Slashdot Mirror
Over 10,000 Facebook Users Worldwide Falsely Check in at Standing Rock To Confuse Police (time.com)
More than 100,000 people from around the world have checked in on Facebook at the site of Dakota Access Pipeline protests in North Dakota, in an effort they hope will help protesters avoid detection by police. From a report on Vice:A call went out for Facebook users over the weekend to falsely check in at Standing Rock to confuse the police regarding protester identities and numbers. But it isn't clear whether the directive came from organizers on the ground at the Camp of the Sacred Stone, who call themselves Water Protectors because of the purported threat that the planned pipeline poses to Standing Rock's water supply, or whether it's a hoax. Protesters have been camped out at Standing Rock since April in response to the planned Energy Transfers Pipeline, but tensions reached a boiling point last week when protesters clashed with police and several vehicles were set on fire. Scenes of standoffs between riot police and protesters linked arm-in-arm were broadcast online via Facebook Live. Law enforcement used a sound cannon in an attempt to disperse protesters. Protest leaders in North Dakota say they were surprised by the Facebook check-in effort, but they appreciate it.
To no effect:
http://www.snopes.com/facebook...
10,000. or 100,000? We need the truth!
I unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security has added over 10,000 facebook users to the US No-Fly list, as suspected supporters of terrorism
Everyone protesting the pipeline drove their car to the protest. Classic.
I don't understand the hate towards pipelines, it seems like the pipeline will not affect the amount of oil consumed, but rather decrease the amount of energy and risk of transporting it via conventional methods..
these eco hippies are essentially fighting for the solution that burns more fosil fules (ie using trains, trucks and ships to move oil)
just like that pipeline from canada that wont happen now, apparently eco hippies prefer america buying its oil from arab countries and sending it over via ship which is about the highest polluting method of transportation, and the one with the greatest potential for ecological disaster
Surely people don't rely on FB data for real world things. Nobody puts real info on FB.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/theres-no-way-your-facebook-check-in-is-confusing-north-dakota-cops/
Are you suggesting that slacktivism isn't effective?
There's a donation page to aid the legal battle. My guess is that checking in is pointless. The authorities can simply get a warrant to see which cell phone subscribers are using the nearby towers if they need to know who is there.
https://fundrazr.com/d19fAf?ref=sh_25rPQa
from idiots clueless idiots calling the protestors hippies and ecowarriors.
That how poor the reporting on these protests are right now.
These arent tree huggers, these are Native Americans trying to protect land sacred to them.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm tired of paying for these assholes' psychotic desire to destroy my property. Lock 'em up for a few years, and confiscate their possessions to compensate for the damage.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Just a mention. Every single one of the people who "checked in" at Standing Rock were automatically loaded into the facial recognition databases.
Illegally and unconstitutionally.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They have an angle. For example, when Snopes "debunked" how Hillary laughed while talking about the rape of a 12-year old girl, they went for the biggest strawman they could find. Yes, it's true that she was forced to defend that guy. Normal people aren't complaining about that part, just about how she did so.
See, Hillary laughed when interviewed about it. It's on the tape. That doesn't count according to Snopes because "she did not laugh about the case's outcome." They say she was just chuckling a few times, for example when saying she mistrusted polygraph results because they would've indicated her client wasn't guilty. Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all? Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor?
Hillary implied that her client was guilty by her mistrust of the polygraph results where he was telling the "truth" about not raping the girl. But Snopes will summarize this as "she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty." Right, she only implied guilt based on inside knowledge that she should hold in confidence as an attorney. That's only a highly unethical violation of her attorney client privilege to imply things like this. But it's okay! She only mistrusts polygraphs--like the one she had him take and which he passed--because of this case with this man. She didn't come out and say he's guilty! It's not like you'd have to be an idiot to fail to understand the clear implication. Nothing to see here!
They say "she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story,"" instead they point out that she just put forth an anonymous source who allegedly told her the girl was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." This kind of defense is exactly why we have rape shield laws nowadays--because people got fed up with this scummy tactic being used by defense lawyers and outlawed it. Yes, she may have some excuse of professional obligation there--this turns into a murky legal question. But morally? People thought this was such a disgusting, hurtful way to attack rape victims that it's been outlawed. Please let that sink in for a moment. It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally? [1]
So the thing is they really do massage how they frame the articles, which "facts" or formulations thereof they try to debunk--picking strawmen to attack when it suits their claims, and then they make summaries that are misleading. It's a more subtle form of bias with the intent to mislead, but it's clear enough if you actually read everything and do your own research. They simply don't expect anyone to actually bother to read things and I hate to say it, but they're usually right that people won't.
[1] Whataboutists: I'm also disturbed by some of the allegations against Trump. However, there is some evidence pointing to deliberate fabrications, making that less clear than it might be.
This is doing nothing. It's a way for people sitting at their keyboards (or phones) to feel like they're part of a cause. It has no material affect on anyone. It's probably pretty smart for the organizers to pretend it does, though, as it's an easy way to make people feel involved and keep their attention on this.
WRONG.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
You're just lying. Your statement is patently, objectively false in every statement.
Every oil train derailment has spilled more oil than the last 5 significant pipeline spills, combined.
Leak detection occurs at the speed of sound. Every block in the oil pipeline has, and has had for at least a decade, acoustic monitoring that detects leaks, very accurately. You'll probably bitch about the Yellowstone River spill, trying to mislead the readers into thinking it occurred in Yellowstone National Park, which it didn't. If you, instead, did math, you'd realize that the quantity of oil spilled there was LESS than the quantity under the river when the pipeline was breached. As soon as the breach was detected, a few milliseconds after it occurred, the valve upstream of the leak closed automatically, and the pumping station downstream went to full amperage, sucking water into the pipeline instead of leaking.
The lies you're parroting have caused significant spills from oil trains. Spills that would not have occurred if evil shills like you hadn't blocked several pipeline projects.
> WRONG.
You work for them? :)
Yes Hillary laughed, she was a nervous 27 year old lawyer fresh out of school that had just defended probably one of the worst people in humanity and because the state fucked up she got the guy a significantly reduced sentence. So she laughed about how the lie detector was worthless as a way to cope with the horrible thing that the state and justice system allowed. There is NOTHING unusual about this. Cops and all kinds of people that deal with the worst of all human acts tell awful jokes about it as a way to cope with the horrible shit they are dealing with. Because if you can't try to deal with it you end up insane.
Nothing she did during the trial was abnormal for trials of these kinds at the time. When you judge history by today's standards it makes you a fucking idiot. We used to treat rape suspects like whores in court, that doesn't make it Clinton's responsibility that the courts allowed and even expected that kind of behavior. It was wrong, no one disputes that and the laws have changed to disallow these kinds of defenses but if she'd failed to make motions that were routine at the time she could have been professionally punished for failing to do everything she could for the client she was forced to defend.
Stop judging history through today's lens.
TL;DR -- Everybody's biased, News at 11.
Seriously, anybody who believes ANY media source 100% without questioning -- even a "debunking" one -- is silly. Everyone has biases.
And while I truly don't care enough about this story to actually read it and see whether your complaints stand up -- not because I like or trust Hillary Clinton... FAR from it! -- I also don't really think everything is as insidious as you make it sound.
I doubt the folks at Snopes are "massaging" the facts deliberately, where there is an "intent to mislead." I think they're just stating what they think are reasonable opinions on stuff, based on the evidence they see and their evaluation of it. Maybe they're more likely to excuse person X than person Y, but I doubt they're being deliberately manipulative here. At best, they might work a bit harder to argue in favor of someone they like, but I really doubt they're even conscious of whether something might seem subtly "spun" to others.
(And yeah, I've had run-ins with the Snopes folks in the past too. I sent in a complaint once on a science issue, where they didn't really investigate thoroughly. I was basically told that I was overreacting and that their sources were more authoritative, even though I actually was pointing to very recent actual real-world studies, while they were pointing to government agency stuff that was out-of-date and based on old speculation before the studies had really been done. I don't think they were trying to deliberately mislead either... everybody makes mistakes. And everybody's biased, often unaware of it too.)
That doesn't count according to Snopes
That doesn't count according to Snopes that provide on their site a detailed list of facts as well as a link to the videos? How does the site having an angle equate to being unable to trust the site if it cites its sources?
The fact that they didn't flat out claim it was false and actually mentioned many of the same things you did makes your case very weak indeed.
Read the sources, make up your own mind.
Yeap, still better than Politifact, which doesn't even link to sources.
I already covered your other items and I already stated that she was required to defend him, so you're arguing a point already discussed. And no, presenting that kind of evidence as anonymous hearsay was even then rather dubious. Snopes mentions the victims wanting the plea because the trial was so horrible for them. It was horrible precisely because of conduct like that, which led to it being outlawed via rape shield laws. I note that you do not, because you cannot, rebut the fact that it was unethical of her to imply that she had secret knowledge of her client's guilt, though.
As for this:
> There is NOTHING unusual about this.
Just how many other people can you name who laugh when talking about the rape of 12-year-olds? I confess that I'm not acquainted with any, to the best of my knowledge.
> Seriously, anybody who believes ANY media source 100% without questioning -- even a "debunking" one -- is silly. Everyone has biases.
Yes, this is very true. I always look for the article's sources and follow them down to any actual evidence.
When this isn't possible, I tend to simply ignore the things which were said which could not be corroborated.
Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all?
It's not. But then, she wasn't laughing about the act itself, she was laughing (somewhat hollowly, by the sound of it) about a couple of specific aspects of the proceedings.
Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor [youtube.com]?
You probably have to to preserve your sanity, if you're going to be a criminal defence lawyer.
It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally?
That's precisely why lawyers have a professional obligation to defend their clients.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Those who haven't had to deal first hand with some of the horribleness humans do to each other, often don't appreciate morbid humor. They don't understand "gotta laugh to keep from crying". It's a known and documented effect of stress. If all the people with morbid humor were locked up there would be a lot fewer free members of the armed services, police, fire department, EMTs, lawyers, doctors, etc. Sad to see all off them thrown under the bus in an attempt to gain a few points against a politician.
Every rape trial up until the rape shield laws of the 90's was a trial of the victim. Every single one. Often the victim was put through horrible, awful and completely legal practices to try to paint the victim as a liar. This was standard practice 101 for defending someone indicted on rape and remained this way right up until the rape shield laws changed the rules. In an era without DNA evidence the trial often came down to he said/she said and the only effective defense was to convince the jury the victim was a liar.
She NEVER laughed about the rape. She nervously laughed at a joke about polygraph testing (lie detector) being completely unreliable. I listened to it, you clearly did not. She implied her client was guilty with this joke but only inferred it, though it would normally be unethical if this statement had been public before the trial the statement was months after the trial and acquittal of rape charges. Had the statement been truly unethical by the state's standards she would have been punished by her legal board. I suspect that such implied statements are perfectly fine once the trial has been adjudicated as she no longer represented the man but I'm not a bar member.
You are clearly biased with a line to sell. Not everyone buys that line. The objective evidence indicates a young attorney who was forced to defend a client who was clearly guilty, that the state lost key evidence and as a result a truly horrible person was let off on minor criminal charges. She laughed about it because like anyone involved in things like this they use humor to cope with the awfulness of it. Cops do it, crime scene investigators do, attorney's and DA's do it, firemen do it and anyone that deals with objectively horrible things do it. You'd burn out in less than a year in any of these jobs dealing with cases like this one where you are forced to participate if you don't find a coping mechanism and humans use humor to cope. These are broad sociological actions that exist throughout all cultures that no one should be judged for, not the fireman that makes an awful joke about a houseful of kids being burned alive nor the attorney that jokes about polygraph machines clearly not working because her client passed one. It's absurd to hold Clinton to a standard that's higher than we hold anyone else to.
Yep, I know that defence, it's the "my lying ears and eyes defence" and I usually ignore that defence because which is easier to believe, my ears and eyes or your lies and references leading to references which lead back to the original reference. That laugh is the laugh of a clinical narcissist who does not empathise with any one and hence an embarrassing outburst covered over with a lie of I did not mean it or I was joking and snopes looks like shite now.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The pipeline is going across their land, moran, so as not to go north of Bismarck and endanger the watershed of the lilly white state capital.
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
> She NEVER laughed about the rape.
See, I didn't say that. I said she "laughed when interviewed about it" and that raping kids isn't funny. Laughing about your client being guilty (which you seem to imply by saying it was the polygraph joke) doesn't help things any.
> though it would normally be unethical if this statement had been public before the trial the statement was months after the trial and acquittal of rape charges.
He wasn't acquitted, he plead down to a lesser charge.
> I listened to it, you clearly did not.
While I'm not clear on why you think that, I have to note that you misstated the claim I made about her laugh and then you decided that he was somehow acquitted, despite the Snopes article clearly debunking that claim:
> Had the statement been truly unethical by the state's standards she would have been punished by her legal board.
That requires someone to file a complaint with the bar and I don't think she's even a practicing attorney any more.
> You are clearly biased with a line to sell.
Yes, but so is everyone. Anyone who says they have no bias is trying to sell you something, unless maybe they truly have no skin in the game.
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
That's quite a simplification. How about the fact that if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system? Our system is adversarial. Both sides are in a fight. Neither side of the American justice system is actually responsible for finding the truth. If one side holds their punches (doesn't do everything they can according to the legal standards at the time), it's a loss for justice. It's not an attorney's job to decide which tactics she is or is not willing to use. If she doesn't fight as hard as she can according to the standards at the time, she is perverting the justice system.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
> if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system?
That would imply that the rape shield laws pervert the justice system. I have a lot of problems with how she supported this motion seeking a test, as well, given that the fact that she didn't name her sources, merely repeating anonymous claims with no one standing behind them. As another put it -
I'm puzzled why the left is so willing to genuflect to Native Americans every time they claim something is "sacred" to them. They regularly pillory Christian religions when they make a claim to some custom or place being sacred -- what makes a stone age religious practice carry more weight?
I wonder who is paying and organizing all these protests? Has anyone looked at the trucking, rail and competing transport companies that stand to loose a bundle if the pipeline is completed? Come on pipelines are the safest lowest polluting and cheapest form of transport. Why all the protests unless someone is loosing money over this.
Everybody point and laugh at the stupid hairless apes defending the destruction of their own habitat.
I've listened to the tape. As someone who doesn't like Clinton at all, it sounded to me like a rueful "can you believe how crazy the system is" laugh.
Personally, I've found Snopes to be pretty reliable and it's nothing short of a terrible irony (cue rueful laugh) that people are finding a measure of success in casting a web site that debunks nonsense on the internet as a purveyor of falsehoods.
Snopes remains a damned reliable method of checking on the validity of the junk the average facebook user posts. If you're the suspicious type, by all means check Snopes and other sites AND check the "facts" they present to see if they're consistent.
Seriously, why did they think it would help? If I would need to find out those who were there, I would compare their location in Facebook with their IP address. So non-Dakota IPs would be filtered away. But even better - get the IMEI numbers of all phones in area and find mobile contracts for them. No Facebook needed. I'm pretty sure NSA can do that.
Yeah, I used to trust Snopes until one day I researched something I actually was at... and found that they said it never happened and was a Right Wing Conspiracy... I was there, it did happen, so now I know. Snopes is 'massaging' information to suit their political views.
http://i.imgur.com/5P39g73.jpg
Any lens shows that isn't a good thing.
Clinton had to give her client the best defense possible. At that time, it meant doing whatever she could do to discredit the victim's testimony to the point where there was reasonable doubt, no matter what it said about the victim. Now, the best defense possible doesn't include quite so savage attacks on the victim, so if Clinton were doing it now she'd give her client the best defense possible within current rules. The current rules are not a perversion of justice; indeed, I think they lead to more justice. Following the current rules back then would have meant not giving the client the best possible defense, and would have been a perversion of the justice system.
Your quotation speculates that Clinton lied, and therefore might have been unethical. That's not evidence of anything except that there's someone who doesn't like Clinton.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Snopes relies on the media, as far as I can tell. They will try to contact individuals involved in what they're reporting on, if they can, but other than that they don't do their own ground-up investigations. I'd think that the media just didn't cover what you were at, and Snopes was either unable to find anyone involved from their sources or couldn't get a response.
This doesn't mean Snopes was lying, but they are dependent on their sources.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's publicity, and I've been seeing a lot more stuff about how to donate to the cause. Checking in does little besides provide a bit of moral support, but providing money isn't slacktivism.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
>Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
Giving someone the best defense of the law is lawful good, not lawful evil. It is ethical for a lawyer to defend their client regardless of whether they are guilty.
You are proposing chaos, not lawfulness.
I'd rather be neutral good than lawful evil. Yes, that is more chaotic.
They actually support Hillary, in part, damning her primarily for implying that her client was guilty with her statements about polygraphs. However, that section clearly shows why it's problematic to give an anonymous source badmouthing the victim. You see, anyone could claim they heard anything and doing so robs anyone of a way to check the validity of her sources. Given how easy it would have been to give a source, the lack of one should be considered suspect for that reason alone.
Allowing unsubstantiated rumors to destroy someone is simply wrong and that's why things like hearsay are normally kept out of court.
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
If only we could prove that they actually were or were not rape victims. If there was no question, then you wouldn't even need a trial, just sentencing.
But here's the thing: in a criminal case, the accused is presumed not guilty. You must be able to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and introducing doubt, regardless of crime or circumstances, is fair game. Because everyone, everyone without exception, is entitled to defense under the law. The scales of justice truly are that -- the prosecution on one side, and the defense on the other, with the judge/jury in the center seeing which side has more weight.
What if he wasn't a rapist? What if the accuser really did have mental problems and there was no basis behind her claims? Is that really so far-fetched? The court can't wave a magic wand and find out. These cases have to be argued. I'll always agree with Blackstone's Forumula, where I would rather ten guilty men go rather than condemn one innocent man. We are inundated with bad TV shows and movies where "crooked defense lawyers" get "clearly guilty people" off with some stupid technicality, and we're now conditioned to hate the criminal defense attorney. But reality is different and messier.
Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor.
That's a positive, not a negative.
In other words, you think Clinton should have given her client substandard representation. That's the issue here. Fortunately, there are new rules that protect rape victims from some of the worst stuff they had to go through.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
> That would imply that the rape shield laws pervert the justice system.
No, if there are proper mechanisms for the justice system to be adjusted, by definition that's part of the system. (I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's how the system was meant to function.) When lawyers decide to hold their punches, that's not part of the system. If I'm ever accused of a serious crime, I want my lawyer to do everything he can to make me look good and the prosecution look bad! If he doesn't, he's not doing his job. A lawyer's job isn't to be sweet. It's to follow the truth, obey the law, obey the current professional ethical guidelines, and to win the case. Otherwise justice isn't being served (according to the rules at the time).
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.