Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dateline NBC Mole Outed At DefCon

Posted by Zonk on from the bunch-of-cranky-hackers dept.

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.'"

12 of 573 comments (clear)

  1. Brilliant by Alchemist253 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Attempt to carry out what is basically technological espionage against some of the best technological espionage people in the world... real smart move.

  2. Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV show by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. simple freedom of the press by aka-ed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:simple freedom of the press by SamP2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why can't we just approach the issue as follows:

      - Press can do whatever they want (as long as it is not a crime) to try and sneak in. If it is legal for an average person to do whatever in the conference, it shouldn't be illegal just because the person happens to be a journalist.
      - Hackers can do whatever they want (as long as it is not a crime) to try and expose the press.

      Let it be a private game of catch and mouse... Best one wins, simple as that. There is absolutely no point imposing legal restrictions on this matter.

  4. Media believes it is above the law ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by gkhan1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow... this... this is pretty much the most absurd thing I've read all week. The media is a "religion" and a news-anchor is our "priest" and they are "feral beasts" and I don't know what else. Lighten up on the rhetoric, you sound like a crazy-person.

      First off all, do you think this a new thing? Do you think it was only recently that newspapers became biased, that people didn't try to use the media to push their POV fifty years ago? It was even worse then, because now we have so many options that we can actually form an idea of what is going on!

      Listen, ass-hole reporters are the price you pay for a free media. You get the datelines, the people that infiltrate conventions and try to vilify innocent people. But you also get Nellie Bly, who infiltrated a mental hospital and reported on the horrible conditions. Sure, you get partisan hacks that try to scare you into agreeing with them, but you also get Thomas Nast, fighting an enormously corrupt regime with a few drawings, and winning. And lest you think all of these examples are are ancient ones that don't apply today, let me ask you something: if the media had been "reigned in", how would you know about NSA wiretapping program? How would know about Abu Ghraib? How would you know about any of the masses of republican scandals? The answer: you wouldn't.

      It's these things that go if you start curtailing the media. If you start demanding stricter control over media, it's not going to be Bill O'Reilly who loses a job, it's going to be two young reporters in the seventies working for the Washington Post called Bernstein and Woodward.

      "The cons outweigh the pros"? "More of an enemy to democracy than an ally"? What the hell are you smoking? Listen, in these days of the Bush administration, the ONLY thing that stands between him and autocracy is the media. The ONLY thing. You would sacrifice that because some dude in the media isn't playing nice? Congress may be democratic (and who can we thank for that?), but it's weak. The Supreme Court is just to the left of Joseph McCarthy. What do we have? We have the New York Times. We have 60 Minutes. We have The Daily Show. And yes, we have Slashdot.

      There is a reason the media is the only industry specifically protected by the Bill of Rights.

    2. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know that by saying this, I'm playing into the hands of those who would see freedom of speech curtailed. But I feel that the modern media really is a "feral beast", whos cons are now beginning to outweigh its pros, and which is becoming more of an enemy than an ally to democracy. I'd like the media to be something better than it is, I really would. But it isn't and sooner or later we are going to have to face up to that fact. Truth be told, I'm more afraid of the media than confident in it.

      The media is the way it is because it is the mouthpiece for those who own and/or run large corporations. It's not the media itself that has power, so much as those who own it. It is those who own it who crave power and wealth.

      The media in the US today, like the telephone company in the US, is an effective monopoly, with its only real competition being the multitude of internet sites where individuals can express themselves freely (more or less). The connection between corporate campaign "finance" and the influence of the media is the people who own and operate the media corporations.

      The media no longer needs or wants journalistic integrity because the media doesn't really compete with anything to speak of. Its corporate owners also completely own the medium over which the media plays: television and newsprint. As a result it can, and does, speak with one voice: that of its masters. This is the fundamental reason democracy in the US is entirely broken, and why it cannot be fixed.

      The only way to eliminate the influence of the media today is to simply ignore it (the real remedy, to break up ownership of the media into a bunch of tiny independent pieces, cannot happen in the current environment, just as a breakup of Microsoft proved impossible). But most people don't, and will never, know to do that.

      So the corporate ownership of the US government will continue unchallenged, and eventually malevolent fascism will blanket the US. It's just a matter of time now. If you don't want to be here when that happens, get out now, while you still can.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    3. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by trianglman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to disagree with you somewhat.

      Listen, ass-hole reporters are the price you pay for a free media.

      False, they are the price you pay for a profit centered media. Back when the news was "free" you had reporters like Edward R. Murrow and the original Bernstein and Woodward that you so aptly mentioned. These journalists would report the news, and programs like Green Acres and Leave It to Beaver would make the money. Now conglomerates like ClearChannel, Viacom, Fox, and GE see the 30 minute evening news as underused advertising space. They sell out news time to "partners" (read company that stands to gain from you listening to this "article").

      Newspapers are worse, being completely starved for cash. Every advertiser is so precious to them that alienating one large company could end the print cycle for a newspaper (almost). Imus is an example of that in the arena of radio. I don't agree with what he said, but I think he was always a dick. The only reason he lost his job was because he pissed of advertisers, not because he didn't deserve to have a program in the first place.

      The GP's religion analogy was one I hadn't heard before, but it was fitting. He did paint with too broad a brush in calling for press restrictions. But I do agree that sensationalist, profit driven news should go the way of the dodo and the dinosaurs. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon....

      --
      Clones are people two.
  5. Re:"That'll make good TV." by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody ever proved he was a pervert, nobody witnessed him committing a crime, and arguably someone else's actions caused him harm. Sounds like you need your brain wiring fixed.

    Just because someone can be almost entrapped (he didn't show up) doesn't mean they're a criminal, that's why entrapment's illegal in the first place. Take a psychology course, then one in ethics and come back to the argument with your neurons working at full speed.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  6. Re:"That'll make good TV." by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some pervert off'ed himself? Why the fuck should I care?

    Yes, the guy was a pervert. He had problems and needed help. He probably knew that he needed help, that's why he didn't show up at the sting. The thing is "pervert" was just one facet of the man. He still had family and friends and a successful career. But once the cameras showed up "pervert" was all that he would ever be again, it the public eye. It wouldn't matter if he got the help he needed. It wouldn't matter if he went overseas and got himself castrated to control his unacceptable urges. (Illegal in the US even at the patients request) He had been publicly declared a "pervert" and instantly became a sub-human monster. No trial, no getting speak up for himself, just condemnation. Pedophilia is no where near the national problem that Alcoholism is in terms of total damage to lives and property, but alcoholics aren't required to be on a national list, or live a certain distance from schools (or bars), and are rarely run out of town or refused housing. The only reason that it is OK to write this guy off as being less than human is because his particular failing is taboo.

    --
    We are all just people.
  7. This isn't about pedophilia by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!