Dateline NBC Mole Outed At DefCon

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.'"

"That'll make good TV."

[Original Replica]

Speaking of "Entrap a Predator" and to give you an idea of what passes for journalistic ethics at NBC:

NEW YORK - The sister of a man who was suspected of being a sexual predator and killed himself as the cameras of "Dateline NBC" closed in on him sued NBC Universal Inc. on Monday for $105 million, accusing it of taking over police duties and then failing to protect her brother...She said in the lawsuit NBC "steam-rolled" police to arrest her brother, also known as Bill, after telling police he failed to show up at a sting operation 35 miles away. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/23/ap394307 9.html [forbes.com]

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?

Re:simple freedom of the press

[JamesRose]

It's a totally different thing. The reason is that the hacker case is they are recording people talk about crimes, the talk may or may not be true. The recording you talk about second is an actual recording of a crime taking place-it's a completely different thing. I know many people who would claim to do something illegal if it were socially advantageous (unfortunately that doesn't say much, I'm 16). I would agree that if ABC had gone in with the intention of recording someone actually carry out a crime and had reason to beleive a crime would be committed, that would be true, but instead basically what they were trying to do was talk the people into confessing.

Re: ATTN slashdot admins

[Anonymous Coward]

Please detect and replace links to tinyurl.com with links to preview.tinyurl.com. This will help prevent trolls like the parent from getting away with "goatse" like images.

Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho

[markov_chain]

Guy solicits, guy shows up with condoms and beer, which is black-and-white illegal-- what's the problem?

What wiretap laws did they violate?

[Sycraft-fu]

Nevada, the state in question, does not require the consent of all participants in a recording. It is what you call a "one party" state, meaning that so long as one person in a conversation is aware of the recording, it is legal. So while I can't plant a mic in your house and record you, I can wear one on me and record what I hear and that's legal.

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.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It's a sad thing to say, but indeed we do need to reign in an out of control media. Frankly there was a time when journalist would rightly be outraged by such a statement. Frequently they were the ones trying to reign in abusive government. But nowadays, I think most of them would just be outraged, outraged that someone was trying to reduce their power and influence.

The modern media is not your grandfather's fourth estate, independent of state and clergy. In the past, this has a ring of truth to it, but not anymore. Basically, the modern media has morphed into our second estate, our new clergy, to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the old clergy.

Like the old clergy, the roll of the modern media is to tell us what to think. To dictate our morals, habits and leanings. They spread the gospel of the ruling classes, but like the clergy, also vie with the ruling classes for supremacy. They abuse their power and influence for their own gain, not ours.

The anchor has replaced the priest. The bulletin the mass. The opinion column the sermon. I do not miss the old religious orders in the slightest, but I equally mislike the new media that has taken its place. It's not a fourth estate to me, so I see little point in granting it so much privilege and status.

I know that by saying this, I'm playing into the hands of those who would see freedom of speech curtailed. But I feel that the modern media really is a "feral beast", whos cons are now beginning to outweigh its pros, and which is becoming more of an enemy than an ally to democracy. I'd like the media to be something better than it is, I really would. But it isn't and sooner or later we are going to have to face up to that fact. Truth be told, I'm more afraid of the media than confident in it.

Re:Bad NBC

[sqrt(2)]

You're using that situation to set up an emotional "Think of the children" response. This in itself is a fallacy but I'll skip over the obvious flaws in your logic and say that in your situation--unlike the contrived, manufactured ones you see on TV--there was a very real danger of an innocent girl being abused, and as such it warrants a response from law enforcement (and probably my handgun). If you're trying to say that stopping these few guys puts a dent into the number of pedophiles, or is a deterrent to the ones that are still out there then your naiveté is beyond my ability to correct.

It's entrapment

[commodoresloat]

Read this article [rollingstone.com] about the series:

(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!"

Re:What wiretap laws did they violate?

[HardCase]

What I love is when you see a reporter riding around in a truck full of militants in Iraq/Afghanistan/*stan and the militants are firing mortars, RPGs and automatic weapons at people and the reporter is doing nothing. "Just covering the story, you know?"

But when it comes to something like accusing someone of being a pedophile then suddenly the reporters become law enforcement officers.

The difference between the two is that the first is covering the story and the second is creating the story (in the specific case of the Dateline situation.) It's not really a fine line.

Personally, I don't think that either case ought to happen, but I'm not running the world. At least not yet.

Re:What wiretap laws did they violate?

[Sycraft-fu]

No, sorry, this isn't how it works. You can record what goes on around your, just the same as you could simply write it down with pen and paper or remember it if your memory is good enough. The whole idea behind a "one party" state is that it is only illegal if you are actually tapping someone else's stuff. Wiring yourself, your house, your business, that's all well and legal. Generally speaking your property also makes you a party. In Arizona it is explicitly that way, if you own it, you are always a party, physical presence not required.

Now something you might also note is this means that in "one party" states it is legal to record the police. Remember the story on Slashdot where a guy got arrested for that? Ya that was a "two party" state which, despite the name means everyone needs to be informed. Not a problem in a "one party" state. You can record them, not tell them, and it's 100% legal. However that extends to private citizens as well. I can ware a wire and that's legal.

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I think the problem is the types of people who become journalists. Namely, journalism students: not the brightest bunch.

I'd love to see a news service run by professional engineers or accountants.

Re:Which makes you wonder

[pclminion]

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)

Re:Media believes it is above the law ...

[cbreaker]

You do realize that Marijuana is pretty much only illegal because Harry J. Anslinger used his friends in the media to convince everyone that you would become a "murdering crazy man" if you smoked a little weed? And that it was the American newspapers that started using the name "Marijuana" because they figured people would dislike the Mexican sounding name, as being something bad if for no other reason?

Yea, but Media is much worse today...

I will never give up Free Speech, and it's unbelievable that you would. Shame on you.

Re:Dateline NBC isnt news. Its just another TV sho

[RightSaidFred99]

You're confused, that's all. You can't seem to grasp the concept of "attempted". He attempted to have sex with a minor. Whether he successfully had sex with a minor doesn't matter to anyone but you.

Since you like analogies, a better one is if the police know someone's going to try to assassinate his wife, so they setup a sting and put a dummy in a car and the perp shoots the dummy, not knowing it wasn't her. By your...unique and...special way of thinking no crime was commited, let the guy walk. The wife was never in danger.