eJazeera, Baby! That guy should have had a tiny laptop or something that could wisk those images off the moment an 802.l1 port was detected. (Actually, it should wisk off a copy of the photos EVERY time an 802.11 port is detected!) In addition, wouldn't it be great if he had actually had a digital camera that had the capability to auto-upload the images when sensing a WiFi link? (And since I'm wishing, perhaps it could take photographs automatically when handled...) This could result in the ironic possibility that the authorities themselves might (inadvertantly) cause the uploads, perhaps even with photos of their faces staring into the (live) camera they are examining.

From: Myers Carpenter <myers@maski.org> To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@lne.com> Subject: [2600.com] Update On The Mike Maginnis Story Date: 10 Dec 2002 11:35:30 -0500

[ the radio interview with this guy can be found here: http://www.2600.com/offthehook/rafiles/2002/120402.mp3 ]

http://www.2600.com/news/display/display.shtml?id=1455

UPDATE ON THE MIKE MAGINNIS STORY Posted 10 Dec 2002 08:15:20 UTC

2600 has received a tremendous amount of correspondence regarding the December 4th edition of "Off The Hook," and the news article that followed, in which Mike Maginnis told his story of harassment by the Secret Service.

Although many readers find Maginnis's story highly believable, others have criticized the article due to a lack of corroborating evidence. It is true that Maginnis was given no paperwork in relation to his ordeal, and so far no one has come forward as a witness to Maginnis's arrest across from the Adams Mark Hotel in Denver.

Quite a number of people have written in with similar stories of harassment for taking pictures of everything from trains to motorcades to public buildings. Others have expressed a degree of skepticism, some even accusing us of all kinds of things from being anti-American to engaging in shoddy journalism. As much as we disagree and find offense in such statements, we actually understand much of the feeling behind such anger. We believe this outrage is a not-so-distant relative of the outrage that we feel when we report on stories like the Maginnis case. In this instance, those who chose not to believe the story aimed their anger at us for saying something they found offensive. And that's something we can agree with - it WAS offensive. The difference is that we also believe it was real.

We think it's right to be skeptical when reading any news account and that we should be treated no differently. We'd like to think that every story reported on in the mainstream media is questioned thoroughly, although we all know this is rarely the case. In the end, whether it's 2600 or Time, the decision on whether there is truth in a report lies with the reader.

This story has been frustrating for us because - like those who have sent us mail - we want there to be a smoking gun, some way of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the events told to us by Mike Maginnis were completely accurate. As is often the case in a story of injustice, particularly when that injustice involves law enforcement, we're often left with a solitary voice calling attention to it. When that happens, we're faced with a difficult decision - do we not devote any attention at all to what happened because there wasn't a crowd of witnesses? Or do we give the person an opportunity to be heard and base our conclusions on what they say and how they respond to questions, along with some rudimentary fact checking? In this instance, we chose the latter and we have no regrets at all for doing so. We believe the story is accurate for a number of reasons.

* First off, very little can be gained from making such accusations against law enforcement in the town where you live. It's almost literally like painting a big target on your back. And we all know what happens when you piss off the Secret Service. It's unlikely someone would put themselves in this position unless they were either completely insane or telling the truth. At the very least, Maginnis stands to be ridiculed for claiming to be detained by police when they deny ever having had him in custody.

* We were unable to find any holes or inconsistencies in the story as Maginnis told it when interviewed on our radio program. Not one person who has written in has been able to either. In his firsthand account of his experience, Maginnis comes across as highly credible. We encourage all readers to listen to the December 4th edition of "Off The Hook," and make a personal judgment as to his credibility. Maginnis was also completely up front about previously getting into trouble for trespassing. That admission alone could risk his being labeled as a troublemaker who deserved what he got. But if he wasn't telling the truth about what happened last week, why make that admission in the first place?

* Maginnis has intentionally not spoken to other news media. If he was seriously pursuing any type of political or social cause, speaking to the major media would have been the next logical step after 2600. There are a number of news organizations attempting to contact Maginnis through us but he has requested that his privacy not be invaded any further.

* Most importantly, it's a very believable scenario. As mentioned above, we've gotten reports of all sorts of similar encounters. They include a man being threatened with arrest by a Secret Service agent in front of the same hotel for overtly attempting to photograph the agent. We've been aware of other such occurrences well before this story broke. Those who believe such an event cannot happen in our country have simply not been paying attention to what's been going on. It seems a foregone conclusion that the United States is heading in a direction of increased civil rights abuses. The case of Jose Padilla illustrates just how easy it is to bypass due process these days.

Now let's turn the tables and examine the other side. We contacted both the Denver Police and the Secret Service to find out if the story was true. They both took our information and neither of them ever got back to us. Their silence has been deafening and it's perhaps the most significant statement they could have made.

We realize that there will still be people who remain unconvinced. And so we hereby invite them to help us get to the bottom of this by proving us wrong: The Vice President is always staying somewhere and one day he's certain to stay somewhere near you. When that happens, simply go down to the hotel he's staying at and take as many pictures as you can. Be sure to photograph the snipers and the military guard as well. When we receive pictures proving that we do indeed have the right to take photos of public places while standing in a public place, we will be more than happy to make that known. We will also welcome and make public any correspondence from appropriate law enforcement agencies who wish to say for the record that such freedoms will not be challenged in the future.

As it's now gotten to the point where Mike Maginnis is being harassed at his home and even his parents are getting calls from reporters, he is now rightfully asking to just be left alone. It took a great deal of courage to speak out in the first place and we hope that the nightmare he's lived through has come to an end. For the rest of us, keeping our eyes open has never been so important.

As always, we welcome your critiques and input. You can send mail to the radio show at oth@2600.com or to our website at webmaster@2600.com. All tips will be treated as confidential.

_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail