Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Felonies? (Score 2) 273

Is recording someone really a felony?.

Are you really asking this when about 20 seconds of googling would tell you? Wow. Not a fan of facts, I see.

In many states, recording audio when all parties have not agreed is very very illegal, yes. California is one of these states. The laws are complex, full of caveats and details, and vary between states and between audio and video recordings. Shows like "Marketplace" are very careful to stay on one side of the law. These yahoos were not, which means they probably committed a felony.

Also, shows like Marketplace tend to release excerpts which, when you hear the full clip, give a mostly accurate picture of what was going on. These guys edited the excepts, including mis-matched questions and answers, to give a false picture of what was going on. Some judges are lenient towards people who expose criminal activity, but few are lenient towards people who try to frame innocents.

Comment Re:Double standard (Score 1) 273

As the summary said, "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim".

Most of those states were very conservative states, and most of the investigations were started with the intent of proving that PP was breaking the law.

And yet exactly ZERO states have announced that they found any wrongdoing by PP. Zero. These are states like Texas and Kansas, hardly liberal strongholds.

So, you can believe "folks you trust" who have claimed something but offered no evidence, or you can believe the states who dearly wanted to find something incriminating but who didn't. I mean, what you are saying is that the governments of Kansas and Texas really hate PP but have decided not to attack them this one time (while still trying to outlaw them and defund them). This makes no sense.

Comment Re:Double confused (Score 3, Insightful) 273

If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but did you really complain about the unfairness of the laws when you have NO IDEA WHAT THE LAWS ARE? Really?

Many states (plus the federal government for recordings across state lines) make a very large distinction between video and audio recording. Video is usually fine, with certain major limitations. Audio is often/usually not fine, again with many caveats. Every state is different.

If you try to compare the legality of video recordings (like most animal abuse recordings) and of these audio+video recordings, then you are just showing a complete lack of knowledge about the subject and a complete unwillingness to spend the 20 minutes of googling it would take to become partly informed. Please, take those 20 minutes.

And, again I'm not trying to be rude, but this shows that you don't really let facts get in the way of your opinions. You can continue on this way, or you can change and try to become informed. It's your choice, but it's kinda an important one I think.

Comment Re: So 60 Minutes... (Score 1) 273

People exposing illegal actions by PP/Democrats are criminal terrorists, not reporters/journalists.

And in this case, people who lie about exposing illegal actions are also criminals, though nobody but you seems to be calling them terrorists. Why do you think they are terrorists? That's kinda creepy.

Reporters and journalists get quotes then assemble them into a story. Zealots edit the quotes so that they seem to mean something very different than what they say. Sadly, there are more zealots that there should be in this world.

Criminals are reporters or zealots or anyone else who gets their quotes illegally. Some are prosecuted, some are not. The ones who put out true stories are usually not prosecuted, though there are exceptions. Really, the ones who put out false stories are also rarely prosecuted, but some judges get grumpy when people try to frame innocent folk.

These guys are zealots and criminals. I don't know if they'll be convicted; fake IDs and illegal recording are fairly minor and you know they will have very well funded defenses.

Comment Re:So 60 Minutes... (Score 1) 273

If there is an exception for being a journalist, then they are going to get off because they where acting like journalists doing an investigative report on PP, which they released to the public and it became news.

When you edit the recordings, changing the order of questions and answers so that it sounds like someone is breaking the law when they are not, then you are not a journalist.

In the past, a few (fortunately very few) journalists have completely skewed undercover operations like this. And whenever those people are caught, they usually lose their jobs and are never hired or respected again, and their employer takes a huge credibility hit, because they WERE NOT ACTING AS JOURNALISTS. This encourages other journalists to not do this, and news outlets to not let their employees do this. It's not a perfect system, but it usually works well enough. Just like this case, except for the many people who despite all of the evidence believe these criminals uncovered something.

Comment Re:They are not government employees (Score 5, Informative) 273

You may have missed the "investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence" bit of the story. And most of the states were conservative states with investigators who really, really wanted to find evidence. Either every single Planned Parenthood clinic is staffed entirely by loyal criminal geniuses who make Lex Luthor seem an idiot, or they did nothing illegal or wrong. A few clinics donated fetal tissue to research, and received a pittance for it for their costs. And likely less than their cost, because if it were even one penny more than their cost, then at least one of those states would have announced it.

Comment Re:Not the same (Score 1) 106

This is no worse than back in the 1960s when Ma Bell used to have its people listen in on all phone calls and write down the topics discussed on decks of index cards for each phone account. They then sold stacks of these cards to outfits like Montgomery Ward and S&H Green Stamps, which helped them to mail out coupon offers tailored for customers' interests. They only sent copies to J. Edgar Hoover when he said there was a good reason.

The U.S. Post office enhanced their revenues with a similar program steaming envelopes (note that stamps only cost a couple of cents back then, so it sure was effective at holding down prices). It was a win-win for everybody; what's the big deal?

Comment Re:Norton (Score 2) 77

The difference now is that many hackers have developed tools for MITM attacks on https.

Yes and the same tools work with a self-signed cert or with HTTP. To make them work with HTTPS and a signed cert, you need to have a compromised CA signing cert. This is still currently mostly limited to nation-state adversaries.

Comment Re:Norton (Score 1) 77

Step one: Any browser that cares about security MUST stop regarding https with CA certificates as any more trustworthy that self-signed certificates or plain http.

Why? Plain HTTP can be compromised by anyone on a hop between you and your destination. HTTPS with a self-signed certificate can be compromised by anyone on a hop between you and your destination, but can be detected if you do certificate pinning or certificate transparency. HTTPS with a signed cert can only be compromised with cooperation from a CA. The set of people that can compromise signed HTTPS is significantly lower than the set that can compromise self-signed HTTPS.

Comment Re:Uh.... what? (Score 2) 197

2. Collective or other shared accommodation, often combined with studies.

It's pretty common to move accommodation for each year of a degree, so this can easily be 3-4, more if you do a PhD or similar (though people often find a place for the whole of their PhD). I can remember the second and third places I lived as a student (I stayed in the same place for two years of undergrad and then for the whole of my PhD), but the first was university-owned accommodation and I don't recall the exact address - I certainly don't remember post codes for all of them.

Comment Re:"vacation" (Score 4, Insightful) 197

It's been over a decade since the US tightened the visa restrictions so that everyone wanting to come into the country as a practicing journalist must have a visa, even if they're from one of the visa-waiver countries. You can bet that if you tick that box, you're already going to come under a lot of extra scrutiny (and if you don't, but then publish anything written about your time in the USA, expect to be denied entry the next time).

Slashdot Top Deals

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth

Working...