FBI agents paid employees in Best Buy's Geek Squad unit to act as informants, documents published Tuesday reveal.
Agents paid managers in the retailer's device repair unit to pass along information about illegal content discovered on customers' devices, according to documents posted online by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The digital rights group sued the FBI for the documents last year after the bureau denied a Freedom of Information Act request.
The EFF filed the lawsuit to learn the extent to which the agency trains and directs Best Buy Geek Squad employees to conduct warrantless searches of customers' devices during maintenance. The EFF said it was concerned that use of repair technicians to root out evidence of criminal behavior circumvents people's constitutional rights.
[...] Another document shows the FBI approved a $500 payment to a "confidential human source" whose name was redacted. The EFF said the payment appears to be one of many connected to the prosecution of Mark Rettenmaier, a Southern California doctor accused of possessing child pornography after he sent in his computer to Best Buy for repairs.
The EFF said the documents detail investigation procedures in which Geek Squad employees would contact the FBI after finding what they believed to be child pornography on a customer's device.
The EFF said an FBI agent would examine the device to determine whether there was illegal content present, and if so, seize the device and send it to the FBI field office closest to where the customer lived. Agents would then investigate further, and in some cases try to obtain a warrant to search the device.
Best Buy said last year that three of the four employees who may have received payment from the FBI are no longer employed by the company. The fourth was reprimanded and reassigned.
Previously: Cooperation Alleged Between Best Buy and the FBI
FBI Used Best Buy's Geek Squad To Increase Secret Public Surveillance
EFF Sues FBI to Obtain Records About Geek Squad/Best Buy Surveillance
Related: How Best Buy's Computer-Wiping Error Turned Me into an Amateur Blackhat
Related Stories
We put a lot of trust in big companies, so when they let us down it can have serious consequences.
I recently went shopping for a new computer. I wanted a low-end laptop for light work, and the HP Stream seemed like a good deal. That deal was made even sweeter when Best Buy offered to sell me a returned one for almost 20 percent off. The salesman assured me that it was in like-new condition and that they would honor all warranties. Sold.
I always get a little thrill opening a new gadget. The computer looked like it had never been touched and all the paperwork was still in sealed bags. There was even a slip of paper in the box with the ID of the tech who cleaned and certified the unit.
So it surprised me when I booted up and saw someone else's name and Hotmail address at the login prompt. So much for like-new!
As I stared at the full name and e-mail address of the previous owner—let's call him David—I wondered. Could I get into this computer another way? It was mine after all. And how much more could I learn about him? How bad of a mistake had the store made?
Any similar stories out there Soylentils care to share?
Original Submission
The OC Weekly reports on the case United States of America v. Mark A. Rettenmaier in which a California doctor is charged with knowingly possessing child pornography. The defendant came under investigation after he brought his computer to Best Buy's Geek Squad for service. A technician there discovered an image of an unclothed girl (which the defence asserts is not child pornography) in unallocated space of the computer's hard drive.
According to the defence attorney,
[...] records show "FBI and Best Buy made sure that during the period from 2007 to the present, there was always at least one supervisor who was an active informant."
The OC Weekly story says that:
[...] the company's repair technicians routinely searched customers' devices for files that could earn them $500 windfalls as FBI informants.
Recently unsealed records reveal a much more extensive secret relationship than previously known between the FBI and Best Buy's Geek Squad, including evidence the agency trained company technicians on law-enforcement operational tactics, shared lists of targeted citizens and, to covertly increase surveillance of the public, encouraged searches of computers even when unrelated to a customer's request for repairs.
To sidestep the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against warrantless invasions of private property, federal prosecutors and FBI officials have argued that Geek Squad employees accidentally find and report, for example, potential child pornography on customers' computers without any prodding by the government. Assistant United States Attorney M. Anthony Brown last year labeled allegations of a hidden partnership as "wild speculation." But more than a dozen summaries of FBI memoranda filed inside Orange County's Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse this month in USA v. Mark Rettenmaier contradict the official line.
One agency communication about Geek Squad supervisor Justin Meade noted, "Agent assignments have been reviewed and are appropriate for operation of this source," that the paid informant "continues to provide valuable information on [child pornography] matters" and has "value due to his unique or potential access to FBI priority targets or intelligence responsive to FBI national and/or local collection."
Other records show how Meade's job gave him "excellent and frequent" access for "several years" to computers belonging to unwitting Best Buy customers, though agents considered him "underutilized" and wanted him "tasked" to search devices "on a more consistent basis."
Step 1: Put child porn on target's computer
Step 2: Report target to FBI
Step 3: Collect $500 bounty
Profit!!!
Previously on SoylentNews: Cooperation Alleged Between Best Buy and the FBI
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain records related to the FBI's secret relationship with Best Buy's Geek Squad:
Sending your computer to Best Buy for repairs shouldn't require you to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights. But that's apparently what's been happening when customers send their computers to a Geek Squad repair facility in Kentucky.
We think the FBI's use of Best Buy Geek Squad employees to search people's computers without a warrant threatens to circumvent people's constitutional rights. That's why we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today against the FBI seeking records about the extent to which it directs and trains Best Buy employees to conduct warrantless searches of people's devices. Read our complaint here [PDF].
EFF has long been concerned about law enforcement using private actors, such as Best Buy employees, to conduct warrantless searches that the Fourth Amendment plainly bars police from doing themselves. The key question is at what point does a private person's search turn into a government search that implicates the Fourth Amendment.
Previously: Cooperation Alleged Between Best Buy and the FBI
(Score: 1, Troll) by Gaaark on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:29AM (19 children)
What idiot would take a computer containing pics/videos/browser history ETC to best buy to get it fixed. Shit never heard of back up, wipe, reinstall?
Well, here's hoping all Peter Files are idiots, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:45AM (7 children)
People that don't know how to do all that, and even then there is a degree of professional expectations. Do you scour your vehicle for personal papers and change when you take it for an oil change? Or do you just expect them not to rifle through your shit? Do you leave your phone/wallet in a locker at the gym? MORON!!!
How about not blaming the victims? The people who need Geeksquad are exactly the types that don't know how to protect their files, or even think to worry about it!
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:49AM
Nobody was blaming the children.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:24AM (5 children)
Damn, Dawg!
If I had meth in my car, NO I wouldn't take it to the mechanic 'cause meth is, you know, illegal!
If my wallet had info on where I buried the bodies, NO I wouldn't leave it in a locker 'cause, you know, killing people is illegal!
How many brains does it take, MORON!
And as someone else already pointed out, children are the victims, pedophiles are the asshats who hurt them or benefit from them being hurt.
Fuck, You are stupid.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Roger Murdock on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:22AM (1 child)
You think they're only rifling through computers that have that kind of content on them? How do they know that in advance? You didn't really think this through did you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday March 08 2018, @10:40AM
Sigh!
Yes I did think it through...
...if you are doing something illegal, why would you let others see you do it?
Would you kill someone and then give all the evidence incriminating you to someone you don't know? No: that would be stupid!
This has nothing to do with "they shouldn't be allowed to do that": it has everything to do with "damn, you is dumb, bro!"
That said, no: warrantless searches should be illegal
That said, yes: stupid is stupid.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:08AM (2 children)
Hope you have verifiable licenses for every bit of music, video, and software on your drive. I really hope you didn't piss off some tech who recognizes you and knows how to frame you or friends / family. Barring strictly illegal content I do hope your various data isn't sold / traded on the black market, and that you don't have any compromising photos around.
It is called the slippery slope for a reason. While it is very easy to mount an argument against child porn, the powers you grant and the abuses you enable must be taken into account. Personally I like court granted warrants in order to violate civil privacy.
By "victims" I was referring to the crime of violating civil liberties. If a tech finds illegal content while performing a requested task then I'm pretty sure that is legally "discovered" and should be reported. Going on fishing expeditions should NOT be ok.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
and another quote I can't recall / find right now "Standing up for freedom means occasionally you must stand up for scoundrels."
So you're free to spew some stupid knee-jerk reactionary bullshit, but reacting before thinking is 100% what will enable true fascism to take over the world. Getting neighborhood informants to squeal on hiding Jews was a favored tactic of the Nazis. So which path do you think is preferable? Do you truly want to trade the essential liberties of everyone, just to slightly increase the chance of finding real criminals? Don't forget these programs enable criminal abuses of power, so you might not even be getting much positive value anyway.
Fuck, YOU are stupid and will drag us all to hell.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 08 2018, @10:34AM
Sigh.
Who's stupid?
If you are a pedophile and you take your computer to best buy, YOU are stupid.
I'm not saying it's right to do warrantless searches, I'm saying it's stupid to be so stupid!
Stupid is taking your computer ANYWHERE with CP on it: that's like going into a police station and emptying your pockets of all your child porn pictures.
Stupid.
It has NOTHING to do with rights...it has EVERYTHING to do with "Are you THAT FUCKING STUPID?!?"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday March 08 2018, @09:12PM
No. Warrants protect an individual from the government discovering evidence without due process. Warrants do not protect someone else from informing the government they've discovered illegal activity going on, and the government using that as immediate probable cause to investigate without a warrant. So get "legal" out of your head - you are asking if such behavior is moral or not, not legal.
If you're going to complain about the use of paid informants you are several decades, if not centuries, late. All police, everywhere, have been using informants for about as long as there has been policing. And the use of informants is constitutional. Might as well rage about how loud the ocean is.
You have no idea how the images were discovered - it may be perfectly legitimate for a technician to open your pictures folder to discover if your filesystem is working, or open a folder with an unknown, obscure label to see if the contents are legitimate or a virus. But if there's any breach of ethics here, it is on the part of Best Buy technicians looking where they shouldn't. Not because they reported what they found.
Godwinizing this does not win your argument at all because what the Nazis were doing was morally wrong. Prosecuting child pornography is not. Next.
Generally, yes, if you are engaging in illegal behavior of ANY type, a third party has every right (if not a moral obligation) to report that activity.
If you don't want your computer store technician snooping on your system, protect it such that they cannot do that. Or select a place that promises they won't look, I suppose.
Do I like that government officials paid them? No. I'd much prefer they do so out of a sense of civil obligation. And yes, I am concerned that this could be on a slippery slope. But not enough so to agree with you.
Or let's take another tack: You see a pervy 60 year old sodomizing a child in public. Do you just go on your way, "Oh, I don't want to be a narc so I'll just look the other way!" Or do you call the cops? If you do not call them you are morally bankrupt. If you did call, why is that any different from what the technician did?
Now, if the police offered a reward for reporting, does that change things? It might for you. It gives me pause. But your way drags us to hell more quickly IMVHO.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:56AM (4 children)
Most people have no clue how to back up their computers.
Until the prevalence of cloud backups, many people would use their computer until it failed, shrug their shoulders and abandon the files they had "lost" and buy a new computer. Others would buy a computer and take it to someone to transfer their files before the old one failed.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:31AM (2 children)
Some people are smart enough to keep their files on redundant encrypted drives attached to their computer, so it's easy to deal with a loss.
On the other hand, that could land you in jail forever without trial if you claim to have forgotten your password.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:52AM (1 child)
Those are not the people whom Geek Squad employees are reporting to the FBI for what they found on their computer.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:26AM
They're also not the people whom Geek Squad employees are searching their computer only to find nothing. Perhaps they only search guilty people's computers?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:11AM
But hopefully at least some people know what can happen if you don't [youtube.com]. A good pop-culture reference for someone who may not understand technology in depth.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:59AM (1 child)
considering the stakes involved, it would probably be something worth googling.
now if only they had a working computer....
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 08 2018, @10:48AM
:)
Considering the stakes involved, I'd go to the library and Google a fix.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:54AM (1 child)
You are describing the typical computer user, I think. But, things can get a little complicated. Windows maintains logs for all kinds of crap, remember? Want to know what sites Internet Explorer has visited? https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/track-a-users-internet-explorer-history-with-iehistoryview/ [techrepublic.com] Keep in mind that people who use Geek Squad are NOT the most tech savvy computer users. They aren't going to clear all those logs. Geek starts browsing the history, he notices "lolita" pops up repeatedly, and he starts searching for images. He knows SOMETHING has been cached, he just needs to find it. Or, if he's luck, he finds the "porn" folder, where he finds hundreds of images (or videos) of naked little kids being sodomized, or whatever. Maybe that porn folder is in the trashcan folder - but of course, you and I both know that deleting something in Windows has never actually deleted anything.
It probably isn't accurate to say that all child porn lovers are idiots. But, a lot of people are clueless, and that includes child porn people.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 08 2018, @10:46AM
Yes.
Warrantless searches are wrong but yeah, if your going to do CP, you'd better be not so clueless, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday March 08 2018, @06:02PM (1 child)
Imagine this.
You take your computer to Best Buy. It doesn't have any pr0n when you take it. But it does by the time the PAID incentivized minimum wage geek squadie calls the FIB.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 08 2018, @09:31PM
Well, that's a whole nuther case:
One, don't go to best buy
Two, sue best buy and the employee, and the FBI if possible.
Three, NEVER use best buy.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by milsorgen on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:30AM (9 children)
Why would the payments even be necessary? Wouldn't law enforcement be called regardless if such materials were uncovered during repair?
On the Oregon Coast, born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days...
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:38AM (2 children)
Should, would or could. Snitches or "informants" like to get paid one way or another. Yes one would assume that if some computer repair technician (or whatever their title is) found large amounts of child pornography on a computer they would indeed call the FBI or whatever law enforcement is around.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:59AM (1 child)
Why not blackmail the computer's owner? Surely that is far more lucrative.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:13AM
Why not both? Sounds like you could get paid twice [schlockmercenary.com] that way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:39AM (2 children)
Justice: A crime victim can get help prosecuting the attacker and seeking restitution.
In Soviet Amerika: You can get paid for "finding" "evidence" even if there is no victim anywhere. Well I guess the guy who gave you his computer is now a victim, but we'll just ignore that because "child porn" is the root password.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday March 08 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
Child pornography has victims. The children. Appealing to "Oh noes child pronz" does not change that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @09:36PM
I didn't say they are not victims. Let them (or their parents) show up in court and describe how the criminal(s) harmed them. Then convict the criminals.
The problem is when a starving minimum-wage employee can fabricate evidence (as described repeatedly in this discussion) to frame an innocent person for a small cash prize. There will be no victim to show up in court because nobody was actually harmed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:43AM
That's to make sure that rather than just stumbling over it, they actively search for it. Or perhaps occasionally add it themselves because the rent is due.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:56AM
Payments can help motivate an underpaid tech to manufacture evidence?
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:56AM
the payments are the natural evolution of the 'free t shirt if your pedophile gets convicted' perk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:13AM (1 child)
The most worrying thing about this for me is that the Geek Squad are being paid for 'finding' CP. A enterprising young minimum-wage geek could make a lot of money planting CP on a customer's computer and then 'finding' it...
(Score: 3, Funny) by DarkMorph on Thursday March 08 2018, @11:59PM
Pay up.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:13AM (2 children)
IIUC, the issue here (and with paid informants in general) is whether or not the communications, payments and discussions between the informants and the LEO (the FBI in this case) rose to the level that these Geek Squad folks were acting as "government agents." If they were, then a search warrant would be required *before* any data was perused. If no warrant was obtained, and the GS folks *were* acting as government agents, any information provided to the FBI would be the result of an illegal search and inadmissible for obtaining a search warrant or use at trial.
Whether that's the case or not, I have no idea.
N.B.: IANAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:37PM (1 child)
So it'd be like convictions based on jailhouse informants who 'overhear' confessions in exchange for reduced sentences then (not disclosed to defense at trial), right? a.k.a. shady business as usual...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:46PM
That sort of thing is just as bad, yes.
Any sort of quid pro quo makes an informant's motives suspect, IMHO.
In a perfect world, that sort of thing wouldn't happen. Nor would we have plea bargains [wikipedia.org], which are often shoved down people's throats based on "evidence" from paid (or otherwise compensated) informants. Because of plea bargains, less than 10% of criminal cases in the US ever go to trial. Which is horrendous.
However, we don't live in a perfect world. I was curious about how informant gathered evidence was used in courts [uscourts.gov], and when I searched around, I found that it was also an issue raised by a Best Buy customer's attorney [washingtonpost.com].
The current legal framework around this sort of thing is relevant, as it's used by many jurisdictions, even if the practice is reprehensible -- we don't live in a perfect world.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:06AM (21 children)
Good job firing those people, and looking out for your CP customers. If Best Buy doesn't guarantee confidentiality of customer data, then any criminal evidence the techs find is a win for the good guys.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:58AM (13 children)
I kinda share your sentiments. Except - Grandma can be sent to the pen for having photos of her grandbabies getting their first baths. Think about that for a bit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:47AM (12 children)
Has that ever happened? And if it did, the problem is with the obscenity laws, not how the evidence was gathered.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:56AM (11 children)
Yes, it most certainly has happened. I'm running short on time - why don't you do an internet search for terms similar to "unjust convictions on child pornography law". The problem started even before the internet. People sending their photos off for development were sometimes shocked when the police knocked at the door (or maybe kicked the door down?), then be arrested for child porn.
Memory is vague, I'd have to do my own search to refresh my memory. It seems that a very small number of photography labs reported a huge number of child porn cases. Meanwhile, the vast majority of labs developed photos that were equally revealing, and never batted an eye. To a large degree, porn is in the eye of the beholder. Take one Puritanical overseer, who has a vested interest in obtaininig a high conviction rate, and he can see porn EVERYWHERE!
Have fun with the search!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:56AM (10 children)
Tsk, tsk, Runaway! You are doing it Again! You heard something on Fox News, and now you think it is fact, with no citation, no reference, no evidence, and you beg off on the Republican "I cannot recall" cop-out? Shame on you, Runaway! Shame! Bad Redneck, Bad!!! No donut for you!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:14PM (9 children)
Hey, 'tardo, I don't watch Fox news, except on very rare occassions. But, you've messed up with this one. Fox isn't the one that's going to report unjust convictions. That's more in line with liberal and progressive reporting. One good thing about the left side in our country is, they do like to challenge the courts, on behalf of the underdogs. That isn't *always* good, but mostly, it is.
Let me tell you about Fox. I stopped at one of my favorite restaurants for breakfast this past Saturday. Fox was on. You can't hear a damned thing, but it was on. There are two guys, with some chick sitting between them. I was not quite, but almost embarrassed at the woman's state of half-dress. I mean, she's sitting there, knees together, with a camera focused on her, at an angle that will see whether she is wearing panties if she parts those knees.
WTF, Fox? It's pretty obvious that you didn't hire this woman for her wit, her charm, her intelligence, or her commentary. She's a damned DECORATION for your TV set! Every woman in the country should be up in arms over that sort of shit. Put a women half-dressed on stage, then keep a camera focused on her, just hoping for that panty shot? If/when she has to get up for some reason, it's going to have to be choreographed carefully, to prevent everyone seeing what she is or is not wearing under that skirt. Wait - did I say skirt? Hell, some of my T-shirts cover more than that skirt covers.
Maybe I should send the woman one of my T-shirts, with an explanation. Maybe she's so damned stupid, she doesn't realize that a significant segment of the veiwing audience hopes to see what color her pubic hairs are. Or, alternatively, to view her shaved beaver.
Fox, you're disgusting. Oh, wait. It belongs to Rupert Murdoch, right? Then it's EXPECTED to be disgusting.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:46PM (8 children)
Help me out a little bit here. Why are you disgusted by women, or pubic hair, or shaved "beaver"?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:11PM (7 children)
It is disgusting that Fox is openly exploiting this woman's body, for ratings.
Seriously, the woman on the screed (don't know, don't care what her name is) wasn't bad looking. Not hard to look at, at all. But, her state of dress would be a distraction from any serious news, at best.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:31PM (6 children)
Speaking in generalizations, the right supports the idea that if everyone consents, it is OK for businesses to provide things people like. By your own admission, a good portion of viewers might enjoy this. Perhaps even you, since you find it distracting.
Still in generalization territory, the left is lately becoming the anti-sex people, working to criminalize all facets of sexuality right on down to a compliment, wink or even a smile. Unless, of course, there are at least three gender-nonconforming participants.
So I guess you're in the "disgusted by sex" camp. Try to keep that perversion to yourself; don't ruin it for the millions with healthy drives.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:37PM
I do have my perversities, but "disgusted by sex" is not one of them. :^)
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:47PM (4 children)
When was the last time you saw a TV News cast where the anchor was wearing something that would possibly show off his underwear or lack thereof? The problem is the exploitation of women. Not Runaway's opinions/views on sexual content / sexuality. NSFW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_women_in_mass_media [wikipedia.org] --- Not Safe for Work
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:49PM
^^I accidentally took out the explicit reference to a Male news anchor when typing that out.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:56PM (2 children)
The market segment of viewers who would like to see men's underwear or lack seems to be rather small, otherwise, more people would probably rise up [sic] to provide that service.
If the women involved are consenting to the situation, why do you consider it a problem? If not disgusted by sex, well then what?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:19PM (1 child)
How about to teach our children that women are more than just a hunk of flesh? *A lot of people probably still need to learn that.* That you don't have to be a "pretty runway model / barbie doll" to actually be pretty. That you don't need to "show a little leg", to get the job. That news and facts should be the main attraction. Not that your news anchor might flash you, if they accidentally moved the wrong way.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @09:32PM
When you teach your children things that are not true, what they actually learn is that Mommy and Daddy will lie to them.
The truth is that a great many women know exactly when they are flashing, and they enjoy being viewed, as do the people who are viewing them. This makes sex-hating puritans apoplectic. Perhaps you are confusing your leftist fantasy utopia with reality, but reality remains what it is, your attempts to redesign and prescribe the perfect sanitized human behavior notwithstanding.
A great many women also know that "showing a little leg" can glean them some quite substantial advantages in certain situations, and they are not the least bit reluctant to "exploit" themselves.
Back to the example at hand: a woman on TV is very unlikely to "accidentally" flash the camera, because everyone is painfully aware that sex-hating puritans have imposed enormous fines for such "accidents". So the stimulus which simultaneously arouses and frightens you is unlikely to materialize. Still... you can't bring yourself to stop watching, because maybe... just maybe... she might... so you keep watching.
And that was probably the goal all along.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:51AM (3 children)
I wish I knew whether you were being straight or sarcastic. And either way, I'd probably still need help discerning the "good guys": CP hoarders aren't; revelations over the past few years, including this one about paying BB to "find" evidence makes it clear the FBI doesn't qualify; Nerd Herders scouring customer hard drives for porn and music/videos to copy off and potentially planting CP to "find" aren't; Best Buy has proven in many ways over the years, including supporting this deal with the FBI, that they're not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:13AM (2 children)
So you think planted evidence is a problem. Does that mean we can never believe any evidence from law enforcement? After all, they all get paid to "find" it. I say keep an open mind and if there's evidence of a crime, pursue it. If there is a trial, make sure the jury knows if evidence came from a paid snitch.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:37AM (1 child)
Does that mean we can never believe any evidence from law enforcement?
All police evidence should be considered suspect unless backed up by corroborating details. Think of the explosion in cases where police body-cams have shown them planting evidence. Yes, these guys were rewarded on a high arrest rate, and gamed the system to make their numbers.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:21PM
Allowing the police state to make up its own "crimes" when nobody has been harmed is the start of all this trouble.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:15AM (2 children)
It's not a win for the "good guys" if the government violates the Constitution, regardless of the reasons why they did it. It's not okay to violate the highest law of the land just to supposedly nab some bad guys. I think this was unconstitutional because if the government recruits people like this, then they basically become government agents and are subject to constitutional limitations as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:06AM (1 child)
You, oh noble AC, must be one of those that arcz is worried do not understand law. The government recruits "contractors", kinda like mercenaries like the formerly known as Blackwater brother of the Sec. of Educamation, Eric the Prince, and thus the contractors are under no constitutional limitations! Hooray! Think of it as kind of like Uber cops. No license, no training, no liability insurance, but hey! Cheaper and plausible deniability! The CIA calls them "assets", and they can commit treason!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:24PM
Well, that's only currently tolerated because our courts are absolutely packed with insane authoritarians. Good luck getting rid of these practices when all branches of government are in favor of it, despite its blatant unconstitutionality.