Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

reifman writes The Internet's been abuzz the past 48 hours about reports the FBI distributed malware via a fake Seattle Times news website. What the agency actually did is more of an example of smart, precise law enforcement tactics. Is the outrage online an indictment of Twitter's tendency towards uninformed, knee-jerk reactions? In this age of unwarranted, unconstitutional blanket data collection by the NSA, the FBI's tactics from 2007 seem refreshing for their precision.

Comments

No. Just no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever thinks this is remotely a good thing needs to be beaten with a lead pipe. Not only is it clearly illegal, it's also a serious breach of trust.

Yes, but

[nwaack]

Yes, it's a knee-jerk reaction. However, our government agencies have done this to themselves. Most of the outrage is probably coming from people who saw "FBI" and "website" in the same sentence and just assumed they did something bad. I can't say I really blame them all that much.

Re:Yes, but

[jellomizer]

Nearly everything in the media is Knee-jerk.
No one has the time to really dig threw and sift threw the facts and see both sides of an issue. We Want Good Guys and Bad Guys. No gray line.
It is nice and neat and easy to know where you are at.

Why not? (Re:No. Just no.)

[mi]

Not only is it clearly illegal

Please, cite the violated law. Thank you.

it's also a serious breach of trust

Trust between which parties? The fake was sent to only one person — the suspect, who then became a convict. The suspect knows very well now, that it was a fake — so he continues to trust the actual Seattle Times as much as he did before.

Also, we all know, that it is perfectly legal for police to lie — except, of course, under oath. So, which trust are you talking about?

Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.)

[mi]

1) Identify theft. 2) Slander of Title. 3) Copyright Infringement. 4) Trademark Infringement. 5) Defamation of Character.

These may be legal terms, but not actual laws. Please, try again — cite an actual law (Federal or Washington State's). If you can, mention the paragraph/verse you think was violated. Thank you.

Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) "except under oath"?

[Moof123]

The double standards between law enforcement and the public are exactly the opposite of what they should be. As a trusted public official (with years of training dollars poured into them) they should be held to a higher standard, and face worse penalties for breaking the law than the general public. Sadly, our failing state is more intent on preserving power than protecting justice, truth, and the public.

this is all blown out of proportion.

[nimbius]

As a regular slashed dot user I think this is all over-reaction. I've been checking www.slashdorrt.org every day for the latest news articles about my tablets and e-phones, and even sometimes the governments totally patriotic spying but this article is just goofy. The FBI wasn't anymore interested in the Sea-tultymes.com as they would have been in slishdart.org, they were just trying to protect americans and preserve freedom.

now if we could just get back to talking about that

EDWARD SNOWDEN

and maybe what we all think about

WIKI
LEAKS

I think that would be a much better topic of investig....er discussion....

Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) "except under oath"?

[fustakrakich]

Sounds like you slept through the primaries :-)

Sorry, man, those guys are only winning because people voted for them.