Slashdot Log In
Dateline NBC Mole Outed At DefCon
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Aug 03, 2007 06:37 PM
from the bunch-of-cranky-hackers dept.
from the bunch-of-cranky-hackers dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Parent
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
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"
Parent
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
How unoriginal (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is... (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Which makes you wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Which makes you wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Parent
Journalistic Standards (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
That's clever (Score:5, Funny)
Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV show (Score:5, Insightful)
Dateline should stick to entrapment. It seems that they're far better at entrapping lonely horny guys and ruining their lives for tv ratings.
It's entrapment (Score:5, Interesting)
(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!"
Parent
Re:It's entrapment (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
ROFL (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing surprising here was that they had to be tipped off.
simple freedom of the press (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:simple freedom of the press (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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.
Parent
Re:simple freedom of the press (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the git and the bitkeeper people might have something to say about that.
Parent
best known? (Score:5, Informative)
Best known for that? I think they are best known for rigging a pickup truck to explode [whatreallyhappened.com] when they crashed it so that it would look good on tv.
Their credibility is a wee bit low.
What really happened: (Score:4, Funny)
Reporter: And i would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for these meddling kids!
Photos of the fleeing reporter (Score:5, Informative)
Fox News (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the NBC headline now... "EXPLICIT picture of Dateline journalist EXPOSED at hacker conference!"
Nevada is a One-party Consent to Tape State (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
That's because it isn't.
Parent
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Not really anything wrong here (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Media believes it is above the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Media believes it is above the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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 [wikipedia.org], 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 [slate.com]? 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.
Parent
Re:Media believes it is above the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Media believes it is above the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] demagogues [wikipedia.org] who make Rupert Murdoch look like a saint. Read up on yellow journalism [wikipedia.org] 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.
Parent
Re:Media believes it is above the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree with you somewhat.
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 [wikipedia.org] 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....
Parent
Re:Media believes it is above the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Parent
Re:Media believes it is above the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
"That'll make good TV." (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:"That'll make good TV." (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:"That'll make good TV." (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:"That'll make good TV." (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
This isn't about pedophilia (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Dear Dumbass. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Despicable (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
What wiretap laws did they violate? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: ATTN slashdot admins (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: ATTN slashdot admins (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Despicable (Score:5, Funny)
photo 1 [wired.com]
photo 2 [wired.com]
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 [youtube.com]? They all could pass for hackers.
Parent
Re:Despicable (Score:5, Funny)
Parent