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.'"
A picture of the mole is available here.
And I am sympathetic to you and your wife, but that doesn't mean the press shouldn't be allowed in your bedroom.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Thoughtcrime, right?
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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)
Who knows...maybe older guys have made appointments to have sex with underage girls at Defcon. Ya think?
Not saying a "no recording devices" sign wouldn't work just fine. However I get the impression that one wasn't there (and no surprise, it'd present massive problems for the attendees with cellphones and computers that can record) thus this doesn't apply. Also, such a thing could be made entirely moot by the recording devices that ARE there, placed there by the hotel. Like I said cameras, many of which do sound too, are all over a Vegas joint. That's just what you have to accept when you go there. Thus it'd be pretty hard to make the argument "Well I expected that this conversation would be private, despite being in a room with hundreds of people and being watched by hotel security."
I'm not saying they weren't perfectly within their rights to kick her out or anything (unless she had an agreement with the hotel, as the owners they can override) but there really isn't anything wrong with her recording for purposes of doing a news report, even though she didn't tell anyone.
Wow. That was really insightful. I like your over-the-top rhetorical style too, sort of reminiscent of older media (like a couple hundred years ago) when it was taken for granted that the writer was always writing an opinion piece. Where did we go wrong and start trusting the media to be some authoritative source of information?
I really hope that media would return back to its roots of being admittedly biased and opinionated instead of trying to act as though they are some purveyors of the Truth.
Interesting how you leave the question open at the end as to what might be done about it, stating only that "sooner or later we are going to have to face up to that fact." I think that hopefully soon people will start to face up to that fact and stop trusting everything the media says. When that happens, the problem will solve itself. The only catch is for that to happen people need to actually start critically thinking again.
The alternative of course is to do away with the media by force which is of course not an option. I had held high hopes that the Internet would start to bring more rhetoric from common men such as you and I and to some extent this is happening. But then you get sites like Kos which basically run in lock-step with the mainstream media and the Democratic party. It's funny in a queer sort of way to hear the reporters in the MSM just blindly repeat what they read on Kos earlier. Rush today did a montage of about 8 different reporters all saying the EXACT same thing. It wasn't that they just had the same idea, it's that they used the exact same words! It was just absolutely nuts to hear that.
With any luck, the socialist/leftist takeover attempt will wither away but it's unfortunate that a lot of very otherwise intelligent people seem to be falling for it hook line and sinker. And you're right that lack of any sort of religion plays a big part in it. When faced with hardships a good religion teaches persistence and patience. But the communist mantra is that when you can't afford to pay for your own health insurance and still buy that $5000 plasma and $40,000 car you really want then that's okay, we'll just get "the government" to pay for it. That is to say, we'll steal from your neighbor for you.
Even worse, I saw a commercial in favor of the SCHIP act (that's pronounced like shit but with a P). Heard of this? It's the latest Democratic attempt to bring health care to all children (under 25) who are poor (part of families making less than $84,000/yr). Guess who sponsored the ad? Why, America's pharmaceutical companies of course! Just think, a government sponsored drug program that covers a huge percentage of the population. When those kids finally grow up, they'll be so used to sucking on the government teat that they'll demand continuing coverage. And what a great way for big pharma to rake in boatloads of new cash flow from people (the rest of the taxpayers) who aren't even using their products!
Only we the people can stop madness like this. We need to start realizing that we are responsible for taking care of ourselves and we need to stop this seemingly never-ending cry for more and more "free" government money.
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.
(And if it IS a black-hat trading show -- well, then I've got no respect for them.) They should be charged with violations against wiretap laws for pulling this stunt. 1: wiretap laws, in general, apply to the government. I know this might be hard for you to understand, but NBC is not a federal branch, even if it does have a three-letter acronym for a name.
2: If anything, they'd be charged with violations of espionage laws. Except that the NBC guys actually have lawyers, and usually find out what the the legal line is before they decide to try and cross it.
Look -- the press is an important part of society. It's how everyone else knows what someone else is doing. The government has no idea, and most folk will lie when they're doing something not P-C. The press is important, is valuable, and if you shun them, well, it just gives them a good reason to sneak in and try to find out what the fuck you're up to.
Hell, we just had reporters who were thrown in jail for protecting their sources. Talk to the press, get their confidence, and they'll keep you in the dark as much as they can.
Wow - great apology/mistatement for being child molestor.
Yes, at DEFCON they ran some chick off the premises (and acted like they'd never seen a girl in the process), but she didn't do anything illegal under any definition. There were many bloggers there no registered as press either.