Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 170 posts

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#31

Post by martinjacobd »

briantakita wrote: post #29
TylerE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To split the difference a bit... They have him "on tape" IMing multiple other suspects, talking extremely graphically about pedophilia, and exchanging images and video of same.

"on tape" meaning they have a video of him in front of a computer engaging in the conversation? I skimmed through the affidavit & couldn't find that claim. It was difficult to read the content so I didn't look to deeply into it. Could you post a quote of the claim if it's there?

They don't claim to have video of him engaging in the conversation, but they do claim to have a pretty damning picture of him.

To support the idea that it was he who engaged in these messages, they claim that you can only be logged in to kik on one device at a time and have evidence that he was using the device for other purposes around the same time and in the same location as kik for at least one of these conversations.

That's my reading, anyways. Not a lawyer and have trouble with the stilted language in these kinds of things.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#33

Post by brwck »

jstarfish wrote: post #27
penultimatename wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a reporters job to report the facts? The fact is the FBI was investigating them for a specific crime. It's already suspect that they left out that key fact. It's extra suspect when it turns out they had personal connections to the accused.

I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one. The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether. I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty. My wife's ex wa…

[flagged]

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#34

Post by TylerE »

briantakita wrote: post #29
TylerE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To split the difference a bit... They have him "on tape" IMing multiple other suspects, talking extremely graphically about pedophilia, and exchanging images and video of same.

"on tape" meaning they have a video of him in front of a computer engaging in the conversation? I skimmed through the affidavit & couldn't find that claim. It was difficult to read the content so I didn't look to deeply into it. Could you post a quote of the claim if it's there?

On tape as in they have the phone with messages on it, and the ip addeess and device info used to send the messages.

(As opposed to testimony, where you have someone else testifying that they SAW him doing it, but no way of proving that post facto)

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#35

Post by glonq »

I hate to sound like a grumpy old man [especially because I'm not...] but I'm increasingly discouraged by both (1) the media's willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity, and (2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces.

We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#36

Post by ipaddr »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #19
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with stating stuff like this is it can be used as an example of how deep the conspiracy goes rather than a refutation.

To the conspiracy minded, sure. How can any discussion be had with these people who don't require evidence in order to make bold claims?

Dropbox working with the fbi is a fact here. Jumping to dropbox working with the fbi regarding other files is fact as well. Dropbox knowing what is in your files is known as well.

It stops being a conspiracy when everyone admits to the facts

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#37

Post by mrandish »

londons_explore wrote: post #2

We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.

In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and skeptical when there are no real facts yet. An affidavit in support of a search warrant is little more than an unevidenced assertion. Compared to the often extreme punitive consequences of the mere accusation being widely spread it can be disproportionate.

If the warrant produces actual evidence of wrongdoing it will later result in an indictment and ultimately a trial. That's the more appropriate time for media to consider those allegations as newsworthy. Sadly, there are documented examples of government (or individuals wielding the power of government) using extreme accusations in affidavits to intentionally inflict punishment. Rolling Stone choosing to not be unwitting 'judge-jury-executioner' at that early no-evidence stage doesn't mean they wouldn't report on an eventual indictment - when and if it happens.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#38

Post by recyclelater »

jstarfish wrote: post #10
londons_explore wrote: post #2

We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.

I know what you're referring to but don't think this is one of those cases. The affidavit is very thorough about what was found. Starts on page 3. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...

FYI to anyone curious, do not read the affidavit if you do not want to have pretty horrific images of infants etc in your mind.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#39

Post by tedunangst »

jstarfish wrote: post #27
penultimatename wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a reporters job to report the facts? The fact is the FBI was investigating them for a specific crime. It's already suspect that they left out that key fact. It's extra suspect when it turns out they had personal connections to the accused.

I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one. The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether. I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty. My wife's ex wa…

Was Rolling Stone sued for defamation for accurately reporting what an FBI affidavit said?

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#40

Post by scythe »

jstarfish wrote: post #10
londons_explore wrote: post #2

We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.

I know what you're referring to but don't think this is one of those cases. The affidavit is very thorough about what was found. Starts on page 3. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...

So Dropbox found uploads, allegedly from Meek, containing CP. Then devices were found at Meek's residence containing CP. To there, you could fake it: pwn the box, open a Dropbox, upload pictures. Basic parallel construction.

In items 30-53 we have an allegation that Meek exposed himself to children on Omegle. This is more damning. Included in the evidence are pictures apparently showing Meek naked. Harder to fake. His face does not seem to be visible in any of the images. Some legitimate communications of Meek are also on the phone, corresponding with his known whereabouts (and might be checked against the other end if possible).

Conclusion: if this is a frame, it's a very well-made one.

Why would he be framed, though? He made a documentary about a military embarrassment (the Tongo Tongo ambush), and many years ago he documented a case of apparent manslaughter (of an American) by a captain in Iraq. In short, he was not exactly a Seymour Hersh or a Glenn Greenwald. I just don't see the 3LAs going to this much trouble to bag a guy who wrote a story about Niger.

So I conclude the case is probably real.

Thought I'd put this down and save someone else the trouble.

Post reply on HN