential predators on the phone. "Come on over, we're not going to get caught," she says. "If we got caught, I would get into trouble, and everybody would call me a slut, and I don't want that, either. I'll pay for your gas. It's no big deal, trust me. My dad gave me plenty of money for the weekend." When the guy fails to take the bait, her voice rises in pitch. "OK, fine, whatever, lame. L-A-M-E. You're being a baby. I told you I've done it a million times!"
I know a group of people like that too. They live in Utah. And the parents of the children are usually honky dory with what happens to them as well.
People do all sorts of dumb things for various reasons. Your data point does not quite convince me that a teenager is intelligent or mature enough to understand the ramifications of her actions, or for that matter to realize that decisions related to those actions are being taken for her.
But I guess stupidity breeds stupidity - quite literally in some cases.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
There's a lot of overreaction, I agree. But if the average time needed by that vigilante group to snag a perv is any indication, I'd say it's quite common. I know children who were also propositioned online, for example. In one case actually stalked because the perv lived in the same city. But I don't use my personal experiences as metrics. There's a poll out there by the Pew Foundation I think that has some alarming numbers.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
"The moral of the story is that hackers are smart; child molesters are dumb."
And modest too.
I know you're making the joke, and it *is* funny. But it's also true
Many here and elsewhere seem to have this idea that journalists are in the same ethical league with doctors and (I'm sorry) police. But I'm not sure it's ever been true. Since dawn of newspapers, it seems to me it's always been about the "scoop", by which I mean the "dirt". What has this not been so?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
However, do you cross the line with academia? These are two very separate concepts that apparantly conflict in only a few very specific ways, with this being one of them. One is for the furtherence of education, the other for openness of life, including, but not limited to, government, celebrities, public occurances, and businesses. How you can compare the rights and needs of the two is quite difficult, given their lack of a direct relation. It's like the Wired.com poll recently ranking technological gadgets. How do you compare a electric toothbrush with a portable cassette player anyway?
Anyway, this is a private event, with very specific protections that are agreed to by the registered journalists. This is not a public event, where the 1st amendment's protections fully apply. Just as someone might break contract by reporting something after signing an NDA, this reporter was being quite questionable in her information gathering tactics. Therefore, I would have to say DefCon handled this admirably, by doing what needed to be done without sacraficing their own reputation (and perhaps adding to it).
it always amuses me those who talk about how average people, in their unbridled fear of terrorism, are rushing to give up on their rights
oh really?
this would of course be a problem... were it true that these rights were so easily destroyed and people were so universally ignorant of them
except they aren't
in other words, those who are ready to live under the gestapo because of fear of osama bin laden in their retarded hysteria are counterbalanced in this world by those who are ready to announce the end of western civilization just because of a snarky tv show where pedophilies are leered at in THEIR retarded hysteria
baseless idiotic hysteria, all around
in other words, those who see mass hysteria at work undermining society's important pillars are they themselves usually hysterical twits
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is a fun story. I like that she was outed and ran scared. But calling this unethical is just silly. There's no allegation of lying, only that she went in there undercover as a regular citizen without press credentials.
Guess what, you don't need "press credentials" to take video in a public place. Absent a contractual agreement (or the public shaming that she received), there's not much anyone could do to stop her.
Dateline is a horrible show. I'm quite glad they didn't get their story, because you can be sure they would have twisted it to sound as salacious and titillating as possible.
They were General Motors' pickups, not Fords, but I'll give partial credit for thinking is was Ford: After all, they DID make the Pinto.....
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
"Because these jackasses seem to be helping bypass civil liberties by unlawfully spying on everyone and inducing them to commit and confess to stuff that is probably not even illegal, or that they would not have done/followed through on, but for the shows."
Indeed? How do you induce someone to become a pedophille? Psychologists all over the world would like your insight.
actually, christianity is a serious problem in this country, sexual predators are mostly a statistical fiction invented by the republicans to keep the soccer moms scared when blowing up a few buildings in new york city wasn't enough
...no one really looks at your face. She could have strolled through the entire convention undetected.
not a scene. the real prize is to hijack the entire network and hold it for AT LEAST 24 hours.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
...if you like Piranhas. Check out those teeth. Brings to mind a certain retarded Hall & Oates song.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
You can be sure their piece would include videos of exploding vans with no explanation at all.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
"Dateline NBC is best known for its controversial To Catch A Predator series, which uses hidden cameras to tape men who are allegedly seeking to have sex with minors they met online.'"
You might be the STUPIDEST person alive when you say that pedophilia is no where near as bad as alcoholism.
When it comes to having an alcoholic or a pervert living in your neighborhood, I'll take the alcoholic. In fact, given a choice, I'll take a dozen alcoholics in my neighborhood over a pedophile. Do you want to know why? I have little kids. I can keep my kids off the street. Alcoholics are predictable... they will be driving drunk long after my kids have gone to sleep. But a pedophile is going to obsess and focus on my kids 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. You live with that in your neighborhood, and you'll change your tune.
I've seen what a sex offender is capable of, and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow it happen to my kids.
Any of you that think pedophiles aren't that bad should 1) go find a partner, 2) have children, 3) and then invite a registered sex offender to move into your neighborhood. Now try to live a normal life. And when the police come, they say there's nothing they can do until he "does something". Now, imagine a sex offendor who hasn't been caught moves somewhere into your neighborhood, and you don't know it? An alcoholic is easy to spot. Their lifestyle is a dead giveaway.
You talk about alcoholics and total damage to property. Let's look at liberal courts that put repeat criminals back on the street year after year. Let's tally those damages. The newspapers will NEVER report how ineffectual our courts are because the newspapers have a liberal agenda, similar to many of our courts. Criminals need harsher sentences. Courts need to quit letting these serious criminals off the hook. Jails need to keep prisoners in jail. And people who go to jail don't deserve luxuries. They should have to work. They shouldn't get cable TV, internet access, or cigarettes, candy. Work, 3 square meals a day, and spend the rest of the time in their cell.
I'd love it if they built an island, and they just dropped you on the island. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, violent criminals. You fend for yourself. You get a book of matches, a knife, fork, and a sleeping bag, a shovel, some seeds, and 90 days of food. Drop them off, and let them all fend for themselves.
What do you expect from the network which took pride in being the mouthpiece for a mass murderer? Truly, truly scum of the earth.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
New York Times
LA Times
Washington Post
San Francisco Chronicle
National Public Radio
CBS
NBC
ABC
Time
Newsweek
All of these are easily left-leaning news outlets, either in major cities or with major nationwide reach. I'd mod you funny, but I think you actually somehow believe that the news media is suddenly dominated by the right after all these decades.
Debatably, CNN and MSNBC used to be left of center, but when Fox News showed that roughly half the country (a) was right of center and (b) watched cable news, they revised their lineups to be more inclusive.
Is one records a conversation in a one-party-consent state, but broadcasts that conversation in a two-party-consent state, is that legal?
This sounds like the makings of a hit reality show...
There is a video of her outing on youtube.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
NBC may have been setting themselves up for a possible lawsuit for invasion of privacy. They could follow in the footsteps of ABC:
Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907 , 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 909; 978 P.2d 67
[No. S059692. Jun 24, 1999.]
MARK SANDERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NARAS F. KERSIS, Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC., et al., Defendants.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC077553, Bruce R. Geernaert, Judge.)
(Opinion by Werdegar, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.)
COUNSEL
Johnson & Rishwain, Neville L. Johnson, Brian A. Rishwain; and David A. Elder for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Christensen, White, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser & Shapiro, Shari Cohen Rosenman, Joie Marie Gallo; White O'Connor Curry Gatti & Avanzado, Andrew M. White, Michael J. O'Connor, Jonathan H. Anschell and David E. Fink for Defendants and Appellants.
James E. Grossberg for the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Cable News Network, Inc., California Newspaper Publishers Association, CBS Broadcasting Inc., the Copley Press, Inc., Freedom Communications, Inc., the Hearst Corporation, King World Productions, Inc., Magazine Publishers of America, Inc., the McClatchy Company, National Association of Broadcasters, National Broadcasting Company, Inc., Newspaper Association of America, Paramount Pictures Corp., the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, San Jose Mercury News, Inc., and Univision Communications Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
OPINION
WERDEGAR, J.-
Defendant Stacy Lescht, a reporter employed by defendant American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC), obtained employment as a "telepsychic" with the Psychic Marketing Group (PMG), which also employed plaintiff Mark Sanders in that same capacity. While she worked in PMG's Los Angeles office, Lescht, who wore a small video camera hidden in her hat, covertly videotaped her conversations with several coworkers, including Sanders.
Sanders sued Lescht and ABC for, among other causes of action, the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion. Although a jury found for Sanders on the [20 Cal.4th 911] intrusion cause of action, the Court of Appeal reversed the resulting judgment in his favor on the ground that the jury finding for the defense on another cause of action, violation of Penal Code section 632, established Sanders could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his workplace conversations because such conversations could be overheard by others in the shared office space. [1a] We granted review to determine whether the fact that a workplace interaction might be witnessed by others on the premises necessarily defeats, for purposes of tort law, any reasonable expectation of privacy the participants have against covert videotaping by a journalist. We conclude it does not: In an office or other workplace to which the general public does not have unfettered access, employees may enjoy a limited, but legitimate, expectation that their conversations and other interactions will not be secretly videotaped by undercover television reporters, even though those conversations may not have been completely private from the participants' coworkers. For this reason, contrary to the Court of Appeal's holding, the jury's finding as to Penal Code section 632 did not require the trial court to enter nonsuit on, or otherwise dispose of, Sanders's cause of action for tortious intrusion. Nor, we also conclude, were the jury instructions on the intrusion cause of action prejudicially erroneous.
Although we reverse, for these reasons, the Court of Appeal's judgment for defendants, we do not hold or imply that investigative journalists necessarily commit a tort by secretly recording events and conve
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Look, if an undercover cop asks you to sell him drugs and you do so, you go to jail. Doesn't matter that he didn't use the drugs. How is this different?
It doesn't matter that the child is fictional if it's enough to drive an adult to do that. The law is not defending the fictional child, it's punishing the perpetrator that had the intent to harm the child. These people are not behaving that way because they figure the child does not exist.
What "child"? You say the law is not defending the child, but punishing the man for having the intent to harm a fictional entity that does not exist? There was no actual incident, and there was no victim for a crime to be perpetrated against.
Isn't that punishing people for their thoughts? i.e. "thought crime"?
It's all semantic blabber until your child is victimized, I guess. And as long as the poor pervert's constitutional rights are not being violated, I'm perfectly fine with doing whatever it takes to get him to spend a few years taking long showers with Bruno instead of trying to abuse vulnerable children.
But such a person entrapped is having his/their constitutional rights violated. In America at least, we have the right to speak, think and worship what we want. Yes there are limitations to SPEACH, but only when doing so will cause DIRECT harm to others.
This is like arresting a guy for rape if he gets a hardon by looking at a hot woman. Sure he may approach her, and hit on her, and he may want to have sex with her, but he hasn't raped her yet.
If the subjects in dateline started reaching/approaching and attempting to grope an underaged bait in THEN they could be found guilty.
That is why when cops arrest people picking up prostitutes, they do not move in UNTIL money has exchanged hands. This can be very dangerous for female cops because that means the suspect takes them back someplace and doesn't pay up front. But such is the nature of the legalities. Until a crime TAKES PLACE you cannot be guilty of thinking about committing a crime.
It's the media doing its job. If no one admitted illegal actions, the hidden camera would have ended up in the garbage. If someone actually confessed illegal actions, then more power to Dateline. One of the saddest moments came about 1995, when ABC used a hidden camera to show that a food market was routinely selling old meat and fish. They sued after the show came out, and won! Well, good-bye to exposing wrongdoing. And 60 Minutes lost their suit to the tobacco companies, even though Jeffery Wigant was telling the truth.
it was a GM not a ford, and rockets not TNT (TNT would have exploded too fast and looked fake)
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Number Three: "By the way I realise that I have a large mole on my face."
Austin: "Where? What? Where's that mole? I didn't see one."
Number Three: "I also realise the irony that I am myself, a Mole."
Austin: "No one would make that connection."
Basil: "Any way, well done old chap. Jolly good work."
Austin: "Yes, nice to mole you. Meet you. Nice to meet your mole. Don't say mole."
Foxy: "Stop."
Austin: "I said mole."
Foxy: "Stop."
Number Three: "Bye."
Austin: "Mole. Mole. MOLE!"
Basil: "Oh SHUT UP!"
Austin: "MOLEY MOLEY MOLEY MOLEY MOLEY MOLEY!"
She's an actress, but she's also underage. They clearly need to have an actual minor involved, even if she wasn't involved in generating the chat log. Notice how they always have the kid come out and say she'll be right there and to sit tight for a second. The guy misses his big chance to say, "What are you doing here, kid? I came for mature sex! Where's your mother!"
I hate this show but I watch it sometimes when it comes on. Just to see the way people react at the moment they realize their huge mistake. It's the kind of thing you can have on TV without paying too much attention, like COPS- which is about as substantiative, and at least isn't pretending to be news like Dateline NBC. Both shows are steady junk food for the mind. Nothing ever happens. Every show is the same. I wonder if the Romans felt the same way watching lions eat Christians. Pedophilia is an age old problem, and even with the Internet as a new development it doesn't seem deserving of all this coverage. (I can speak with some authority on the matter since my wife and I both despise children and avoid them at all costs.)
It's like Paris Hilton; a tool for generating ad dollars while burying more important news that might piss off a potential advertiser. It clearly takes the angle that this is an "epidemic" even though the same bunch of guys keep showing up. Chris Hansen is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I especially like it when he points out how dishonest they are for lying about their age: "He's not really 37; as our investigation later uncovered, he's well into his forties!" Good to see someone is checking up on that, Chris.
I hope someone shows up who turns out not to be a genuine pedophile, but a prankster there to punk Chris Hansen and turn the tables on him on national TV by lecturing him on his fake journalism and belittling him as a newscaster. That would take a lot of careful preparation to do safely; you couldn't just show up with a bottle of wine, a box of condoms, and a doomed boner. You would need confederates... extensive documentation of your activities prior to the interview... and totally ironclad zero-tolerable proof that you knew of the setup beforehand and that your activities are inconsistent with someone hoping to actually score with a real kid (in the event Chris Hansen doesn't show). You'd have to lie about your gender or something. Also you'd have to get video of the encounter yourself or Chris Hansen will edit you out to fit in one more pedophile. But you'd surely become famous one way or the other.
Not at all, consider for a moment that 90% if not more of these people are more paranoid then the average paranoid person, and as part of the annual event they have "Spot the FED" contest ( http://defcon.org/html/defcon-15/dc-15-stf.html ) one would think this would be a pretty stupid idea. If they had sent in a tech that actually fit the part they might have had a slim chance, but sending a pretty girl in there was pretty much doomed from the beginning. Too bad for her now, likely within the week her entire life will be on the world for display. Congrats NBC for ruining someones else's life.
No, they are arresting him for driving 150 miles with condoms and beer to have sex in a house with a child. They are arresting him for telling someone he thinks is a child that he'd like to fuck her. They are arresting him for sending the child pictures of himself naked. That's called intent.
There is no entrapment here, except maybe in your head.
Wow. If you don't understand what the actual offense is in this case, why are you arguing about it?
A crime did take place. Soliciting a minor and crossing state lines with the intent of engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor. If you don't like the laws that govern this behavior then you need to go talk to congress. Arguing that a child wasn't victimized is irrelevant in the context of those laws.
Quite frankly I have a hard time believing anyone can question intent in these cases, and therefore that the individual is a menace to society. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, as long as no laws are broken and no one's constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for putting them away for a long time.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
If I have a gun and say I'm going to kill you...
Wrong analogy.
Try : "If I have a gun and say I'm going to kill your (non-existant) sister..." You see, if you have no sister, then there is no one in danger of being killed. No one in danger of being killed mean no murder accusation.
After all, you were never in danger, right?
A non-existant person can not be in danger, either of being murdered, of of being molested.
Where is BLOODNINJA when you need him?? That would be thoroughly entertaining. Too bad DATELINE would never air that. Where do these underage cybersex channel chats take place anyways? I wonder why nobody's found them and ratted them out.
I really wish these folks would live in another country for a few months and read the local rags. Even Canada has mainstream papers that would give your average Fox viewer a stroke. What Americans consider liberal most of Europe would consider center-right, and we don't even have anything mainstream they would consider leftist.
Personally, I like The Economist's version of liberal, but that usage is so odd on this side of the pond that most Americans would strip a mental gear or two if they actually managed to read through an article.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Does anyone know if a blue-grey Acura with a CA plate of 5VJA059 is registered to Dateline NBC?
Because no drugs were sold. The equivalent to this would be the undercover cops asking you to sell him drugs, you agreeing, but him arresting you before the actual transaction took place.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
--postmodern
Who knows...maybe older guys have made appointments to have sex with underage girls at Defcon. Ya think?
I bet they saw the picture and just looked at the only woman there.
Look, if an undercover cop asks you to sell him drugs and you do so, you go to jail.
Nope, that's also entrapment.
That's perfectly legal. If you want to tell me about crimes you've committed, that makes you a dumbass. Unless I have some sort of legal obligation not to (for example if I was your lawyer) I am free to run out and tell the world what you said. In "one party" states, I am also free to record you doing so and not tell you. I don't have to stop just because you are talking about something criminal. In fact, if I'm not working for the police in any capacity, I'm even free to bait you in to talking about it.
It's not incumbent on me to keep you from admitting something stupid, it is incumbent on you to keep your mouth shut.
No, they are arresting him for driving 150 miles with condoms and beer to have sex in a house with a child. They are arresting him for telling someone he thinks is a child that he'd like to fuck her. They are arresting him for sending the child pictures of himself naked. That's called intent.
Telling someone you would "like" to do something to them, and telling someone you "are" going to do something to them is quite a difference. In order for the latter to be considered a credible threat/intent, there has to be immanency of the threat, that is specific contingencies for the threat to be enacted or a definitive time from in which the threat is going to occur. In the former case saying "I'd like to XXX" does not convey any immanency. Sending naked pictures to someone, particularly a minor does in fact violent decency laws but is only a misdemeanor. And I don't see how this is relevant since you never mentioned naked pictures being sent to a minor until now.
There is no entrapment here, except maybe in your head.
Someone pretending to be something other than what they are in the guise of enticing someone to commit a crime is entrapment. However if someone posing in a false guise does not entice said person, then the acts are completely voluntary on the suspects part and it is not entrapment.
Wow. If you don't understand what the actual offense is in this case, why are you arguing about it?
What is the actual offense? Planning to have sex with a minor? Intent to have sex with a minor? Does that mean that when you see some girl walking down the street who gives you a hard-on, if she is underage you committed the same crime? You clearly don't understand the nature of intent and "thought crime." I believe you are confusing the necessary elements for something to be a criminal act (intent) with the act itself.
A crime did take place. Soliciting a minor and crossing state lines with the intent of engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor. If you don't like the laws that govern this behavior then you need to go talk to congress. Arguing that a child wasn't victimized is irrelevant in the context of those laws. Quite frankly I have a hard time believing anyone can question intent in these cases, and therefore that the individual is a menace to society. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, as long as no laws are broken and no one's constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for putting them away for a long time.
Here we go, the crux of your position and the fallacy of your logic. You are interjecting specific facts that were previously unspecified and using the unsaid specifics that did not surface until you were responding to me to discredit what I said. At what point was the discussion about crossing interstate lines? Who is soliciting who for sex? You see it is all very complicated; If the "minor" (cop/fbi agent) solicits the suspect it is not the same as if the suspect solicits the "minor". At no point in your original post that I was replying too was it mentioned that the suspect solicits the minor, or travels across interstate lines or was sending indecent pictures to underage minors. While I am aware that these acts have occurred on the Dateline show in the specific context of the post of yours that I rebutted too, no such facts were present. Given that you are drawing conclusions from non-social stimuli.
What you fail to understand is that I agree with the general position you are taking; that "as long as no laws are broken and no one's constitutional rights are violated, I'm all for putting them away for a long time."
However I was attempting to point out that intent alone is not a crime.
Intent is a specific condition that must be shown in order for an act to be a crime. It is not the crime but simple an element of it.
Nice job at thinly veiled attempts at ad hominen by the way.
1. Don't fuck with people whose job it is to fuck with people. OH shit, now I have to change my phone number, name, social security number, FUUUUCCCKKKKKKK!
If there was, they would ...
s/was/were/
Learn English.
Pedophilia? If he thought he was chatting with a post-menarche 14 year old, it's not pedophilia. It's desiring someone illegally young, but it has nothing to do with pedophilia at all. Most men would feel sexual attraction towards young women that age. If they are past puberty, that's perfectly natural. But most men are able to control themselves and not act on any stray desires they may have, which is a good thing. It probably helps to not admit the desires in the first place, and possibly also helps to describe anyone who admits to those desires as a monster.
That control becomes harder to maintain once the other part is apparently repeatedly coming on to you, like in this entrapment. Face it, very few of us ever have apparently horny young girls come on to us, or at least not after we ourselves came of age. That he managed to say "enough", and stop before actually meeting shows to me that he did have at least some control. That he committed suicide shows to me that he realised the futility of trying to clear himself from the one charge where you're always considered guilty -- if not by the courts, by the rest of society. Your life does in reality end there, because people will ostracise and hate you for the rest of your life. Probably because those who so strongly want to cry out "monster!" are exactly those who know how precariously close they themselves are to being the same, and have a psychological need to distance themselves.
Back to pedophiles. Pedophilia, for those who don't know, is sexual attraction to prepubescent children. That's usually a facet of arrested mental development, and those who have it are completely innocent about how they feel; it's not a choice.
If they live out their fantasies with a pre-pubescent child, they commit a crime. That crime is not pedophilia, but child molestation.
If they don't live out their dreams, they are no different from those who fantasize about other strange things (self-mutilation, necrophilia, being raped, sodomizing the pope -- you name it, someone probably has a kink about it), i.e. we wouldn't even know it, and it's really none of our business.
I've seen what an alcoholic is capable of. One of my best friends had an alcoholic father. He still has scars, both physical and mental, from his childhood. In my personal opinion, the best effect alcohol ever had on that abusive drunk was when he was killed by a drunk driver in the greatest feat of poetic justice I've ever known.
You want a dozen alcoholics over a single pedophile? Fine. But first, allow me to mention a few more things. Just because someone is a registered sex offender does not mean they're a pedophile. Honestly, I'd bet that most of them aren't. Most of them are going to be people convicted of public indecency: streaking, public urination, public sex acts, that sort of thing. Among the people who are on that list for having sex with a minor, I'd bet about half of them were within a few years of their 'victims.' An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old might be statutory rape, and will get you put on the list, but I wouldn't call the 18 year old a pedophile.
Also, alcoholics are dangerous even when it's late at night and everyone's at home. Last year, about a mile from here, we had a (presumably) drunk driver hop the curb at a T intersection and crash into someone's living room. No one died from it, but in the following month, we had a remarkable jump in the "Don't drink and drive" TV ads from the police department.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
He's right that you would go to prison; it would just be for possessing the drugs instead of dealing them. He enticed you to sell him drugs that you might not have otherwise, but he didn't entice you into possessing them.
That's assuming he directly asked for the drugs, of course...Most of the time, they won't do that.
Something ironic about a bunch of computer hackers getting upset at people trying to get past their "firewall."
In Defcon's second year, channel 13 from Los Angeles sent a small contingent of reporters to do interviews. Unfortunately for them, attendees from outside the LA area were very leery of speaking to interviewers and cameras labeled KCOP.
On one hand, you have a tragically flawed and misguided news organization, which builds and runs shows like To Catch a Predator. They're a really unsympathetic party. On the other hand, as many have pointed out, you have the fundamental truth that sometimes, undercover reporting is vital to the functioning of a free society.
Personally? I'll risk the tragically flawed and misguided news organization if it means I have a better chance of learning when my rights are violated by my government.
I'm pretty shocked that that's so far from a unanimous view here, given Slashdot's libertarian bent.
There need to actually be drugs involved though. If there were no drugs, then no one's getting convicted for selling drugs.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
This DOES mean that the press in its news gathering activities IS specifically protected from laws that restrict their ability to do their job.
That is too vague. Certainly there can be no laws telling them not to gather info on some topic, however the media must be subject to the same laws as other citizens. For example laws regarding trespassing, wiretapping, etc.
Now, I'm not saying that this particular case is one where NBC was doing the right thing - I would prefer the undercover reporter were there doing a story about the government spies who infiltrated the conference, and put their faces on TV so they couldn't infiltrate anything else again. NBC was barking up the wrong tree here
Here I strongly disagree. I think you are being hypocritical to a degree, both are equally valid stories to investigate. **If** hackers were meeting and engaging in criminal conspiracies that would be something to shine a light upon.
I can personally confirm that he has a history of making female reporters cry -- I first met Priest at DEFCON 7, where I witnessed him personally banning another reporter (Carolyn Meinel) from every attending another DEFCON after her team was caught cheating at Capture the Flag.
Trust me, when Priest tells you to leave, you go.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I'm not inclined to believe that merely pretending to be a teenager on the Internet constitutes entrapment.
a... WTF does that have to w/ the story
b... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19961209/ people that hit on 12-14yr old kids then try to come over to their house to have sex with said 12-14yr old kids...can burn in fucking hell.... or just as acceptably in my view..be the lowest of the low in a prison system that HAAAAAAAAAAAAATES people that fuck w/ kids..... pwn'd child raping
as far as the story itself goes it is pretty funny... I doubt NBC broke any laws... she **may have broke the defcon rules but that doesn't mean any criminal violations occurred certainly.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
1. the blondie wasn't there to spot hacker terrorists, she wanted to catch undercover FEDs. 2. she was given a chance which she declined. I bet it was quite a laugh. "According to DefCon staff, Madigan had told someone she wanted to out an undercover federal agent at DefCon. That person in turn warned DefCon about Madigan's plans. Federal law enforcement agents from FBI, DoD, United States Postal Inspection Service and other agencies regularly attend DefCon to gather intelligence on the latest techniques of hackers. DefCon holds an annual contest called Spot the Fed, in which attendees out people in the audience they think are undercover federal agents. The contest is good-natured, but the feds who get caught are generally ones who don't mind getting caught. DefCon staff say that Madigan was asked four times -- two times on the phone and two times at the conference -- if she wanted to obtain press credentials, but she declined. DefCon staff lured her to a large hall telling her that the Spot the Fed contest was in session and that she could get a picture of an undercover federal agent at the contest. When she sat down, Jeff Moss, DefCon's founder, announced that they were changing the game. Instead of Spot the Fed, they were going to play Spot the Undercover Reporter and then announced, "And there's one in here right now." Madigan, realizing she'd been had, jumped from her seat and bolted out the door with reporters carrying cameras chasing after her through the parking lot and to her car."
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
In terms of personal experiences -- in all the cases I'm personally familiar with the attacker was a family member, not a random stranger online. Granted, a good chunk of these date back to before Internet access was widely available.
I've seen alarming numbers myself regarding the behavior of random strangers online -- but those were numbers regarding total attempts, as opposed to successful attempts. There's a very big difference, and I'd argue that the latter is what defines the scope of the problem.
(All that said -- I've spent years as part of a household with children, but not where said kids have been at a point where they have (or are interested in) unsupervised Internet access. Certainly, there are issues to be wrestled with, and I don't mean to indicate that unsupervised communication with random strangers is OK so long as children know not to go along with whatever those strangers suggest. However, my current view is that there are a lot of potential bad influences on the Internet. Are predators unsuccessfully fishing for victims as serious a problem as porno spam and popups or peers who cuss uncontrollably in online games or a culture that promotes shorthand and poor spelling to the point where they bleed into schoolwork and (later) business communications? As long as predators are unsuccessful, they're just one of a multitude of comparable issues [which do need to be handled, lest the baby go with the proverbial bathwater]; it's only when they're successful that they constitute a problem of a different magnitude entirely).
BLOODNINJA? This ties in neatly with TFA: "I put on my robe and hacker hat . . . ."
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Ok, wait a minute-I read a lot of comments here that are slamming the press for this tactic because they tried to gather "information" for a story using techniques that are forbidden by the Press/Media agreement that journalists are supposed to sign before gaining access to DefCon.
..uh... quartering pen. Pencil. My...you know-so we can draw and quarter them.
So what if I wanted to bring in a hidden camera? I am not a member of any news organization. Would there be a similar outcry if I brought in a hidden camera and became taping the events and conversations that were occurring? Is there a similar set of rules that non-journalists must sign when they buy their tickets to DefCon? Would it make a difference if I put the video on YouTube, kept it for my own personal video library or turned it over to a news agency for free or for money?
Everyone here (every comment I have read so far-which is only about 9 or 10) cries out against the evil journalist! How unethical she/they are! The end of democracy is on the horizon! Repent now! Is she really that evil? Really that un-ethical? If journalists let their actions be stymied by every sign, agreement or verbal contract to NOT bring cameras in to places where things are occurring that should not be occurring, we wouldn't capture some crooks or help to end "bad things" that are happening to good people. I believe it's called, "investigative journalism".
Wait! I don't mean that DefCon is one of those places where nefarious things goes on or where "bad things" happen to "good people" and Evil Bosses turn children into mortar for their Slum Lord cousins. I admit that comparing infiltrating DefCon and hiding a camera to catch a crook or reveal a wrong being committed is not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison.
Actually, I have to back track a little-if a journalist agrees to not bring in a camera during an interview or agrees that something is "off the record", then they absolutely should not bring in a camera and should not print or report on what was "off the record". If they do, then they should be drawn and quartered (Connie Chung). But this is different: if a journalist "gives their word" to do something or not to do something and then does the opposite, then yes, they are unethical and slimy and I will be the first one to call them a slimy retard and promptly begin sharpening my
However, in this case, the only thing the journalist did was to avoid signing an agreement that people in her profession were supposed to sign before gaining entrance to DefCon. Personally, I think that is "moderately slimy" because she purposely avoided agreeing to restrictions that the organizers of DefCon put in place for journalists and that she was WELL AWARE of.
What if she just wanted to go and see the event? You know, just as herself-no camera, no agenda to write a story-but she just wanted to go see it. Should she have been required to sign the Press agreement? (I say no).
Just food for thought and some opinion. Let the flames begin.
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
From video of her getaway @ 5:40:
;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCvmkxO5hoQ
Not that this is information is at all useful
Seems to be the popular view, but it's nonsense. In most jurisdictions soliciting sex sex with a minor, or _attempting_ to do so, is illegal. That's the crime most of them are charged with, and in most cases undoubtedly guilty of. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but I can only assume they put out "honeypot" accounts, and the perverts make the first move. I know it's fun to root for the underdog, but 98% of the people on the show are scum, and the other 2% should sue NBC. Entrapment would imply they lured the perverts into doing something they wouldn't have, kind of hard to claim that when the perverts are mailing pictures of their penises to 13 year olds.
if their satellite connections spontaneously went down.
Tech Public Policy stuff
As for their intentions, their intention is to be sensationalistic and make money. They're scum. Who cares, scum feeding on other scum.
The minor the person attempted to solicit. It's easy, see? If I, as a juror, don't have a reasonable doubt that you tried to solicit a minor I will find you guilty. Similarly, if you buy fake poison from an undercover agent and then proceed to try to poison your wife/husbane, as a juror I'd have no trouble finding you guilty of attempted murder.
What were they thinking sending a _woman_ spy? Don't they realize those are _geeks_ at the convention? Good thing she got found out so she got to talk to at least _some_ of the organizers. Here's a tip NBC: next time if you want quotes, send someone less _scary_.
He used ad hominem because your position is untenable, and curiously stubborn. We're talking about Dateline. The show involves people soliciting minors for sex (intent) and attempting to carry out that intent (driving with beer, condoms, duct tape, gerbil, whatever to house). This is a crime. I'm not really sure where the disconnect is. That's the show. Those are the facts. The suspects solicit the minor. This is the premise, if it's not then the lawyers for the accused will get them off and most likely sue the crap out of NBC.
It's called attempted solicitation of a minor. I'm not sure what's up with you people, it's not difficult to comprehend. As a juror I'd have simple decision - did the suspect, beyond a reasonable doubt, attempt to solicit what he thought was a minor for sex. If so, he's guilty. Your abstract babblings about nonsensical, philosophical questions is meaningless. The perp intended to have sex with a minor, and attempted to follow through with that attempt. Arguing abstract concepts of "but nobody was in danger!" is for lemmings and philosophy students.
She was slightly underhand at the way she did it but lying to people isn't against the rules for an undercover reporter.
By its nature, Defcon attracts a certain number of criminals - in fact this is part of what makes it attractive to security professionals. It's not really breaking journalisitic ethcs to report on lawbreaking.
The problem is when a judge throws out the cases rather than a normal enforcement agency having an iron-clad arrest and getting them off the street:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator
"On June 1, 2007, all 23 cases brought up against those arrested on this installment of the show were declined to be prosecuted by the Collin County prosecutor's office due to insufficient evidence.[22] The cases were not expected to be considered again."
That's called "not helping".
Also chasing down people who haven't shown up smacks of thought-crime. Oh well, he didn't act out on his peverse online fantasy - but why let that stop us from destroying lives? He THOUGHT about it! Hey - that's good enough for the ratings meter. Let's go with it!
Thank you, thank you. Besides, paedophiles are after children under 6! Not 15 year old girls. (Google it losers!)
Any type of witch hunt scares me, this seems to be the latest. We didn't seem to have these "predators" 10 years ago. Will you be labeled next?
Get your Unix fortune now!
Does it mean that Dateline thinks security specialists that deal with Intertubes = online predators ?
Just add E'SPLODIN' VANS!!1! Damn hackers and their use of performance-enhancing steroids! When will they learn?
arnt nbc and fox news owned by ruport murdoc/news corp? and 20 other tv stations, and a buncha news papers, and a buncha radio stations. i think we will see that same sorta tactic over and over till noone bats an eyelid at it
what they did wasnt illegal, same as the dateline thing, but questionable morality. i dont want to be vid taped at all, and if i am, i htought i had to give my permission to have my image shown on tv. but i digress...dateline is a tabloid of a tv show, id rather watch the 700 club
ticktickboom
no funny tagline here
guess she won't be going 'undercover' anytime soon. http://www.cafepress.com/swagofthegeek funny.
As a fairly passionate Titanophile
Giantess fetish?
When I look at things like this, coupled with all of the other recent media pushes about "how dangerous the internet is, especially to children" as well as the whole RIAA/MPAA DRM intellectual property fiasco, and the "huge identity theft problem" I come to the conclusion that eventually the government (and the people and organizations behind the government who are driving the surveillance state we live in) will be forcing legislation on the way the internet is used into a dark place.
What do I mean by this? I forsee a time coming where it is going to be mandated that everything you do online is tagged with a definitive ID. They will equate this to real life, and say: "you have to carry ID in the real world at all time, now that the internet is so important in our day to day lives, and in this age of terrorism, and since there is (gasp) so much horrible crime and online predators on the net, we need to bring the online world in sync with the offline world, it's for your safety, think of the children, etc."
This would be offered as a solution to everything - the creepy online predators, the RIAA/MPAA/general IP concerns, identity theft issues, the tax they'd like to collect, everything - if this happens just the fact that it would have a chilling effect on people feeling able to post anonymously on their political opinions, whistle blowers, etc...
As far as the technical side of it, there are a few ways this could be implemented; whether it's as simple as registering an IP address to a confirmed identity in a way that law enforcement will have faster, more direct access to; or some other system that tags every packet at a lower level with a confirmed ID - something like an encrypted PGP key or something, I think this is coming unfortunately.
The net is the last bastion of true democracy in some ways. We all know that knowledge and information is power, the ability of the internet to disseminate and provide large amounts of news which isn't watered down or filtered through some corporate/governmental bias is essential IMO. When you have citizen journalism, news from other countries, the ability for people around the world to communicate and organize online and share files, the political implications of all of this, etc...all of these things are a part of what makes the internet great, and that authoritarian governments can't stand (because they can't control any of it).
From George Tenet's statement a few years ago which, (to paraphrase) was something like "The wild west days of the internet will soon be over," to the pushes we're seeing in the media currently; (which sometimes seem like very obvious blatant agenda setting)....If all of the fear based reporting doesn't work, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some attempted terrorist attack which somehow used the net, or an "al queda virus," (i can see the headlines now), or a regular virus/worm of some sort...
I worry that this is coming, and feel that the implications for freedom and democracy are staggering...I hope it doesn't happen...
if the guys on 'catch a predator' did not go after the bait, they would go after someone else who didnt have a bunch of cameras
and cops backing them up. Showing up at the house of a 14 year old girl to have sex is not 'entrapment', its mental illness.
im thinking a lot of the slashdotters here are probably that type of guy, which is why they hate the show so much.
its really pathetic. they want open source open access everything in the government and big corporations, but
they dont want to open up their conventions or their own minds to public scrutiny.
I have a 'hacking' pc game where I hack into various systems for fun, seriously. No money was stolen, no time was lost and nobody was hurt. I also have a racing game where I regularily go over 200 MPH, again nobody was hurt and no damage was done. But in both cases I simulated and actualy "comitted" crimes. Maybe I should go to jail with these catch guys...
I am fucking *Estatic* that she got busted. Fuck you NBC. Fuck you and your retarded bullshit predator show, and you're OMFG THEY WANT OUR KIDDIES fearmongering. This is the kind of bullshit you've been pulling with that bullshit tv show for years now.
I'm so glad because you're not gonna be able to make a show about it. BOO FUCKING HOO.
Now how about you do dateline: TO CATCH A PRESIDENT LYING. Oh wait, that takes balls. I take it back.
"However the law is supposed to be a check on the media's abusive behaviors."
;-)
I disagree. I believe people are the only real check on the media.
Hmmm... That must be why the media hates the second amendment.
I do find the media witch hunts despicable, and I think media have little credibility or integrity left.
Nevertheless, I disagree that this kind of behavior should be illegal. Quite to the contrary, I think anybody should be free to record and republish any interaction that is not clearly personal: store clerk advice, talks at conventions, etc., anything and anybody that offers services to the public should be fair game. I think society would be a whole lot better off if we shine light on how businesses and organizations behave.
People like these need to be exposed:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
And do you want to throw these people in jail?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dtBU0fNk3qE
It's called attempted solicitation of a minor
The point is: there is NO minor.
I'm not sure what's up with you people, it's not difficult to comprehend.
Back atcha.
attempt to solicit what he thought was a minor (emphasis added)
What he THOUGHT is of no concern, unless you want to live in a 1984-like world where you can be arrested for ThoughtCrimes.
The perp intended to have sex with a minor,
And if I have the opportunity*, I intend to steal a million dollars. Shall they arrest me right now??
* Said opportunity means I'm walking alone at night thru an abandoned area of the city, when I hear gunshots ring out just around a corner I'm turning. As I clear the corner, I see two men fall to the ground dead, each having just shot the other. I see a briefcase of drugs and a briefcase of cash lying there. I grab the cash and run.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=260975&cid= 20109707
/. before - evasions of posting your results (because I am certain they will NOT be as high of a score here as mine was on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully patched, based on 15-20 other times I've challenged you *NIX folks on this test before, here @ /., & also other LINUX oriented sites)... talk's cheap - put your money, where your BIG mouth is, instead AND let's see how YOU do... apk
Read that, funny man, in its entirety... give us your thoughts (and, hopefully, YOUR *NIX based OS' score on the multiplatform test of security online it uses to prove its effectiveness in securing a client node Windows NT-based (modern ones like 2000/XP/Server 2003/ & YES, VISTA too, securing it even more) vs. my results on said test (CIS Tool 1.x) by "THE CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY").
Ok?
Oh, boy, I can't WAIT to see the "b.s. spinmaster" evasion of his test result photo NOT ever being posted... I've seen it, TOO many times here, to NOT say that!
APK
P.S.=> And, I am SURE I will see the SAME THING I have seen here on
You're not *allowed* to talk rationally after someone utters the word "pedophile." Don't you understand that? If people start talking rationally, Dateline won't be able to make money and all those people out there screaming for blood won't have yet another underclass to feel superior to. You're upsetting the whole balance of nature; quick, take it back!
I happened to watch one episode of Dateline where they planted i-Pods with tracking software in various public locations (left in a parking lot, food court etc.) to trap "thieves". I believe that next week they are planning on taping kiddie porn to the back of $20's they'll then leave on bus seats with the pictures hidden to trap "pedo traffickers". I'm not saying that they don't catch some genuinely bad people but, from what I saw, 9 out of 10 were people who just couldn't pass up a free ipod.
Let's review the facts. This associate producer of NBC has just stirred up about the most angry hornets nest in the world, hackers. If I were her, I'd be changing all the passwords on all my social networking sites, like NOW. I've seen what a simple google search would turn up on her.
Looks like a little Perverted Moderating today.
Come on, the people who attend these conferences live for that kind of thing. Having the illuminati infiltrate their elite little conference validates their badass hacker existence. It's a symbiotic relationship. The media gets its FUD stories about evil hackers and the conference goers get to feel big, powerful and important from all the attention.
Now unless you're a total asshat, you have to expect that your big well publicized hacker conference is swarming with law enforcement. Catching the NBC reporter doesn't make you all that clever.
He's right that you would go to prison; it would just be for possessing the drugs instead of dealing them. He enticed you to sell him drugs that you might not have otherwise, but he didn't entice you into possessing them.
But of course my attorney would argue that the only reason I possessed the drugs in the first place was to provide them to the cop who was pressuring me to sell him some merchandise, and that it was part of the entrapment. It doesn't involve drugs, but I'll use the Ruby Ridge fiasco as an example. An undercover ATF agent asked Randy Weaver to provide him some (illegal) sawed-off shotguns. Weaver refused, saying he did not have the money. The agent ended up buying the guns and giving them to Weaver with instructions for the length he wanted. Now Mr. Weaver might have possessed the illegal guns (he says the ATF agent must have shortened them some more), but he never would have had them if it weren't for the law enforcement officer trying to entrap him.
That's assuming he directly asked for the drugs, of course...Most of the time, they won't do that.
Most of the time, yes, because they should know by now that doing so is a get out of jail free card.
My favorite line from the parking-lot video?
"Can I have your badge?"
Second choice: "She looks like Lindsay Lohan, except Linday Lohan was smarter."
Seriously, I don't know what NBC thought they were gonna pull off here...
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
Oh, and in the last 24 hours, Michelle Madigan has jerked her profile off of LinkedIn. She probably is now burying every computing device in her house out in the yard.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
Since you like analogies, a better one is if the police know someone's going to try to assassinate his wife, so they setup a sting and put a dummy in a car and the perp shoots the dummy, not knowing it wasn't her. By your...unique and...special way of thinking no crime was commited, let the guy walk. The wife was never in danger.
He attempted to have sex with a minor.
What minor?
the police know someone's going to try to assassinate his wife, so they setup a sting and put a dummy in a car and the perp shoots the dummy, not knowing it wasn't her. By your...unique and...special way of thinking no crime was commited,
Lots of crimes may have been committed. Firing a gun within the city limits, illegal posession of a gun, destruction of property (if the bullet damages the dummy/car), etc.
But the one crime that has NOT been committed is murder.
The wife was never in danger.
True. She wasn't there.
Besides, your whole scenario has a fatal flaw: the wife is real. The 'child' who is supposedly in danger of being molested IS NOT REAL. A person who does not exist cannot, by definition, be in danger.
from the article:
In many ways, it is a subcontracted police force with Del and Fang even deputized by local cops for one Dateline sting. But because its members are private citizens, their actions are impervious to charges of entrapment.
So it's not entrapment, unless you have something against technicality-based justice system of ours.
What Would Jimi Think?
Because selling drugs to anyone is a crime. It doesn't matter if the anyone is two years old or two hundred years old.
Propositioning anyone for sex is not a crime. It's only a crime if a minor is involved, which obviously isn't the case.
Am I missing some sarcasm, or was that just a retarded-stupid question?