Activist Admits To Bugging US Senate Minority Leader 247
cold fjord writes "Curtis Morrison, co-founder of the Progress Kentucky PAC, which had previous issued an apology over a racially charged tweet about Senator McConnell's wife (former Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao), has admitted to bugging Senator McConnell. Morrison admitted he was behind the recording and said a grand jury is investigating the situation. "[Assistant] U.S. attorney, Bryan Calhoun, telephoned my attorney yesterday, asking to meet with him next Friday as charges against me are being presented to a grand jury," Morrison wrote on Salon. Morrison writes that after releasing the recording, his personal life took a negative turn. 'I've never doubted that making the recording was ethical.' He also says that he doesn't believe his actions were illegal, but admits he could be prosecuted for them."' Morrison has said that one of his inspirations was Julian Assange. Given the current direction of government activity, he may simply have been trying to build a suitable resume for future federal employment."
It is truly sad... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is truly sad to see the direction things have been heading in the United States.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes when assholes commit felonies against an opposing party it should end with the president resigning. That won't happen in this case since his imperial highness has some distance from the perpetrator.
At least Nixon resigned.
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when President Nixon was in office this country still had journalists and in that day expected their elected leaders to be held to a higher standard. If Nixon was president today he wouldn't have to resign.
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when President Nixon was in office this country still had journalists and in that day expected their elected leaders to be held to a higher standard.
Get a grip. Back in those days politicians got away with far more than they do today. In fact, it was Watergate that caused a major shift in journalism. It was no longer acceptable to "look the other way" when people like Richard Daley stole elections or had the cops beat up their opponents. Many journalists knew about JFK's affairs, and there was little coverage of LBJ's wholesale cheating in the 1960 election, as well as his earlier campaigns for the senate. The current IRS flap is a joke compared to the way the IRS (and the FBI) were used politically prior to Watergate. There was never a "golden age" of ethical politicians.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Back in those days politicians got away with far more than they do today.
I got four dead guys in Benghazi who'd probably argue with you, if they could.
Re: (Score:2)
I got four dead guys in Benghazi who'd probably argue with you, if they could.
Incompetent != unethical
Re: (Score:2)
Incompetent != Unethical
Still allows instances of:
Incompetent U unethical
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Since those 3000+ American soldiers volunteered to join the military of their own free will, you should hesitate to assume you know what they would say if they could.
If you have never served in the military (for any country), you should just not assume anything at all in relation to dead soldiers. You literally have no clue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Benghazi!
Benghazi!
Benghazi!
Benghazi!
Benghazi!
Just a little recreation there. It's relatively clear, given the first 3.5 years of #OccupyResoluteDesk, that no amount of perfidy his part could begin to make Harry "the Cadaver" Reid begin to consider doing his job.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when President Nixon was in office this country still had journalists and in that day expected their elected leaders to be held to a higher standard.
Get a grip. Back in those days politicians got away with far more than they do today. In fact, it was Watergate that caused a major shift in journalism. It was no longer acceptable to "look the other way" when people like Richard Daley stole elections or had the cops beat up their opponents. Many journalists knew about JFK's affairs, and there was little coverage of LBJ's wholesale cheating in the 1960 election, as well as his earlier campaigns for the senate. The current IRS flap is a joke compared to the way the IRS (and the FBI) were used politically prior to Watergate. There was never a "golden age" of ethical politicians.
doesn't change that "doing a watergate" is now legal...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that in the game of thrones, you either win or you resign.
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:4, Insightful)
But praise and fawning over Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Wow. You genuinely believe that, don't you? Which probably explains this priceless line:
Obama uses the full force of government to stifle opposition.
Hint: under Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, you wouldn't be saying that, with or without the thin gloss of anonymity that comes from posting under a screen name. If web forums had existed in their day, very bad things would have happened to anyone posting such a comment. You clearly have no idea what "the full force of government to stifle opposition" actually looks like, and for all our sakes, I sincerely hope you never find out.
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe it's because it's not "one of Obama's close advisers", but one of his debate coaches that served as White House communications director for 7 months. Oh, and also because she was ironically quoting GOP strategist Lee Atwater, but you missed that while you were watching the Glenn Beck show - probably because his out-of-context attack didn't mention that key tidbit.
Unlike you, I'm willing to enlighten a dim-witted mind. Here, you should try reading this:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/16/beck.dunn/index.html [cnn.com]
Are there any birth certificates we should be looking for, as long as you're dispensing political advice based on nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:4, Informative)
So when she said this:
"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
she wasn't saying that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers?
She claims she got the quote from a conservative, Lee Atwater, who quoted Mao to make a point but never implied he was a "favorite political philosopher".
According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Lee_Atwater_quote_Mao [answers.com]
Atwater jokingly quoted Mao but never called him 'one of my favorite philosophers'. Lee just used a quote from Mao to provide an ironic point, much in the same way others use quotes from historic figures, both egregious & beneficent.
For further analysis of the situation, here is another site
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/10/17/anita-dunn-blames-lee-atwater-quoting-mao [newsbusters.org]
And what about Dunn's description of Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers?" Not to worry, Dunn comes up with yet another comedy line to explain it away via CNN:
As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.
So you see. You peons just don't have the mental ability to see that Anita Dunn was merely being ironic despite the fact that was absolutely nothing in her facial expression, vocal tone, nor in what she said that displayed the slightest sense of irony. In fact, she was dead serious as you can plainly see in the video of her speech.
So, taken in context she is saying exactly what it appears she is saying. Letting her later say is was "irony" is just lefties covering up for her.
Sorry, your attempt at saving your political side's image failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't know if they are beyond all hope. Sometimes they surprise me with real thought. And those few gems are generally from the left, waking up and smelling the crap they had been buried in by their leaders.
But really, I just say things how I see them. I'm not actually attempting to change someone's mind, I'm trying to clarify my own beliefs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about those other ones, but certainly Mao.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/ [foxnews.com]
And also, there is at least some anecdotal evidence that progressives do indeed support IRS bullying of political speech so long as it isn't their speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wzuEOr2D8wo [youtube.com]
(Slightly unrelated - I think the word "progressive" in the political sense is horribly used. It gives a self righteous implication tha
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about those other ones, but certainly Mao.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/ [foxnews.com]
Are you fucking kidding me? A close-up of a Christmas tree ornament, on the White House tree one year, that was painted by someone in a community organization (one of 60 that the 800 ornaments were sent to), and it includes a microscopic reproduction of Mao on it, among other pictures on that same ball - and that's your support for the argument that "the media is fawning over Mao"?
Get a grip, dude. You're living in an alternate reality where everyone that doesn't agree with you must be looking to install a Communist dictatorship, and you need psychiatric help.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a grip, dude. You're living in an alternate reality where everyone that doesn't agree with you must be looking to install a Communist dictatorship, and you need psychiatric help.
That's Fox News!
Re: (Score:3)
I think you missed that poster's point; in earlier decades nobody in the white house would have tolerated a chairman Mao ornament on the Christmas tree. This administration not only tolerated it but it was consistent with the comments of one of their communications people... Anita Dunn was caught on tape singing the praises of chairman Mao.
No, that might be your point. The original poster's point (read it) was to advance the idea that the "media" praises and fawns over Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, and that proof of that is provided by a tiny piece of one tree ornament, out of 800, with a picture of Mao on part of it - totally out of context; you have no idea if the ornament had a theme or what that theme might be, but your "everything Democrat is Communist" attitude doesn't allow for any kind of actual analytical thinking. Much like your Anita
Re: (Score:3)
You're no different, just coming from the other side. At least the other guy didn't act like a total prick.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Is that what we tell ourselves, or are the actions of the Left simply put down the garbage disposal of the Memory Hole? Cambodia was a revolutionary Marxist paradise. Private property, religion and money were abolished. Here's a contemporary account of the Leftist view of Cambodia. You'll recognize the tropes, eh?
"For years western imperialism raped an Asiatic land, killing nearly a million people, transforming a beautiful cultured Cambodian city into a ghetto, a brothel. But the people rose,
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is truly sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cornerstone of ethics is that is the idea they don't bend to suit your whims. If we all act "low class" and just do whatever we justify to ourselves, the world will be headed into the gutter (even faster than now).
Unfortunately, this is illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Here is something to ponder. If you have sex, in front of an open window, in your home, is there an expectation of privacy? Are we going to arrest someone for filming the act? If you are talking so loud in a closed door meeting that everyone can he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? So are you also calling for the release of the minutes of all meetings in the Oval Office, the IRS, the State Department, and the DOJ?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So are you also calling for the release of the minutes of all meetings in the Oval Office, the IRS, the State Department, and the DOJ?
Of course... the problem here is the guy was not in his "elected" office, he was in his campaign headquarters. But yes, those official meetings should not just have the minutes released, they should be broadcast live, and our elected officials should NOT be allowed to meet in private except in cases of national security - even then it should be recorded and released at a later date.
Too bad the man who promised the most transparency has been one of the least transparent presidents ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)
An elected official working in his private campaign headquarters discussing this reelection campaign with his campaign staff does have an expectation of privacy while in it. That was the case here. Your post has nothing to do with this situation. I also doubt that your point even holds true in general as even public officials discuss confidential matters not for public release.
His campaign office doesn't belong to the PEOPLE (Score:3)
Damn you autocorrect (Score:2)
While in his senate office, you mean? Assuming that were true, it wouldn't matter because this was a campaign meeting, at a private office, not his senate office. Personally, I think leaders should be able to have frank, honest discussions with advisors. I know that JFK's private consultations with his attorney general (and brother) helped avoid World War 3. For the consultations to be forthright, that means they aren't public, and therefore carefully worded for political purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
I liked the original post better. This place would be much more awesome if discussions randomly devolved into elephant matter nectar.
Re: (Score:2)
elephant matter nectar
You've found the fabled Lost Verse of "Glass Onion". Congratulations.
Re: (Score:2)
First, there is an expectation of privacy inside one's office, and secondly Kentucky is a one party notify state when it comes to recording, so one party to the discussions taking place in the office needed to know that they were being recorded. Public records searches don't apply here.
His office? The location was a regional campaign headquarters with noone sitting at the reception desk (after an alleged press conference) and Sen. Mitch McConnell was having an all-hands meeting in a conference room with a window opened into the hallway.
Granted, that Senator may still have had an expectation of privacy, but the Kentucky statute for eavesdropping is certainly not on his side for this one.
A conversation which is loud enough to be heard through the wall or through the heating system without the use of any device is not protected by the statute, since a person who desires privacy can take the steps necessary to ensure that his conversation cannot be overheard by the ordinary ear. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 526.020.
Nor is the other statute for hidden cameras any help to the Senator either, since it explicitly narrows
Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
Your post is a red herring [wikipedia.org]. He wasn't engaged in official duties as a US Senator at the time. He was in his campaign headquarters discussing his reelection campaign with his campaign staff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Totalitarian yet schizophrenic shit like this is what bugs me so much about the US. First you want total personal privacy (a good thing), yet you readily scream for the surveillance of others.
Seems to me like he wants people he likes (himself, liberals, etc.) to have total privacy to do whatever they want, but he wants people he doesn't like (republicans/conservatives) to be constantly recorded and harassed.
And BTW, that isn't remotely an American ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
1. questioning the true intentions of authority figures is not paranoia. There are ample examples in history showing what happens when we don't. While these people are serving in a public office, yes, I think they should be required to give up most of their privacy. All meeting minutes should be placed in the public domain (hey the tax payer is the one paying for this). Any official caught trying to prevent this should be canned immediately, and depending on the severity, tried for treason and shot. Thi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that they have friends?
Re: (Score:3)
As entertaining as it might be, their bathrooms and bedrooms should be off-limits.
But ever dollar they receive in help, both direct and indirect, should be fully disclosed as to source. Any money spent for political ads or mailings of any kind should be directly attributable to whomever funded it. No anonymous donors or political action committees without donor lists. That's not to say there should not be anonymous political speech. But there should not be anonymous money. That would solve a large part
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, you could just tell some troll on Slashdot that you were going to record someone, and then go do it, and privacy laws would never protect anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is completely incomprehensible. You start out on the right track and then go completely off the rails. I'll spell it out for you so you can understand. Assu
Yeah, Ethically sound (Score:2)
Let's see, this puts him in the same ethical category as E Howard Hunt, Charles Colson, G Gordon Liddy, Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard Barker, James McCord, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
And the room that McCord, Sturgis, et al were found in was the public reception area and not the actual offices where planning went on in (it's not as easy to tape locks open of personal offices, the person locking tends to check those doors for actual locking function more often, as they have personally valuable stuff in them), so that logic could have been applied there as well.
News For Nerds (Score:3, Insightful)
This story belongs to politico or any number of political blogs. Why in the fuck is this story on a site that is ostensibly news for nerds???
There is no nerd angle here whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Maybe it's because they bugged his office, that would be a tech thing I suppose. Yeah....it's a stretch I know.
Re: (Score:2)
An audio video recording device being operated is hardly as technical as leaving a microphone in the ceiling light.
I agree this is purely political and not even journalism.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot has become politicized well beyond any normal nerditis. Perhaps they're fishing to see how egregious a behavior will get defended, or attacked, depending on which "side" the offender is on?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the admins of Slashdot are too fucking lazy to actually read submissions, check the links, and run a spell/grammar check. Instead we get random shit like this or blatant advertisements for the "most extreme usb drive ever".
What a lie of a story and headline (Score:4, Informative)
Bugging ?
The voices were coming from the other side of a nearby door, which had a window. I pulled out my Flip camera and started to record.
I don’t need to tell you what a weapon the pocket video camera has become."
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought that was defined as eavesdropping. Maybe because he recorded it. Still and all he never entered the office. I'm not sure if what he did was illegal or not. I guess the lawyers will have fun with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bugging ?
The voices were coming from the other side of a nearby door, which had a window. I pulled out my Flip camera and started to record.
I don’t need to tell you what a weapon the pocket video camera has become."
Yes bugging.
He was covert - nobody talking knew he was there. Nobody in the di
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - that constitutes bugging. They were behind a door, meaning they had an expectation of privacy. If they were doing it out in the open then bugging would be much harder to prove.
Re: (Score:2)
KY is a single-party recording state.
At least one of the parties to a recording must be aware the recording is taking place.
It's about as cut and dried illegal as can be.
Even if your target's an asshole. (shrug)
But then zealots always have reasons that the rules don't apply to them, right?
As a European, I'm confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Recently, the group turned its attention to McConnell’s wife, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, with a focus on her race. ... In a Feb. 14 Twitter message, Progress says: "This woman has the ear of (Sen. McConnell)—she's his wife. May explain why your job moved to China!"
So "China" is a race now? Are there many 19th century reporters in Louisville?
Re: (Score:2)
It is kind of amusing. If it just wasn't so sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there many 19th century reporters in Louisville?
Or have they not made it that far yet?
Re:As a European, I'm confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Senator McConnell's wife is Chinese American. She was born in the Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan, and came to the United States when she was eight years old. I guess you didn't read far enough into the story to pick up that Progressive Kentucky were drawing attention to the fact that she is Asian, specifically Chinese, and the implication that as US Secretary of Labor she had sent American jobs to China because she is Chinese by birth. Some might regard that as racist. I'm a little surprised you didn't catch on to that. Aren't Europeans generally held to be more sophisticated in such matters?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you didn't read far enough into the story to pick up that Progressive Kentucky were drawing attention to the fact that she is Asian, specifically Chinese, and the implication that as US Secretary of Labor she had sent American jobs to China because she is Chinese by birth. Some might regard that as racist
Funny, to me it sounds like a paranoid accusation of divided loyalties. And yes, I've read it.
Re: (Score:2)
She's not even Chinese.
According to her bio, she was born on Taiwan of Chinese parents. Due to this circumstance, some people might consider her Chinese. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm just sayin'...
it's relevant that this was a campaign office (Score:2)
I think there's an argument that a truly open government would allow us to see what's going on in the public offices of the elected officials (I think that would also further decrease our ability to compromise, but that's a digression...).
However, this was in a campaign office. That's not a public function, it's necessarily a private group which is (supposed to be) separate from the staff and work of the public office. Recording campaign discussions is just dirty politics, not looking out for the public g
What a moron... (Score:4, Insightful)
What he did was neither ethical, legal, or even a remotely good idea. Even if your opponent is a prick. I cannot imagine in what universe he is inhabiting that he thinks that this was not going to get him in serious trouble (as well it should.) And under what journalistic ethical code is bugging somebody's office allowed?
I'm no fan of Julian Assange (not because I think that wikileaks is illegal or immoral, rather because the way he handles it, and himself, is really poor...) but this isn't even remotely similar. The only inspiration he could have possibly drawn from Julian is a gigantic ego.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe you should read the details of what he did before accusing him of things. Hint, he didn't actually bug anything. He heard a conversation through a closed door.
It's no different than walking by your neighbors, hearing them having an argument and recording it.
Or turning on your laptop, seeing your neighbor's wifi signal and using it.
Whoops! (Score:2)
I apologize; you are correct. I should have read all the linked articles. It's a grey area that the law will have to sort out. (I suspect it hinges on if he would have been considered trespassing at the time, and if the participants in the recorded meeting had a reasonable expectation of privacy.)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the damage is done. The original, incorrect comment is at +5. Tons of people will read it, and get the wrong idea, and never hear the correction. I don't particularly blame you, but this shows how quickly lies spread in the internet age. The truth doesn't stand a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
His initial post was correct. Tons of people should read it. The AC he responded to was misleading in what must be a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.
My kingdom for an "edit" button! (Score:2)
One of Slashdot's weaknesses is the lack of an "edit" button. Most sites have them these days... It'd be even better if they had one with a link to the original comment, to prevent all sorts of trollish foolishness.
Re: (Score:2)
Edit buttons don't work with moderation. If you reply to something stupid, then the original person edits out the stupid thing, your reply can become meaningless, offtopic, strawman, redundant, whatever. Lack of an edit button is a strength.
Following threads that are edited is almost impossible, too - you end up with a mishmash of unrelated comments sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
If the edit button becomes inactive after the post is moderated or replied to your objections become immaterial.
Lack of a reasonably intelligent button diminishes this forum.
Re:Whoops! (Score:5, Informative)
Your initial post was correct. The post you responded to relies on clever misdirection to, in effect, lie. The man facing an indictment by a grand jury didn't simply overhear a conversation through a door as he innocently passed by, he specifically went there based on an insider tip to secretly record their conversation without their consent, and violate their privacy. I don't think there is any real question about there being an expectation of privacy when engaged in private conversation behind closed doors in a private office in a private building. If the standard for privacy is, "can't be heard by hook or by crook," there will be nothing considered private.
Once again, you were completely correct in your initial post.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no different than walking by your neighbors, hearing them having an argument and recording it.
Hearing it is fine. Recording it is a grey area. Sharing the recording or talking about what you heard is wrong.
Now there are obviously exceptions to that, if you hear someone describing their murder plans, then you can certainly share that. In this case the public good (if any) that came from the release does not seem to outweigh the damage done.
Re: (Score:3)
Recording public arguing neighbors isn't illegal (Score:2)
Recording is only illegal if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Two neighbors arguing on their front lawn have none. You can record them and play it back on the evening news if you so choose. Two neighbors arguing in their living room? A grey area if they are being loud and you do so from the street. Only illegal if you, for instance, have to put a mic on the glass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He heard a conversation through a closed door.
Yeah, except that he was trespassing. He wasn't allowed to be in the hallway he was in either. He snuck into the office suite and stood outside the door of the office that the meeting was in, because he was going to illegally record this meeting.
It's no different than walking by your neighbors, hearing them having an argument and recording it.
I don't know where you're from, but if it's not illegal to sneak onto your neighbors' property to record them having an argument, let me know where it is so I can stay the hell away.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot imagine in what universe he is inhabiting
It is long past time to have shed that naivety.
Hate filled libtards like Morrison regard the very existence of Republicans as criminal. The guy released his stupid little recording thinking he had blown the lid on his enemies. The fact that almost nobody cared because all he actually had was boilerplate campaign activity was a complete surprise to him. Doubtless he is convinced that the reason for the general indifference is that we're all brainwashed corporate consumerdroids. Or something.
The distance
In all fairness... (Score:2)
In all fairness, there are plenty of wingnuts that view the existence of liberals as treasonous. And there certainly isn't any shortage of ethically bankrupt "journalism" on either side.
Bugged? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, let me get this straight. He didn't surreptitiously gain access to any area any random member of the public wouldn't have access to. He didn't plant any recording device to record in his absence. He stood outside a door and with a cel phone recorded what any passerby would have heard had they stopped to listen. Is that correct?
That doesn't even sound particularly unethical to me. A bit sleazy, but then if McConnell's careless enough to have that kind of discussion where anyone in the hallway can overhea
Re: (Score:3)
So, let me get this straight. He didn't surreptitiously gain access to any area any random member of the public wouldn't have access to. He didn't plant any recording device to record in his absence. He stood outside a door and with a cel phone recorded what any passerby would have heard had they stopped to listen. Is that correct?
That doesn't even sound particularly unethical to me. A bit sleazy, but then if McConnell's careless enough to have that kind of discussion where anyone in the hallway can overhear the problem doesn't lie with the people in the hallway listening.
I think this is where the phrase 'reasonable expectation of privacy' comes into play. If I'm behind a closed door in my campaign HQ I think I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I could do more, but most people would think me paranoid.
Now we usually think of bugging as recording something we can't hear ourselves, either because we can't be in the right location (ie planting a bug), or our hearing isn't sensitive enough (ie a parabolic mike), so ethically I don't think this is bugging. But the fact he
Re:Bugged? (Score:5, Interesting)
You didn't quite get it straight, so no, you aren't correct. His stated and only purpose for going to the building, based on an insider tip he received, was to secretly record the meeting of Senator McConnell's reelection committee without their consent. He went there on a holiday with an accomplice, snuck into the building, past an unmanned reception desk (as stated, it was a holiday), until he found Senator McConnell's office. He then used a hand-held device with a microphone and digital recording capability to record the conversations of Senator McConnell's committee for at least 12 minutes while holding his device to the door vent. They must have been at the door for even longer since they apparently checked what they were recording and made adjustments to their equipment, and changed their mind about how and what they were recording, going from an attempt to capture video to only audio. And how does he describe [salon.com] how he felt, and when he left?
I was sweating. My heart was racing. . . . When a gentleman walked out of the campaign headquarters and into the hall, I put my Flip and phone back in my pocket, and headed to the elevator.
Shawn was already there. We made our escape.
He made his escape. Doesn't really sound innocent, does it? Do you think an ordinary passerby, that wasn't trespassing on a holiday to record the Senator's meeting, would linger with a recording device by a door for 20 minutes if it occurred on a normal business day at 2:00 PM? The fact that his recording device was his cell phone is completely irrelevant, and it is the recording that makes this a possible criminal offense.
You don't find anything even mildly unethical about it? You think the problem isn't with the two intruders? It certainly appears to be direct violation of the law, probably more than one, hence the prosecutor and grand jury. As I indicated, I don't think you have this one straight.
Re: (Score:2)
In corporatist America, politicians bugger you.
So right 11 times, then full nutjob (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even assuming this were true, it's of no importance whatsoever - President Obama's mother was an American citizen, therefore her children are American citizens, no matter where they're born.
Re: (Score:2)
said by you from the gecko
from the *get go* ?
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA
you can "bug" a residence outside the residence.. it's still illegally listening to what's being said. double so if you make a recording of it..
hell, the guys could just claim that they OWN THE COPYRIGHT on it. then they could sue the guy for 100 million bucks(see, if a newspaper was willing to pay let's say 100 bucks for it then of course every illegal copy of it that the defendant enabled in this case is his fault, right? because that's how it works with mp3's ).
Re:This is shocking (Score:5, Informative)
1. Fox went to court in Florida to defend the "right" to lie as news. They are the only news network to do so in the history of reporting. This is significant.
Wrong! First, it was NOT FoxNews. It was a Fox affiliate. You know, the TV station that shows "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons"? Next, they never went to court to fight for the "right to lie as news". That was something that a blogger wrote on his blog in his "analysis" of the verdict.
This case was about a story on BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) in milk. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were "journalists" who wrote a story about the dangers of BGH. The Fox Broadcasting Company station, WTVT in Tampa, Florida, was willing to air the story, but was also going to give Monsanto a chance to respond. This pissed Akre and Wilson off. They thought they would be allowed to report their story without any chance at giving the company that they were skewering a chance to respond. Akre and Wilson pulled their story and sued, arguing that Monsanto would just lie, and therefor should not be allowed to respond.
Nowhere, did FoxNews, or even the Fox affiliate WTVT EVER claim that they had a right to lie.
2. Shepard Smith (the only redeeming quality of Fox) is not enough to balance the derp.
Next, on number 2, Shepherd Smith is not the only liberal on FoxNews. Bob Beckel, Mariah Liason, Juan Williams, Sally Kohn, Alan Colmes, Kristen Powers, Susan Estrich, Pat Caddell, Greta Van Sustren and many others are on FoxNews to represent the liberal perspective.
Deal with it.
I recommend that you take your own advice.
Re:This is shocking (Score:5, Interesting)
Please mod the parent up.
The "fox news argued in court that they have the right to lie" is in itself a lie. It's one of those things where people repeat it enough to believe that it is true. Even googling it you get links to nothing but blogs about it, with not one professional analysis to speak of. Further, they all claim that Fox News itself was behind it, even though neither Fox nor its parent company had anything to do with it. It was all done by a local news station who happens to be a Fox TV affiliate (as in, they get the rights to air Fox television shows, but it doesn't extend much beyond that.)
And of course, all of the above completely ignores that the TV station itself simply wanted a fair story as opposed to a blanket slam piece. Compare that to say MSNBC who is known to deliberately alter news content (most recently, editing the George Zimmerman audio clips) in order to fit their "racism" narrative.
Urban Legend (Score:2)
1. Fox went to court in Florida to defend the "right" to lie as news. They are the only news network to do so in the history of reporting.
Ironically, you're lying.
You're referring to the case New World Communications vs. Akre. WTVT is a local station in Tampa Bay owned by New World Communications (which is owned by News Corporation and thus is a Fox owned and operated station.) You note that WTVT isn't Fox News Channel, because you called it "Fox" in a discussion about "Fox News." Nice slight of hand. Jane Akre was a WTVT reporter who wanted to air a piece critical of Monsanto without giving Monsanto a chance to respond, and the WTVT brass
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I bought a CueCat Scanner at a thrift shop for $1, I can lend it to anyone who needs it.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone that reads only one news source is equally guilty, be it Democracy Now or Foxnews.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's examine the event -- a private citizen associated with a group which opposes the party in power (remember, this is Progress KENTUCKY) secretly records a powerful government official and then releases the recordings for public review. So far, this sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. What unpleasant things will next happen to Morrison will determine how close the analogy turns out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is even talking about that in this thread but you. You are the only plant, and you appear to be rooted in an inadequate medium.