If at the point where Kerry said he would answer the question, the student had simply put his arms up in a gesture of conformance He did EXACTLY that (@1:53 until 2:00 at which times both his arms are forced down) and the cops rushed him all the more. Then the largest of the bunch picked him up football-style and carried him all the way to the back of the auditorium, and the rest is taser history.
take your ridiculous hyperbole to digg where it belongs. [...] and you know it. Are you really so retarded [...] That's not what happened at all. You're just wrong. There's no other way around this. You're just completely wrong. [...] The kid was a douche. That is the fact, and nothing you can say changes that. [...] Where exactly do you get off making a statement [...] It's doublethink. Your statement is doublethink. [...] It's doublethink. And you should be ashamed of yourself. STFU&DIAF, troll.
I disagree with your remarks concerning my prejudice, and will restate once again that I misread your comment, but I will give some thought to what you said of me. Thank you.
I did hesitate to include the easiest visual cue to find the person I was pointing out because I expect empty, angry comments like yours to come up whenever something vaguely resembling that sentence is uttered, but I'm not letting letting that brand of reactionary racism force me into auto-censure.
Yes, there is such a thing as the "angry black cop" prejudice, but DAMN, boy, parse the text to see if it's actually expressed there before assuming it is! Just because I point out the fact that the refrigerator-sized cop I'm talking about is black doesn't mean that I'm perpetuating the stereotype! I didn't say he was violent, I'm just saying that when a guy that size, with training, is tackling you, you are contained.
What you did was just as bad as what you were suspecting me of doing it, it's just the polar opposite, the pendulum's other peak, the other side of the same coin. People, you see, are capable of naming a person's race or ethnicity without implying a discrimination based on that characteristic. Hell, you're not the first to take an innocent remark out of context, but I hope you'll give it a seconds thought before jumping to conclusions next time.
P.S. Yes, the first time they gave that alien species the same gorram racial divides as us they gave that one, lone, black Vulcan a cop job and made him, coincidentally, the first angry vulcan. THAT is the stuff you're angry about, and I hate that too.
The courts decide. If what he did did not constitute a disturbance, then he will be set free on those charges. Ultimately, Florida's statutes, its courts, and federal courts set those rules. Whether refusing to follow the rules of a debate and attempting to hijack it counts or not is up to them to ultimately decide.
However, officers have the discretion to arrest someone for what they suspect is a crime in statutes where the language is vague, and "public disturbance" is one of the single broadest catch-all charges So if someone says something a cop disagrees with, the cop has all the rights to stop the person from expressing his opinions freely, and then subject that person to frivolous legal procedures?
From what I'm reading elsewhere, the student had already raised a fuss and got Kerry to say he'd answer his questions when they said that they weren't taking any more questions due to time restraints, and then proceeded to ask two questions (which were answered) instead of just the one (like everybody else did), and was about one minute into a rant regarding freemasonry or some other crackpot conspiracy theory before security came in to get him off the microphone and let the proceeding continue. Oh, and yeah, he barged in without having (and paying for) a ticket in the first place, which was why security was there around him anyway.
This guy was creating a public disturbance. He deserved what he got, IMO. He'll also be charged and probably fined for it. John Kerry's office just sent this statement from the senator: In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.
Did the police even tell him what he was being taken away for? If not, isn't that a violation of his rights? If you are being arrested/detained, don't you have the absolute, irrefutable right to be told what's going on? "Inciting a riot"
Court records show that Meyer was booked on a felony charge of resisting an officer and a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. That's not what the officers told Meyer after he was shocked and taken into custody. "You're under arrest for inciting a riot," a female police officer said at the time.
Peaceful? Did you watch the video? The guy is pushing, shoving, hitting, and screaming at police officers He did not hit anyone, first of all, secondly he's pushing and shoving as a reaction to the police grabbing him and tryoing to force him away from the person attempting to answer his question.
His mike had been cut-off, and he continued to yell. Just because Kerry was answering does not mean that he wasn't causing a disturbance. Who decides what constitutes a disturbance? He was talking to someone who wanted to reply to him, and enforcers tried to physically remove him from the discussion by force.
Under the authority of what law, precisely, were they acting? What gives them the right to pick him up and move him out of the public debate in which he was engaged? Some invisible authority decided they didn't like his questions, and therefore he's causing a disturbance? What the hell?
Right, because it's hard to pick out a black dude in a bunch of whities, especially when he's at lest 260.
Perhaps I overreacted, but that's the sort of appositive that serves to illustrate the passive form of racism found in whites (generally American). It's not conscious, nor is it particularly malignant, but it serves to keep some measure of "us versus them" in play. I'm not calling you a bigot; it's not like you were trashing him for being black. It's just that we have a long way to go before blacks (and other minorities, but mostly blacks due to our history) are regarded as "people" rather than "those people." My apologies for jumping down your throat; I could have been a bit more gracious. In recent months I've become much more aware of this sort of thing, and the fact that it's so widespread is depressing and angering, which leads me to take an aggressive stance when I encounter it. I also typoed that he was bald, wanna launch into a rant about that?
You know what's prejudiced? Assuming that mentioning what he looks like has a lot of "these people" attached to it. Someone else mentioned that a female officer was talking to him before he got tasered, maybe you'd like to go tell them off about sexism? YOU have issues towards race, stop projecting them onto others.
All I was able to hear was the lame crack about the kid not being available to swear him in. What did he say? "I think if everybody would just... calm down (garbled) this situation would just (garbled garbled garbled) I'll answer his question and, em, you know, unfortunately he's not available to come up here and swear me in (laughter). Ah, let me just say this, because it's a very important question (garble garble TASER)"
While the taser is meant to be a non-lethal weapon, it has caused death before, and if you've ever been hit by one, you know how immensely painful it is.
I completely agree that the questioner was out of line for the given forum and that he should have been removed; however, I do not think he should have been arrested for what was essentially a completely non-violent protest, and I think the use of the taser was just downright disturbing.
While I was watching the video I chuckled a few times at the beginning, especially after hearing all of his questions, although by the end of the video I simply couldn't believe what I saw. There need to be some serious repercussions for all of the security personnel who were involved in the incident, particularly whoever made the decision to and used the taser (if multiple suggested it then they should all be accountable for it), and we as a society need to seriously rethink the amount of leverage law enforcement personnel are given to escalate force and the training we provide them with regard to how and when it is appropriate to escalate force.
Tear gas, nightsticks, and rubber bullets have caused death before. In fact, people have even died after just being handcuffed. I guess we should get rid of those, too? Yes, I think you should get rid of the idea that it is okay to use night sticks, tear gas and rubber bullets on peaceful participants of an open debate, no matter how loudly incoherent they may be.
SERIOUSLY, I really, really think you need to stop thinking it's ok to do that.
Tasering him was the only way to make him stop struggling short of beating him senseless. Which method of incapacitating him would you prefer?
Frankly, I see nothing here but proper police procedure being followed. The cops: Tried to gently lead him away. He's talking with Kerry, Kerry wants to answer him. Under what authority, under what law is it proper to try to prevent him from engaging in consensual debate in an open and public forum?
Why do you offer me a dichotomy of beating someone with stick or electrocuting him when he's an attention whore at a debate? Is there no room for "let him talk until the person he talks to is done talking to him"?
I can agree that he was resisting arrest, but in this case there was no need for the arrest in the first place. Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason?
That's not the way I see this at all. At every step, he made choices that escalated the encounter.
1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements. He was preaching. He was robbing other people of the chance to actually ask Kerry questions. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they take the mic away from you and give it to someone with something constructive to say. "He apparently asked several questions he went on for quite awhile then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.
So when you ask a question, and the person to whom you asked the question wants to answer, you should submit to the uniformed thugs who have decided that they didn't like your question and they want you out of the public forum?
Have we lost all touch with our freedoms that we think we are living in a police state that one can be arrested and detained for a non-threatening reason? I was modded down as troll for calling this fascism, so, yes:
Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:
* "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[9]
Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:
* "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one's group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."[10]
This has nothing to do with fascism, [...] It seemed obvious that not many others shared his viewpoint, due to a serious lack of vocal or physical support... up until a few people felt the tazer went to far. To each his own on that, as I feel it is justified Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them.[15] Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders (Führerprinzip). Fascism is also considered to be a form of collectivism.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried to stop him talking in the first place, but once they did he can't resist like that or they'll smack him down. I have no problem with the tasering at all. So, two wrongs make a right? If they were wrong to drag him away from the mic, they were double-wrong to do it violently.
The kid in this video? I need to see more of the video.
If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell. The first of the two youtTube links has a pretty clear view, he's resisting and yelling, but there's 6 security people on him when they apparently taser him (though I see no taser, he just yells about a taser then goes ouch and then is taken away, so I assume the taser made him limp).
This kid was handcuffed on the floor with 3 (4?) cops on top of him, how could he be a danger to anyone? I count 6 on him (including one blad black one that looks like he's at least 260lbs) and another standing around. He was not a danger, he was simply refusing to RESPECT THEIR AUTHORITAY!
The police handled things appropriately. [...] And on a personal note, I wish more people like this one would be tazed. [...] you got what you deserved. They acted like fascists, and you approve of fascism. That does not make it appropriate.
I think the point about royalties is that he built his career using their distribution and advertising networks and continues to enjoy the benefits (royalties) of their restrictive (high priced) distribution model.
NiN is a Big Deal & could easily start their own label and do whatever they damn well please. So, by suggesting he renounce royalties, the GP is saying that Reznor shouldn't just say "Fuck the Man", he should actually stop taking money he's earned through the system he decries. Like Prince was a big deal before his label took his NAME away from him? They have legal-fu, and they're not afraid to use it.
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?
Because their government, as awful as it is, stands between them and the enemies of their people. It just so happens that they know for a fact that the US and its imperialist buddy the UK have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be enemies of the people of Iran:
In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.
[...]
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[73] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction-- second only to Japan. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war
Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.
I know it's pointless to ask things like this of the/. "editors", but the summary of this story is almost completely useless to anyone who is coming to the story cold (like me).
Related Stories [+] Your Rights Online: MediaDefender Denies Entrapment Accusations 104 comments Ortega-Starfire writes "We've previously discussed the subject of MediaDefender setting up a site to catch movie pirates. Ars Technica covers the response from MediaDefender, which basically states the entire thing was a mistake and was only an internal site they forgot to password protect, and that they were not using this with the MPAA. The article asks: 'If this is true, why did MediaDefender immediately remove all contact information from the whois registry for the domain? Saaf said that after everything hit the fan, the company decided to take everything on the site down because it was afraid of a hacker attack or "people sending us spam." Yes, spam. The MPAA's Elizabeth Kaltman also chimed in to say that they had no involvement with MiiVi: "The MediaDefender story is false. We have no relationship with that company at all," she told Ars.'" [-] IT: Internal Emails of An RIAA Attack Dog Leaked 412 comments qubezz writes "The company MediaDefender works with the RIAA and MPAA against piracy, setting up fake torrents and trackers and disrupting p2p traffic. Previously, the TorrentFreak site accused them of setting up a fake internet video download site designed to catch and bust users. MediaDefender denied the entrapment charges. Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business."
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what happened at all. You're just wrong. There's no other way around this. You're just completely wrong. [...] The kid was a douche. That is the fact, and nothing you can say changes that. [...] Where exactly do you get off making a statement [...] It's doublethink. Your statement is doublethink. [...] It's doublethink. And you should be ashamed of yourself. STFU&DIAF, troll.
I did hesitate to include the easiest visual cue to find the person I was pointing out because I expect empty, angry comments like yours to come up whenever something vaguely resembling that sentence is uttered, but I'm not letting letting that brand of reactionary racism force me into auto-censure.
Yes, there is such a thing as the "angry black cop" prejudice, but DAMN, boy, parse the text to see if it's actually expressed there before assuming it is!
Just because I point out the fact that the refrigerator-sized cop I'm talking about is black doesn't mean that I'm perpetuating the stereotype! I didn't say he was violent, I'm just saying that when a guy that size, with training, is tackling you, you are contained.
What you did was just as bad as what you were suspecting me of doing it, it's just the polar opposite, the pendulum's other peak, the other side of the same coin. People, you see, are capable of naming a person's race or ethnicity without implying a discrimination based on that characteristic. Hell, you're not the first to take an innocent remark out of context, but I hope you'll give it a seconds thought before jumping to conclusions next time.
P.S. Yes, the first time they gave that alien species the same gorram racial divides as us they gave that one, lone, black Vulcan a cop job and made him, coincidentally, the first angry vulcan. THAT is the stuff you're angry about, and I hate that too.
The courts decide. If what he did did not constitute a disturbance, then he will be set free on those charges. Ultimately, Florida's statutes, its courts, and federal courts set those rules. Whether refusing to follow the rules of a debate and attempting to hijack it counts or not is up to them to ultimately decide.
However, officers have the discretion to arrest someone for what they suspect is a crime in statutes where the language is vague, and "public disturbance" is one of the single broadest catch-all charges So if someone says something a cop disagrees with, the cop has all the rights to stop the person from expressing his opinions freely, and then subject that person to frivolous legal procedures?
What's wrong with you?
This guy was creating a public disturbance. He deserved what he got, IMO. He'll also be charged and probably fined for it. John Kerry's office just sent this statement from the senator: In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.
Court records show that Meyer was booked on a felony charge of resisting an officer and a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. That's not what the officers told Meyer after he was shocked and taken into custody. "You're under arrest for inciting a riot," a female police officer said at the time.
Under the authority of what law, precisely, were they acting? What gives them the right to pick him up and move him out of the public debate in which he was engaged? Some invisible authority decided they didn't like his questions, and therefore he's causing a disturbance? What the hell?
Perhaps I overreacted, but that's the sort of appositive that serves to illustrate the passive form of racism found in whites (generally American). It's not conscious, nor is it particularly malignant, but it serves to keep some measure of "us versus them" in play. I'm not calling you a bigot; it's not like you were trashing him for being black. It's just that we have a long way to go before blacks (and other minorities, but mostly blacks due to our history) are regarded as "people" rather than "those people." My apologies for jumping down your throat; I could have been a bit more gracious. In recent months I've become much more aware of this sort of thing, and the fact that it's so widespread is depressing and angering, which leads me to take an aggressive stance when I encounter it. I also typoed that he was bald, wanna launch into a rant about that?
You know what's prejudiced? Assuming that mentioning what he looks like has a lot of "these people" attached to it. Someone else mentioned that a female officer was talking to him before he got tasered, maybe you'd like to go tell them off about sexism? YOU have issues towards race, stop projecting them onto others.
Starting at 1:25 in the first youTube link.
Tear gas, nightsticks, and rubber bullets have caused death before. In fact, people have even died after just being handcuffed. I guess we should get rid of those, too? Yes, I think you should get rid of the idea that it is okay to use night sticks, tear gas and rubber bullets on peaceful participants of an open debate, no matter how loudly incoherent they may be.
SERIOUSLY, I really, really think you need to stop thinking it's ok to do that.
Frankly, I see nothing here but proper police procedure being followed. The cops: Tried to gently lead him away. He's talking with Kerry, Kerry wants to answer him. Under what authority, under what law is it proper to try to prevent him from engaging in consensual debate in an open and public forum?
Why do you offer me a dichotomy of beating someone with stick or electrocuting him when he's an attention whore at a debate? Is there no room for "let him talk until the person he talks to is done talking to him"?
That's not the way I see this at all. At every step, he made choices that escalated the encounter.
1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements. He was preaching. He was robbing other people of the chance to actually ask Kerry questions. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they take the mic away from you and give it to someone with something constructive to say. "He apparently asked several questions he went on for quite awhile then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.
So when you ask a question, and the person to whom you asked the question wants to answer, you should submit to the uniformed thugs who have decided that they didn't like your question and they want you out of the public forum?
In Soviet Russia, or 21st century USA?
Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:
* "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[9]
Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:
* "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one's group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."[10]
If they were wrong to drag him away from the mic, they were double-wrong to do it violently.
If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell. The first of the two youtTube links has a pretty clear view, he's resisting and yelling, but there's 6 security people on him when they apparently taser him (though I see no taser, he just yells about a taser then goes ouch and then is taken away, so I assume the taser made him limp).
NiN is a Big Deal & could easily start their own label and do whatever they damn well please. So, by suggesting he renounce royalties, the GP is saying that Reznor shouldn't just say "Fuck the Man", he should actually stop taking money he's earned through the system he decries. Like Prince was a big deal before his label took his NAME away from him?
They have legal-fu, and they're not afraid to use it.
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?
Because their government, as awful as it is, stands between them and the enemies of their people. It just so happens that they know for a fact that the US and its imperialist buddy the UK have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be enemies of the people of Iran:In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.
[...]
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[73] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction-- second only to Japan. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war
Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.
I know it's pointless to ask things like this of the /. "editors", but the summary of this story is almost completely useless to anyone who is coming to the story cold (like me).
Related Stories[+] Your Rights Online: MediaDefender Denies Entrapment Accusations 104 comments
Ortega-Starfire writes "We've previously discussed the subject of MediaDefender setting up a site to catch movie pirates. Ars Technica covers the response from MediaDefender, which basically states the entire thing was a mistake and was only an internal site they forgot to password protect, and that they were not using this with the MPAA. The article asks: 'If this is true, why did MediaDefender immediately remove all contact information from the whois registry for the domain? Saaf said that after everything hit the fan, the company decided to take everything on the site down because it was afraid of a hacker attack or "people sending us spam." Yes, spam. The MPAA's Elizabeth Kaltman also chimed in to say that they had no involvement with MiiVi: "The MediaDefender story is false. We have no relationship with that company at all," she told Ars.'"
[-] IT: Internal Emails of An RIAA Attack Dog Leaked 412 comments
qubezz writes "The company MediaDefender works with the RIAA and MPAA against piracy, setting up fake torrents and trackers and disrupting p2p traffic. Previously, the TorrentFreak site accused them of setting up a fake internet video download site designed to catch and bust users. MediaDefender denied the entrapment charges. Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business."