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.'"

Comments

Brilliant

[Alchemist253]

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

Re:Brilliant

[Asmor]

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."

Re:Brilliant

[Wizy]

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

Re:Brilliant

[RobertLTux]

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"

Re:Brilliant

[Asmor]

Read the story? You must be new here.

Re:Brilliant

[wytcld]

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.

How unoriginal

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hmmmm

[atari2600]

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08 /03/dateline_mole.jpg - she's cute.

Re:Hmmmm

[megaditto]

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

Journalistic Standards

[mdenham]

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?

Dateline should stick to catching perverts

[Chessucat]

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

That's clever

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV show

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

ROFL

[drix]

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.

simple freedom of the press

[aka-ed]

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.

Re:simple freedom of the press

[Bassman59]

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.

Re:simple freedom of the press

[SamP2]

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.

best known?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Media believes it is above the law ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[gkhan1]

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.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[kcbrown]

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.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[Kirijini]

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.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[trianglman]

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....

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[schnell]

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.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[gkhan1]

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.

Photos of the fleeing reporter

[Spikescape]

http://amishrabbit.smugmug.com/gallery/3253654

Fox News

[ZeroFactorial]

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!"

"That'll make good TV."

[Original Replica]

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?

Re:"That'll make good TV."

[MikeBabcock]

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.

Re:"That'll make good TV."

[Original Replica]

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.

Re:"That'll make good TV."

[Pantero Blanco]

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?

Re:Despicable

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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

Bad NBC

[dotslashdot]

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.

Just meet in a two party consent State

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Nevada is a One-party Consent to Tape State

[redelm]

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.

Re:Nevada is a One-party Consent to Tape State

[thewesterly]

Few would agree the sky is blue.

That's because it isn't.

Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho

[sqrt(2)]

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.

Re: ATTN slashdot admins

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

NBC Voyuerism

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

What wiretap laws did they violate?

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Heh

[Have Blue]

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

Re: ATTN slashdot admins

[Anonymous Coward]

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

It's entrapment

[commodoresloat]

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!"

Re:It's entrapment

[markov_chain]

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*

Re:Despicable

[lastchance_000]

Yes, but the recordings STAY in Vegas.

Not really anything wrong here

[spiritraveller]

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.

youtube video of it

[bigbigbison]

There is a video of her outing on youtube.

Re:Despicable

[iamhassi]

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.

This isn't about pedophilia

[arth1]

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.

Dear Dumbass.

[Torvaun]

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.

Re:Which makes you wonder

[pclminion]

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)

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong.

[BenEnglishAtHome]

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!