Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Submission + - Porn-Sniffing Dog Helped Bring Down Subway Star Jared Fogle->

schwit1 writes:

A rambunctious black Labrador named Bear — one of only five dogs in the nation trained to sniff out electronic data devices — played a key role in the arrest of former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle on child-porn charges.

Bear's dog whisperer, Todd Jordan, gave NBC News a demonstration of how he works his magic, walking him through an apartment while repeatedly giving him the command "Seek!"

According to Bear's trainer, the dog was trained to smell the chemicals used in the manufacture of the devices, in this case a thumb drive. And it he substance of the article is true, it works as the dog found a thumb drive that otherwise eluded detection.

No, dogs cannot smell porn. Not kiddie porn. Not adult porn. Not lawful or unlawful porn. Not porn at all. A $5 footlong, sure, but pretty much anyone can smell that, not that they necessarily want to unless they've made millions off them.

The 2-year-old rescue pooch nosed out a thumb drive that humans had failed to find during a search of Fogle's Indiana house in July, several weeks before he agreed to plead guilty to having X-rated images of minors and paying to have sex with teenage girls.

The dog zeroed in on a kitchen drawer, which Jordan opened to reveal a device. "Good boy!" he told Bear, giving him a handful of food.

While the question of whether dogs can and should be used as a proxy for probable cause, whether to search directly or to obtain a warrant to search, is one of grave concerns, as it's fraught with substantial failings, plus its efficacy is little different than a coin toss, the âoeporn sniffing dogâ presents a very different picture.

Yet, apparently, dogs (Labradors in particular) can be trained to sniff out data storage devices. Whoda thunk?

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Grants to Researchers vs Institutions (Score 1) 120

The issue with slashdot posters that don't RTFA before making complex arguments is that their argument is void when everything has already been clearly defined. FTFA:

“Principal investigators (PIs) on an NIH grant must contact NIH through their institution to seek prior approval for a change of institution. NIH grants are made to institutions, not to individuals. When a PI moves to another institution, the original grantee institution frequently agrees to relinquish the grant to the PIs new institution but NIH must approve this transfer. If the original grantee institution does not wish to relinquish the grant, they must seek NIH approval to appoint a new PI to the grant. NIH must assess whether the project can continue under the new scientific leadership at the original institution, and if so will approve a change in PI. If not, the grant is terminated.”

Comment Re:Grants to Researchers vs Institutions (Score 1) 120

Actually, if all of you would stop arguing and RTFA, you'd note that there is clarity about all of this: 'UCSD—not Aisen— “is contractually obligated by its agreements with the NIH and research partners to maintain and safeguard data from clinical studies conducted by ADCS. ”'

Comment RTFA: "Ownership" of Data (Score 2) 120

Why is everyone posting speculation instead of actually reading the article? The reporter did all the homework; the article clearly states that there was a data management plan and that the Institution is in charge of managing the data:

UCSD—not Aisen— “is contractually obligated by its agreements with the NIH and research partners to maintain and safeguard data from clinical studies conducted by ADCS. ”

Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.

Working...