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.'"

118 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.

    1. Re:Brilliant by Asmor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously, I think merely being outed is probably the best that this guy could have hoped for. Woulda rocked if they'd fucked around with him instead.

      "Whoa, never seen you before. Ah, what the hell, you look trustworthy. But before I tell you the details of my pub with 4 TB of CP I need you to do something for me... First, I need to know what size hat you wear and if you have any food allergies."

    2. Re:Brilliant by Wizy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Way to read the story. Your "him" is a "her".

    3. Re:Brilliant by RobertLTux · · Score: 4, Funny

      and next year Defcon will mod its civilian signup to close this loophole.

      Note to the Muggles DO NOT TRY TO OUT TRICK A GROUP OF WIZARDS

      this is darwin grade 2 guiness guys F[redacted] Brilliant!!

      Now watch some NBC server will go wheels up "for no reason"

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:Brilliant by Starteck81 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess they'll be adding "spot the undercover journalist" game to go along with the traditional "spot the fed" game.

      Seriously, how do they expect to blend in with nerds, we can smell non-nerds a mile away. Sexual predators are dumb compulsion driven. Nerds are for the most part smarter and more aware, you may get one or two to say something stupid but that's a long way from catching a room full of 'hackers' plotting to bring down the Pentagon.

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    5. Re:Brilliant by Asmor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Read the story? You must be new here.

    6. Re:Brilliant by wytcld · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    7. Re:Brilliant by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You obviously have no clue what this conference is about. Get a history lesson.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    8. Re:Brilliant by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well said, and I have NO idea why you got modded 'bait because of it. Personally, I'd suggest the AC also research the difference 'tween "white-hat" and "black-hat" before arguing further.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    9. Re:Brilliant by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Way to read the story. Your "him" is a "her".

      Ahh, so that is how they knew something fishy was going on!

    10. Re:Brilliant by hoggoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > people who have (for all intents and purposes to the layman) magical powers that are so grand they can effect corporations, something most armies would be hard pressed to do. It would be insanity for an individual to deliberately provoke that whole community

      Give me an f*ing break. I'm sure everyone at DefCon goes around telling each other they are the highest form of life, but really, the layman doesn't think they have magical powers. They think they are spending all their time screwing with computers because they can't get laid.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  2. How unoriginal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They could've had some real fun with her had they not exposed her so quickly.

  3. The real question is... by DreamingReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... 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
    1. Re:The real question is... by HaeMaker · · Score: 3, Funny

      Um, yea. Read the article, and check out the cleavage. Those aren't man-boobs.

    2. Re:The real question is... by DreamingReal · · Score: 3, Funny
      Um, yea. Read the article, and check out the cleavage. Those aren't man-boobs.

      Damn. You're right. I'm a donkey. I did about as much due diligence as the guys on To Catch A Predator :
       

      HorseCock6969: ur not that Dateline guy r u?
      InnocentVirgin13: LOL! n0 wayz! <3 <3
      --
      We want some answers and all that we get
      Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat

      - Ministry
  4. Hmmmm by atari2600 · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Hmmmm by megaditto · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wouldn't it be funny if she were outed as the original tubgirl? Ultimate payback for nosing around, eh?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:Hmmmm by Choad+Namath · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cute? She looks like the lost Kerry sister.

    3. Re:Hmmmm by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just Googled tubgirl for the first time... OMFG. Thanks... for... that.

      I'm going to vomit now.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  5. Journalistic Standards by mdenham · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Journalistic Standards by weak* · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... what Dateline does can only be called "news" in a very loose sense... I think you mean lose sense.
      --
      The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
    2. Re:Journalistic Standards by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 2, Funny

      4chan? You must mean eBaum's World.

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
  6. Dateline should stick to catching perverts by Chessucat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is easier to catch perverts than hackers, 'eh?!;-)

    --
    "I'm a dirty white tomcat, enter my world..."
    1. Re:Dateline should stick to catching perverts by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is easier to catch perverts than hackers, 'eh?

      The problem for Dateline is their approach. Now if they had tempted these hackers with the possibility of accessing some super secret on-line achieve of hot tentacle porn, maybe they would have had more success?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  7. That's clever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dateline refused to deny the planned infiltration. So there was someone trying to get them to deny the whole thing? Is that some kind of reverse psychology?
  8. 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.

  9. ROFL by drix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. 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 JamesRose · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a totally different thing. The reason is that the hacker case is they are recording people talk about crimes, the talk may or may not be true. The recording you talk about second is an actual recording of a crime taking place-it's a completely different thing. I know many people who would claim to do something illegal if it were socially advantageous (unfortunately that doesn't say much, I'm 16). I would agree that if ABC had gone in with the intention of recording someone actually carry out a crime and had reason to beleive a crime would be committed, that would be true, but instead basically what they were trying to do was talk the people into confessing.

    2. Re:simple freedom of the press by HeaththeGreat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see wired pleading for special treatment. If dateline had been smart enough to catch a hacker talking about illegal activities, more power to them. The point of the story is that you need to be really good at subversion to outsmart the most subversive and paranoid among us.

      The moral of the story is that hackers are smart; child molesters are dumb.

    3. Re:simple freedom of the press by Bassman59 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The point of the story is that you need to be really good at subversion to outsmart the most subversive and paranoid among us.

      I'm sure the git and the bitkeeper people might have something to say about that.

    4. 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.

  11. best known? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Despicable by eriklou · · Score: 2, Informative

    Very NSFW. ^^

  13. What really happened: by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

  14. Which makes you wonder by fistfullast33l · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How was she going to fit in at a hacker conference?

    1. Re:Which makes you wonder by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But think of it this way. You have this hot girl who is at a hacker conference. Chances are more than a few of them are socially ... struggling. So how would YOU impress a girl at a hacker conference? Brag about your exploits of course! Yet I agree that NBC is rather stupid because even by that logic this woman does not fit in. They should have gotten a goth / skater type girl with dreadlocks.

    2. Re:Which makes you wonder by riffzifnab · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well at least when she was talking to geeks they were always looking at the camera (if they put it where I guess they did).

    3. Re:Which makes you wonder by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In most male-dominated geek scenes (sci-fi, hacking, gaming, etc), a mildly attractive girl can easily find herself the center of attention and have a platonic harem of male geeks at her beck and call. If she could have played the part and flirted the right way, she could have easily fit in. Girls are rare enough in those parts; nobodys going to question the shining oasis in the desert. Only the hardcore paranoids in the crowd would have seen through her rouse.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    4. Re:Which makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > Only the hardcore paranoids in the crowd would have seen through her rouse.

      You've never been to DefCon, have you? It might have worked better than what NBC tried, but the paranoia's half the fun.

    5. Re:Which makes you wonder by pclminion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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)

    6. Re:Which makes you wonder by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      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)

      Me either, but now I'm going to the next one!
  15. 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 ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      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. If the media is a check on the government and the government is a check on the media, you wind up with no checks and you can forget about balance. The responsibility to monitor the media falls squarely on we the people, and most of us are too busy (or at least think we are) and/or complacent for the job.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    3. 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.

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

      While I'd like to second you what you said in your post, I also want to add something. What you said about muckrakers is right and important, but its all missing a crucial element. The press in the past was more free because a) it wasn't backed/directed by large economic powers (Rupert Murdoch) and b) there were a ton of newspapers, most of the them independent. I think Alexis de Tocqueville's perspective on this is still informative and insightful - check out chapter 11, book 1. Most relevant to this discussion, while speaking of newspapers/"the media": "the Americans have nowhere established any central direction of opinion.". It useful to bear in mind that FOX News is nowhere near as biased as the small time newspapers of the 18th and 19th century - but every newspaper had its own amateur and highly opinionated editor, so that bias didn't aggregate well.

      The best news sources are independent or small chain papers. The ones that don't have an overlord looking over their shoulder when they're writing editorials.

    6. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is new?

      As a fairly passionate Titanophile, I've read a TON of accounts of how the media of the time (in 1912, y'all) did all kinds of crazy shit just to get an exclusive. Even Guglielmo Marconi, the guy who invented wireless radio, haggled with a fairly rabid pack of newspapers - just to rake in a shedload of money for an exclusive story from the one surviving Wireless Operator (one Harold McBride). The whole "guy wearing a dress" thing is credibly rumored to have come from a snubbed reporter - who was pissed at an exhausted survivor that told him to bugger off and let him sleep. Before the Carpathia (the ship that picked-up all of Titanic's survivors) even got fully into New York's harbors, boats loaded with reporters tried to clamber aboard the ship.

      This is just a small set of examples among a shedload... and back then, little things like libel and fact weren't really that much of an obstacle set, so long as the headlines sold the paper that day.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. 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.
    8. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by schnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The press in the past was more free because a) it wasn't backed/directed by large economic powers (Rupert Murdoch) and b) there were a ton of newspapers, most of the them independent.

      I studied the history of journalism in college (journalism major, natch) and your impression is a common one but it's overly romanticized. In the late 19th century and early 20th century heyday of American newspaper journalism, there were indeed more papers - but many if not most of the largest papers were owned by robber baron demagogues who make Rupert Murdoch look like a saint. Read up on yellow journalism and the antics of the American press of yesteryear will amaze you.

      As one of the above posters mentioned, we are much better off today: you still have biased media moguls pushing their agendas, but at least you have literally thousands of media sources to choose from instead of one to three daily papers (in the 19th or early 20th centuries) or three television stations (for much of the late 20th century). The rise of "citizen journalism" has increased the crap quotient somewhat (just like the rise of "citizen architects" would dilute the overall quality of building structures) but it is much more democratized. There are many reasons to admire the historical legacy of American journalists, but they didn't operate in any idyllic vacuum free from corporate interest or bias.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    10. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by gkhan1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't really understand the rosy picture that you all paint of the history of journalism: do you think that media conglomerates are a new thing? Have you ever heard of William Randolph Hearst? Rupert Murdoch is a spit-ball in a rainstorm compared to Hearst. And what about Murrow? He was part of a huge media network too, it was called the Columbia Broadcasting System. Murrow wasn't the first one to go after McCarthy, public opinion had already started to turn. There's no doubt that he played a big role in that affair, but it's also a complete miracle that William Paley didn't can his ass. He certainly would have if Murrow had started 6 months earlier.

      There will always be be media giants that control a huge chunk of the market, it has been that was since newspapers started publishing. So, yeah, FOX is pretty biased. But you know what, there are three other networks that has a government mandate to report the news. Not to mention the New York Times, the Washington Posts, Salon, Slate, Comedy Central, PBS, NPR and all the other ones.

      You talk about the sensationalist journalism, and how it is all about the money. That kind of journalism actually has a name, it's called Yellow Journalism. This was invented by William Randolph Hearst! Honestly, it's stunning to hear someone argue that we are in worse shape now than in the fifties. It was the fifties! Blacklists, segregation, HUAC, sexism, homophobia, communist paranoia and the Cold War. Honest journalists like Murrow did their best to make things better (and in sometimes they succeeded), but free speech and freedom of the press where a pittance in comparison to what they are today.

      Is the state of American journalism perfect? No, of course not. But it does represent by far the biggest insurance of a free society we have.

    11. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      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").

      You're right, we should nationalise the media and create a government ministry to handle everything. The Ministry of Truth perhaps.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do realize that Marijuana is pretty much only illegal because Harry J. Anslinger used his friends in the media to convince everyone that you would become a "murdering crazy man" if you smoked a little weed? And that it was the American newspapers that started using the name "Marijuana" because they figured people would dislike the Mexican sounding name, as being something bad if for no other reason?

      Yea, but Media is much worse today...

      I will never give up Free Speech, and it's unbelievable that you would. Shame on you.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    13. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by Burz · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are those that want to take away those rights and most people do not know what they are nor do they care.

      The only speech rights granted to corporate oligarchs is the one that allows them to stand on a public sidewalk politely handing out pamphlets. MINUS their LLC protections.

      They have no more right to astroturf the public spectrum with their intense greed than they have the right to paper all the streets and sidewalks with propaganda.
    14. Re:Media believes it is above the law ... by gkhan1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, you're so wrong. You're so wrong it's not even funny. In my immediate family, there are three journalists, my parents and my sister (my parents are actually editors, but they started out as journalists and see themselves that way). In my extended family there are a few more. Every night at dinner time something concerning journalism was discussed. Most of their friends which I met where regularly where journalists. I can assure you, there are few professions in the entire world that values integrity as high as journalists do. I mean, look at Judith Miller. Whatever you think of her as a person or a journalist, she went to jail for months because she refused to divulge a source! And the source was Scooter Libby! And this isn't something that is rare, this is what most journalists would do, they wouldn't name a source to save their life.

      See, people who want to do serious journalism want to do so because they are idealists. They want to be the people that airs dirty laundry and keep people honest. They aren't the people that get the most column space, that's for the gossips, but they are the people that affect change and report fairly. Pick up any serious newspaper and browse through it and you'll see pages written by people who has every bit of integrity as Murrow. You have an overly romantic view of the past and a an overly cynical view of the present.

      And by the way, what's wrong with Brian Williams?

  16. Photos of the fleeing reporter by Spikescape · · Score: 5, Informative
  17. Fox News by ZeroFactorial · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!"

  18. "That'll make good TV." by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Speaking of "Entrap a Predator" and to give you an idea of what passes for journalistic ethics at NBC:

    NEW YORK - The sister of a man who was suspected of being a sexual predator and killed himself as the cameras of "Dateline NBC" closed in on him sued NBC Universal Inc. on Monday for $105 million, accusing it of taking over police duties and then failing to protect her brother...She said in the lawsuit NBC "steam-rolled" police to arrest her brother, also known as Bill, after telling police he failed to show up at a sting operation 35 miles away. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/23/ap394307 9.html


    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.
    1. 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)
    2. 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.
    3. Re:"That'll make good TV." by AVonGauss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that's why entrapment's illegal in the first place. So is having a sexually explicit conversation by telephone or via the Internet if you believe the other party is a minor. When the police knocked on the door, the deed was already done. It then becomes a question for the district attorney's office (a little ironic) and the trial process in the courts to determine if the man was guilty of the crime he was accused of committing.

      You brought up psychology, so I'll ask you this, why do you believe the man committed suicide when the police knocked on the door? I'll be the first one to point out just because he committed suicide does not infer his guilt, but it does make you wonder. The other question you need to ask yourself is why did he believe they were knocking on his door. If I got a knock on my door and looked out and saw the police department and cameras outside my door, my first thought is not to kill myself, it would be to wonder what the hell is going on.

    4. Re:"That'll make good TV." by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... because of course, its the knock that made him kill himself. Of course not, its the lead-up to it, its the combination of things.

      If you got accused of being a child molestor and actually thought through the social consequences of it, I dare you to believe you'd want to continue living. I'm not (nor are you) the man's shrink, I'm just saying the OP had a point.

      Also note, it is not illegal to have sexual conversations with a minor in all places, nor should it be. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to explain to kids how condoms are used, nor any other valid sexual health discourse.

      Don't give me the "that's different" garbage either, because although it is, to you and I perhaps, its not to the law. The law needs to be clear in what is and is not illegal, and making sexual conversations illegal would be stupid for the reasons above -- sexual invitations are different, luring is different, etc. Many places simply leave it at strange laws like sexual interference which is left up to judges and juries to interpret.

      Sex laws in some countries (or states) are pretty convoluted in fact.

      PS, I'm in Canada, so its a whole world different here too.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:"That'll make good TV." by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 2, Informative

      He responded to the sting, and no reason exists to mourn his choice to "self-rehabilitate." His family won't see it that way,but consider that a result of family bonding. It's common enough in criminal cases for the family to spew excuses for the perp.

      Both the original post and the linked article make it clear that he did NOT go to the sting.

      I've watched the show before; they made a point of telling the culprits that they passed the line the moment they walked in the door, that they could have turned around, etc.

      I'm not pissed with the police for going to arrest him, and presumably they can't tell Dateline to sod off because of Press rights, but Dateline broke their own rules here. They should have reported him to the police for the lesser crime that he presumably DID commit, and left it alone.
    6. Re:"That'll make good TV." by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I got a knock on my door and looked out and saw the police department and cameras outside my door, my first thought is not to kill myself, it would be to wonder what the hell is going on.

      If I got a knock on my door, opened it and saw a cop or two, I'd ask what was going on.

      If I got a knock on my door, opened it and got rushed by several cops and newsmen with cameras, two things are going to rush through my mind:

      1. I'm going to be accused of something very serious.
      2. When they arrest me for whatever-it-is, that is going to be recorded, broadcasted, and probably viewed by everyone that I care about. Of course, it might not be, but considering everything else going on, I'm going to be expecting the worst.

      One of the worst things about the situation is that playing along and staying quiet makes you look guilty to the people watching, even though it's the best choice when you're arrested (regardless of innocence or guilt). You're basically forced to incriminate yourself one way, or the other.

      Cameras catching someone walk into a house is one thing; news cameras rolling alongside the police when they raid a house is something else entirely. Can we at least have empirical evidence that someone's guilty before throwing them out on national tv?
  19. Re:Despicable by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ethical? Journalist? I'm not sure I follow.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  20. Re:Despicable by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that, in any sort of event with open registration, you're fooling yourself if you don't think you're subject to covert surveillance. What would your opinion be if a private person, not a member of the media, used a hidden video camera to tape the proceedings?

    Dateline NBC is an obnoxious show but come on, we've already achieved the surveillance society, and big brother, little brother and all the brothers around and in between are watching you.

  21. A hacker of sorts by megaditto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  22. Bad NBC by dotslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bad NBC by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're using that situation to set up an emotional "Think of the children" response. This in itself is a fallacy but I'll skip over the obvious flaws in your logic and say that in your situation--unlike the contrived, manufactured ones you see on TV--there was a very real danger of an innocent girl being abused, and as such it warrants a response from law enforcement (and probably my handgun). If you're trying to say that stopping these few guys puts a dent into the number of pedophiles, or is a deterrent to the ones that are still out there then your naiveté is beyond my ability to correct.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Bad NBC by Unnngh! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It shouldn't be any surprise that a man can be seduced by a woman, and most of what I've seen on this show is an adult posing as a minor and being very convincing at seducing men. It's not a level playing field and the entire thing *is* set up to trap people, even if it's not technically, legally, entrapment. This country is also psycho about "pedophilia". Many 12-14 year olds are pretty adult in body and mind and are sexually active even if they don't have the proper experience to decide responsibly for themselves. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's a societal thing that says someone under 18 can't have sex with someone over 18, not a biological one. I wouldn't be happy with any of these guys at home with my hypothetical 12 yo daughter but I would also expect that I would have a) brought her up well enough and b) watched her enough that this kind of thing would not happen. If I caught my daughter in a chat room provoking men in the same way as these "reporters" she would be in deep shit.

  23. Just meet in a two party consent State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just meet in a two party consent State by AchiIIe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Defcon is actually organised in Nevada, which is a two party state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_l aws#Two_party_consent_states

      The reporter could simply record video, keep notes of what happens, then add some dramatic voices on top. For extra points they would show videos of exploding vans.

      For Lulz, for course.

      --
      Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
  24. NBC executives: Their mothers tie their shoes. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thinking that she would not be detected certainly puts an upper limit on the intelligence of NBC executives.

  25. Nevada is a One-party Consent to Tape State by redelm · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Unlike California, Nevada (and most the rest) are One-Party Consent to Tape jurisdictions. So the NBC observer broke no law.

    And I rather doubt DEFCON can impose any boilerplate contractual terms on its' attendees. Most would revolt! Few would agree the sky is blue.

    1. Re:Nevada is a One-party Consent to Tape State by thewesterly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Few would agree the sky is blue.

      That's because it isn't.

  26. Only be honest to your clergy, doctor or lawyer by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  28. Re: ATTN slashdot admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  29. Sore thumb by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  30. Re:Have some fun with him by bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Funny

    Him? you might want to actually read the article next time...

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  31. NBC Voyuerism by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  32. Just think of what the ratings would have been... by Pfhortytwo · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...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!

  33. What wiretap laws did they violate? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What wiretap laws did they violate? by HardCase · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I love is when you see a reporter riding around in a truck full of militants in Iraq/Afghanistan/*stan and the militants are firing mortars, RPGs and automatic weapons at people and the reporter is doing nothing. "Just covering the story, you know?"

      But when it comes to something like accusing someone of being a pedophile then suddenly the reporters become law enforcement officers.


      The difference between the two is that the first is covering the story and the second is creating the story (in the specific case of the Dateline situation.) It's not really a fine line.

      Personally, I don't think that either case ought to happen, but I'm not running the world. At least not yet.

    2. Re:What wiretap laws did they violate? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, sorry, this isn't how it works. You can record what goes on around your, just the same as you could simply write it down with pen and paper or remember it if your memory is good enough. The whole idea behind a "one party" state is that it is only illegal if you are actually tapping someone else's stuff. Wiring yourself, your house, your business, that's all well and legal. Generally speaking your property also makes you a party. In Arizona it is explicitly that way, if you own it, you are always a party, physical presence not required.

      Now something you might also note is this means that in "one party" states it is legal to record the police. Remember the story on Slashdot where a guy got arrested for that? Ya that was a "two party" state which, despite the name means everyone needs to be informed. Not a problem in a "one party" state. You can record them, not tell them, and it's 100% legal. However that extends to private citizens as well. I can ware a wire and that's legal.

  34. Re:Despicable by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are surely fooling yourself in Vegas. Any of the hotel/casinos there not only have cameras, they have a SHITLOAD of cameras. They watch their grounds more carefully than you can believe. Most of it is focused on the floor when the gambling takes place, of course, but don't think they don't have an eye on everything else. You go in to a place like that in Vegas, you are being recorded, you face is being checked with facial recognition software, you ARE being watched.

  35. Heh by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Funny

    It would be pretty funny if they didn't find Dateline's other undercover reporter.

  36. Sheep groupthink by dedazo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I hope that when the next undercover investigation on electronic voting machines or some form of government corruption surfaces I'll see the same level of outrage directed at the "offending" journalist as I'm seeing here. I hope they're called "moles" as well.

    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
  37. Re: ATTN slashdot admins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  38. Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  39. It's entrapment by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Read this article about the series:

    (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!"

    1. Re:It's entrapment by markov_chain · · Score: 4, Funny

      At twenty-five, she's a computer geek's fantasy female: androgynous, beautiful, pierced, with comprehensive musical knowledge and a house overrun by pet Maine coons and an iguana. One of her favorite shirts features two cars crashing into each other under the symbol CTRL+Z.
      Droolworthy so far... generally geeky, pretty, and my God where did she pick up the Unix shell streak???

      "Get it?" she asks excitedly. "It's a car crash, and Control-Z is the command for undo!"
      Nooooooooooooo no no no! *bangs head on wall*

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  40. Re:Despicable by lastchance_000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, but the recordings STAY in Vegas.

  41. Not really anything wrong here by spiritraveller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not really anything wrong here by Scudsucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guess what, you don't need "press credentials" to take video in a public place.

      Was this in a public place? Aren't conventions usually in rented property, thus voiding the "no privacy in a public place" canard?

    2. Re:Not really anything wrong here by spiritraveller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Was this in a public place? Aren't conventions usually in rented property, thus voiding the "no privacy in a public place" canard?

      The kinds of private places that are protected from "invasions of privacy" are places like bathrooms and bedrooms. A public gathering (even on private property) is not a place where you can expect to be free from public scrutiny.

      It might be different if it were a group therapy session or an AA meeting at the local church. But it's not.

      It's a group of people talking about how to break the law. I can't think of a place where the public has a greater interest in what is being said and who is saying it. They can kick her out, but they can't stop her from showing images that she has lawfully obtained.

    3. Re:Not really anything wrong here by ThePyro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.


      She was specifically told that video taping in secret was not allowed, but she did it anyway. Sounds pretty unethical to me. In contrast, the DEFCON staff seemed to handle the matter well. She was offered an official press badge on multiple occassions before they finally got fed up and outted her.
  42. youtube video of it by bigbigbison · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  43. Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  44. Calm Down by Swift2001 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Calm Down by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      you can't possibly be so navie?

      it's been shown time and time again that trashie affair tv shows like dateline use deceptive editing and misquoting to only show the side of the story they want to.

      the problem with allowing assholes like dateline in is they won't let their lack of technical experience prevent them making allegations that are completely untrue. no doubt this bitch heard the word "hacker" and decided everyone going to defcon was breaking the law.

      it's like the old saying "never let the facts get in the way of a good story". only these stories ruin peoples lives.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  45. Am I really surprised? by gen0c1de · · Score: 2

    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.

  46. Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho by Achoi77 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  47. Summary needs updating by postmodern+modulus+I · · Score: 3, Informative
    The Threat Level blog has just posted an update on this story. Apparently Michelle Madigan was hoping to "out" an undercover Federal Agent.

    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.
    --
    --postmodern
  48. Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho by Scudsucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, if an undercover cop asks you to sell him drugs and you do so, you go to jail.

    Nope, that's also entrapment.

  49. Re:Despicable by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Funny

    here's real photos of the mole
    photo 1
    photo 2

    Note to NBC: if you're gonna send a mole to a hacker's convention, try to pick someone other than the fairly attractive 20-something slim blonde.

    Maybe you should have sent in one of those predators from To Catch A Predator? They all could pass for hackers.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  50. 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.

  51. Dear Dumbass. by Torvaun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  52. It's an interesting case, really by Torque · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's an interesting case, really by cmat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The big problem here isn't the legality of the press pulling this stunt; it's that there are presenters at this conference that have potentially broken laws (copy protection circumvention anyone?) in the course of discovering weakness in systems and products we use everyday. The content of this conference is very "touchy"; with very little alteration it would be easy to misrepresent what is said by people at DefCon. I believe if you want a conference like DefCon to succeed (where success is defined by people that find weakness in software and hardware agreeing to present at DefCon), then you need to enforce that the press identify themselves. The premise of the show that this reporter worked for also doesn't even try to have any journalistic "protection of sources"; if they did and people could trust that the press would always hide the identities of those at DefCon (and just report on the content), I think the whole press-pass thing might be less of an issue with the conference organizers.

      So yeah, journalists should have the ability to report on hat they see; they should also NOT do this for the purpose of identifying and exposing individuals. Ya know, reporters are somewhat protected in this respect in the US and Canada, and this is exactly why.

      --
      -- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
  53. because you don't read TFA by someone1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  54. Re:I'll give you ten by adam613 · · Score: 2

    Any fact-based news IS left-leaning. It's well-known that reality has a liberal bias.

  55. Re:Despicable by Crizp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Much smaller, and a bit rounder, also brown.

  56. 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!

  57. Re:Despicable by Seumas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh. Male. Wearing a Rush 2112 shirt. Stinking a little bit of caffeine and body gravy.

  58. Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You're confused, that's all. You can't seem to grasp the concept of "attempted". He attempted to have sex with a minor. Whether he successfully had sex with a minor doesn't matter to anyone but you.

    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.