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.'"
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.
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.
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.
It's a sad thing to say, but indeed we do need to reign in an out of control media. Frankly there was a time when journalist would rightly be outraged by such a statement. Frequently they were the ones trying to reign in abusive government. But nowadays, I think most of them would just be outraged, outraged that someone was trying to reduce their power and influence.
The modern media is not your grandfather's fourth estate, independent of state and clergy. In the past, this has a ring of truth to it, but not anymore. Basically, the modern media has morphed into our second estate, our new clergy, to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the old clergy.
Like the old clergy, the roll of the modern media is to tell us what to think. To dictate our morals, habits and leanings. They spread the gospel of the ruling classes, but like the clergy, also vie with the ruling classes for supremacy. They abuse their power and influence for their own gain, not ours.
The anchor has replaced the priest. The bulletin the mass. The opinion column the sermon. I do not miss the old religious orders in the slightest, but I equally mislike the new media that has taken its place. It's not a fourth estate to me, so I see little point in granting it so much privilege and status.
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
(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 think the problem is the types of people who become journalists. Namely, journalism students: not the brightest bunch.
I'd love to see a news service run by professional engineers or accountants.
http://outcampaign.org/
Along with all the other hot women, maybe? Obviously you've never BEEN to Defcon.
At Defcon there is a definite shortage of brilliant women. But there is DEFINITELY no shortage of what I call "scene sluts" who will pretty much have sex with anybody weighing in under 500 pounds, so long as you buy the drinks.
It sounds like a joke, but it's not. Ask anybody who's been there (which clearly doesn't include you)