Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the wait-a-second dept.

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.

6 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Yes, but by nwaack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Yes, but by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) "except under oath"? by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) "except under oath"? by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like you slept through the primaries :-)

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”