[2600.com] Update On The Mike Maginnis Story

[Tyler Durden]

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 at maski.org>
>To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks at 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 at 2600.com or to our website at webmaster at 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