3 ms·

EFF did a similar thing with the Best Buy / pedo doctor case. This doctor has child porn on 5 devices, but the search was questionable so it got thrown out. EFF

EFF did a similar thing with the Best Buy / pedo doctor case. This doctor has child porn on 5 devices, but the search was questionable so it got thrown out. EFF never mentions this fact and instead make a big stink about the Best Buy employees being listed as confidential informants. Basically all the comments on Twitter were talking about how the FBI probably planted the evidence. I'm cool with reporting on the case. Talk about the bad search (the image was unlinked on the file system, so it was deleted). Talk about how when you give your devices to a third party they can report illegal shit they find. Don't just push a narrative while exonerating fucked up people. There is so much misleading reporting right now. Everyone has their agenda and they ignore facts to push it. It makes me read way fewer articles online cause it's all such a mess.

dilap 8y ago
> There is so much misleading reporting right now. Everyone has their agenda and they ignore facts to push it. It makes me read way fewer articles online cause it's all such a mess. I think it's probably always been this way. It's just now, with the internet, we can find out.
guelo 8y ago
As if government indictments are objective, give me a break.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Nobody is saying that they are. But if you're going to write a story about someone prosecuted (let alone convicted) of criminal offenses, it's incumbent on you to actually address the charges they face, rather than rhetorically posturing as if they faced some lesser charge your audience won't take seriously. So Nolan could have written the story about the evidence Larkin and Lacey mustered in their defense against the actual indictment. But she didn't. Is it because she didn't know about the charges? Is it because Larkin and Lacey can't provide any such evidence?
  - megous 8y ago
    You know, your preferred goals for the article, and author's goals might be different. I for one am glad for some backstory about the accused from their own mouths.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
monocasa 8y ago
A lot of good law is made protecting terrible people. For instance Ernesto Miranda of "Miranda rights" was retried with his confession marked as not admissible, and was still convicted of kidnapping and rape.

dilap 8y ago

> There is so much misleading reporting right now. Everyone has their agenda and they ignore facts to push it. It makes me read way fewer articles online cause it's all such a mess. I think it's probably always been this way. It's just now, with the internet, we can find out.

guelo 8y ago

As if government indictments are objective, give me a break.

tptacek 8y ago
Nobody is saying that they are. But if you're going to write a story about someone prosecuted (let alone convicted) of criminal offenses, it's incumbent on you to actually address the charges they face, rather than rhetorically posturing as if they faced some lesser charge your audience won't take seriously. So Nolan could have written the story about the evidence Larkin and Lacey mustered in their defense against the actual indictment. But she didn't. Is it because she didn't know about the charges? Is it because Larkin and Lacey can't provide any such evidence?
- megous 8y ago
  You know, your preferred goals for the article, and author's goals might be different. I for one am glad for some backstory about the accused from their own mouths.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

monocasa 8y ago

A lot of good law is made protecting terrible people. For instance Ernesto Miranda of "Miranda rights" was retried with his confession marked as not admissible, and was still convicted of kidnapping and rape.