backtop

Print 107 comment(s) - last by xsilver.. on Apr 26 at 8:36 PM
"Why don't you have a seat over there..."

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations is equipped with expensive high-tech equipment, designed to protect our nation's citizens -- in most cases, at least.  In an embarrassing debacle, it has been revealed that two FBI Police Officers in Morgantown, West Virginia tried to use such equipment to watch teenage girls undress.

The two employees, Gary Sutton Jr., 40, and Charles Hommema, worked at the FBI satellite control room at the mall.  The pair allegedly hatched a plan to indulge their fantasies at an April 4 mall event, titled "The Cinderella Project" where high school girls modeled prom dresses for charity.

The pair allegedly used one of the building's built-in security cameras to zoom in on the make-shift dressing room which had no ceiling.  As the camera zoomed in closer and closer several teenagers entered the room, undressed and changed, and left.  It is not known how the pair's actions were noticed, but once they were, there was little doubt who was to blame as they were the only ones who had control of the camera.

The officers have been charged with conspiracy and committing criminal invasion of privacy.  Sutton is currently released on bond, while Hommema is scheduled to be arraigned later in the week.

The FBI released a statement, saying, "The FBI is committed to the timely and full resolution of this matter, but must remain sensitive to the privacy concerns of any potential victims and their families."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not a Surprise
By SpaceJumper on 4/21/2009 9:53:14 AM , Rating: 5
Camera + Invasion of privacy is the job of the FBI.




RE: Not a Surprise
By Alexstarfire on 4/21/2009 10:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
Almost right. That's the job of the whole government.

Anyway, where does this high tech equipment come into play? Just the fact that they are FBI doesn't make them different than any other guy. We are perverted and we like to watch girls undress, heaven forbid.

Sounds more like a coincidence that they just happened to be FBI as it doesn't appear that they used any FBI equipment.


RE: Not a Surprise
By rdeegvainl on 4/21/2009 10:09:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Just the fact that they are FBI doesn't make them different than any other guy.

You are right, they should be punished just like every other peeping tom.


RE: Not a Surprise
By erple2 on 4/21/2009 3:05:49 PM , Rating: 5
The problem I see is that the public has given up a measure of their "trust" that the "good guys" are using our "reduced rights" for the "greater good" - ie catch the "bad guys". Incidents like this further erode public trust that the FBI (and other government agencies) have the public's interest in mind.

There are additional rules governing what agents can and can't do above and beyond the normal "peeping tom" laws. I would like to see additional measures (like they can no longer work in any law enforcement capacity) taken against these two creeps.

I see it as a violation of trust. It is like finding out that someone you "trust" (whether you trust the government or not is irrelevant) violates that particular trust. It makes it more ... personal.

However, I agree, they should be prosecuted at least as per Peeping Tom rules go.


RE: Not a Surprise
By rdeegvainl on 4/21/2009 4:13:09 PM , Rating: 3
If they get convicted, they would probably get some sort of bad conduct discharge, not sure the exacts, but that would follow them forever.


RE: Not a Surprise
By frobizzle on 4/22/2009 10:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
If they get convicted they should be categorized as sex offenders and have to register as such, just like any other sleaze!


RE: Not a Surprise
By DanoruX on 4/22/2009 4:41:38 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. Those who peep are much less of a problem than those who rape, abuse, etc. To put them in the same category is like sentencing a kid to death because he observed a fight between two other kids.


RE: Not a Surprise
By afkrotch on 4/23/2009 3:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
They should also take the evidence and create a dvd called "Sluts caught on Tape". Then sell it on TV for the low low price of $19.95.


RE: Not a Surprise
By Malhavoc on 4/24/2009 9:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well if they label teenagers who send photos of themselves to other teenagers as sex offenders, why not these guys?


RE: Not a Surprise
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 2:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly. They have a raging public face on that matter, and I noticed noone asked who was monitroing the satellite while the two lowlifes were getting their thrills...
That of course is a much bigger problem... and noone noticed - hello everybody... remember "the satellite monitor crew"....
What is the FBI doing monitoring a satellite...
Oh.
That.
It's just amazing what the public focuses on isn't it ? Even the news.
Do they even ask who was running the nations crime fighting satellite ? Does that even matter ?
It's just amazing.
The generation before is ultra perverted creeps, and the generation after, are slathering whine boxes interested in all the creeps pecadillos.
If we get blown to smithereens, ot wahtever the result may be, don't be surprised. It's all an MTV strip party anymore anyway.
How about we treat the FBI agents like the public treats the whole situation, I mean the people in the democracy (it's a REPUBLIC not a democracy but people are so frucking brainwashed nevermind for now) make the rules, right ?
So we can bring in Steve-O and his midget sidekick, and train the camera on each agent as they are in the changing booth, and Steve-O and the midget can crawl up, open the door, and wail them in the nads, like ten times each or something.
I'm sure the public would cheer and be satisfied and approve. That's exactly where this society is.


RE: Not a Surprise
By Aloonatic on 4/21/2009 10:27:48 AM , Rating: 5
Luckily, here in the UK, spying is only carried out by the most highly vetted individuals for the most serious of offences such as;

Paper boys working without permits:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092264/Ne...

How rubbish is being put into bins

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Hal...

and the most heinous of modern crimes, trying to get your kids into a school which they may be living outside of the required catchment area.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_articl...

There are plenty of other stories if you fancy a laugh :)

just google "anti terror laws abuse uk" or something similar.


RE: Not a Surprise
By PhoenixKnight on 4/21/2009 2:15:41 PM , Rating: 5
That sounds like terrorist talk to me. You'd better hope you haven't been caught on camera doing a terrorist fist jab.


RE: Not a Surprise
By Aloonatic on 4/24/2009 4:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
It's OK, the much talked about CCTV cameras seem to be out of operation in Britain. We have to rely on mobile phone cameras now. Or maybe it's just that they don't work when the Police are involved doing things they perhaps shouldn't be?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g...

Still no sign of any CCTV footage. Hmmmm.....


RE: Not a Surprise
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 2:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, just wondreful through the whole piece the arguments about who is going to investigate and the lying denials of the coverup spew about endlessly.
There obviously is noone in power to declare that an investigation will ensue and criminal charges will be filed and until then their are arrest warrants out for the officers who will sit in jail without bail until their trials.
That would actually be near enough the right thing to do but it's an outrageous fantasy in the nwo reality my friend.
However, if it was a civilian, it would be demanded instantly, nothing less.
They'ell probalby have an hour long talk with the public about how they are working to gain community trust...ROFLMAO
It's like GONERS MAN - it's criminally insane.


RE: Not a Surprise
By gorilla956 on 4/23/2009 12:40:25 PM , Rating: 3
"..worked at the FBI satellite control room at the mall." Whats so special about the mall in Morgantown, West Virginia that they need FBI agents there? There aint not FBI agents in my ghetto mall in Texas.


RE: Not a Surprise
By ThePooBurner on 4/24/2009 4:02:09 PM , Rating: 3
That's what they want you to think so they can watch you undress...


RE: Not a Surprise
By xsilver on 4/26/2009 8:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
well they'll get a nice surprise when they see a 956 pound gorrilla with a dress wont they?


FBI Surveillance
By DeSade on 4/21/2009 10:12:19 AM , Rating: 5
Why is the FBI running surveillance on a mall? Or is this some central hub they're located at with access to the local areas surveillance systems?




RE: FBI Surveillance
By DeSade on 4/21/2009 10:16:51 AM , Rating: 4
Nevermind, I re-read the article and answered the second question.

quote:
...worked at the FBI satellite control room at the mall.

Still wondering why they have FBI a mall though, I had always been under the impression they would have some office building or something.


RE: FBI Surveillance
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 3:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
They have a cameras monitor room at the mall because terrorists want to blow up malls - remmeber ?
Yes, this is how kookball we have become.
Of course it's the catch the lurking terrorist crew.
Donuts, coffee, camera monitor room, a good cumputer chair, 8 hours a day of hotshot bs talk, and then of course the little shats and giggles they get with all the psying on everyone in the mall - this must have been one of many fun afternoons.
This is what we really have going on. If there's a real terrorist, we have to let them go, give them a court and their saudi billionaire lawyer fund, then apologize to their nation who won't take them back anyway...
It's much easier to watch teen strip beauty contest in the mall, on ones fat butt, jaw jacking, for years on end.
"the greatest law enforcement agency in the world".
I suspect it takes 100 of them to monitor the mall - like when they finally get a single case an announce on TV their great success, and tell us how for 3 years, with 300 agents involved, 17 district law enforcement police stations, nineteen paid informants, and 27 trained police dogs, they finally are very, very proud of their grerat work and are heading to the banquet room to celebrate their success, high class hookers and the hotel rooms with bar will be provided for free - as well as the congressional pac meeting perks.
I don;t think they ever realize how pathetic they look, and how overblown, wasteful, expensive, and weak they appear with their giant announcements.
It's really a PR nightmare, but none of them have a clue.


RE: FBI Surveillance
By jcbond on 4/21/2009 10:17:47 AM , Rating: 5
What's the problem?
FBI - Female Body Investigators. We just caught somebody doing their job - and conspiring beforehand to do it.
If only all our public servants had that kind of work ethic.


RE: FBI Surveillance
By emboss on 4/21/2009 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
And who can forget the CIA - the Cleavage Inspection Agency

</DeppTrivia>


RE: FBI Surveillance
By exploderator on 4/21/2009 5:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
And the DHS: Dept. of Hot and Sexy


Child porn
By DebbyC on 4/21/2009 11:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
These guys were peeping at underage teenage girls!!! Since this camera was being taped these guys were knowingly creating child pornography intentionally. They should be charged as the sexual predators that they are and not let out of jail on bond or for any other reason. If they had not worked for the FBI we all know that they would have been charged for making child pornography.




RE: Child porn
By fatedtodie on 4/21/2009 11:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
The article said teenagers, not all teenagers are "children". In fact mostly 18 yr olds attend the prom...


RE: Child porn
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
This was pre-prom, high school girls many of which probably weren't 18. I wasn't 18 yet even when I graduated high school.

Regardless, is it ok for them to view 18 year olds undressing?! 24 YOs?


RE: Child porn
By BailoutBenny on 4/24/2009 6:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
No it is not ok for them. Just me.


RE: Child porn
By GotDiesel on 4/21/2009 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
excellent... but i couldn't find the you tube link.. anyone ?


RE: Child porn
By safcman84 on 4/22/2009 7:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
What is the age of consent in the USA?

In the UK it is 16, so unless the girls were under 16 then they could not be charged with making child pornography.

Having said that, they shouldn't of been filming whatever the girls age, as it is a gross invasion of privacy.


RE: Child porn
By Integral9 on 4/24/2009 10:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on the state actually. VA is 16, but that doesn't make it "concentual" even if they were 17. They would have had to agree to being filmed to make it concentual.

These FBI guys are getting a slap on the wrist compared to what some teenagers in florida are getting for forwarding concentual naked pics of their g-friends, that were sent to them by their g-friends.


Why?
By Donkey2008 on 4/21/2009 10:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why aren't these agents being treated as sexual predators ? If it were anyone in John Q Public they would be marked as a sexual predator and their life would be ruined. How are these guys circumventing the same laws that all of us have to abide by?

I respect law enforcement, but there should NOT be a double standard.




RE: Why?
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree they shouldn't have done it, but on the other hand I have to think there is a mitigating circumstance... Who in their right mind sets up a dressing room in public with an open top when there are security cams around? Suppose for a moment that instead of security cams it was just an upper level at the mall and the agents merely stood there and looked down into the walled off area, or that any other passer by did, because it was in plain view to them.

What if a teenager was walking through the mall and opened her blouse. Is anyone who turns their head to see, a worse violator than someone who turns a camera? Is it the expectation of privacy these girls had and if so, how much expectation of privacy is there in an open mall with a makeshift dressing room?

IMO, no these men should not be treated as sexual predators. Taking laws that are far too often misapplied and extending that misapplication even further is what got us all into this sexual predator excessive labeling nonsense in the first place.

I don't mean to imply there shouldn't be some kind of reprimand, and at least these agents seem unsuited for manning the cameras if they keep their job at the FBI at all.


RE: Why?
By psychmike on 4/22/2009 1:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
The idea of intentionality seems to have escaped your observation. A girl who flashes the public INTENDS for others to see her and has no reasonable expectation of privacy. A girl who undresses in a covered changing area EXPECTS others to NOT be able to see her. Most people would consider this reasonable.

Seriously, stop extending your argument to fictional flashers, shoplifting rings, and lord knows what else. You're not seeing the truth because you're not interested in seeing it.


RE: Why?
By mindless1 on 4/22/2009 3:39:53 AM , Rating: 2
But, you want to label a crime regardless of whether it is intentional or not, then backtrack and claim a crime either way, based not on law but rather your ideal of ethics. Your ethics are not "truth".


By passionofchad on 4/21/2009 10:57:36 AM , Rating: 5
The mall this happened at is right down the road from my apartment. This happened in Fairmont WV, which is about 20 miles from Morgantown.

You're probably wondering why the article lists the FBI center in a mall, but in fact it is located within said semi-defunct shopping mall. I didn't understand it even when I saw it. They've taken an old mall, and sealed up one side of the building's shops, then had painters come in and create crappy scenes of sea life on the newly plastered cover-up.

Apparently the center is a large storage place for paper fingerprint records and such.

They set up the prom dress event in the middle of the walk area and had portable dress rooms with no ceilings so the cameras had easy access if pointed in the right direction. A couple horny FBI police officers (not agents) couldn't resist.

Here's a couple of the local newspaper articles on the story:

http://www.timeswv.com/archivesearch/local_story_1...

http://www.timeswv.com/archivesearch/local_story_1...




In a related story...
By ice456789 on 4/21/2009 2:32:09 PM , Rating: 5
Applications to join the FBI tripled this week.




tut tut tut...
By Amiga500 on 4/21/2009 9:58:18 AM , Rating: 4
James Bond would never have gotten up to that caper.

He'd have just went and screwed the good lookin' teacher (for queen and country of course).




FBI at work.
By akugami on 4/21/2009 3:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
FBI, hard at work.




RE: FBI at work.
By akosixiv on 4/21/2009 5:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Big Brother sees that you have not plucked your underarm hair and that your dress is too long. Big brother shall be watching to make sure you do so next time.


F.B.I.
By eastcoaster on 4/21/2009 11:05:35 AM , Rating: 3
Female Body Inspector...LOL




By CZroe on 4/21/2009 11:57:33 AM , Rating: 3
Why the heck is the FBI operating security cameras in a mall? If it's to protect their mall office beyond what the mall security provides, I must ask this: Why the hell do they have a "conrtol" office in a mall? It's one thing to have recruitment centers like teh Navy & Army often do, but it just seems like a waste to spend the money on retail space where there will be many unrelated people to keep an eye on and then pay people to augment the mall's security. Resources could be better spent.




Once upon a time...
By amagriva on 4/22/2009 2:49:35 AM , Rating: 3
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin




naughty... err not a surprise
By Cezu on 4/21/2009 1:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The alleged activities were detected internally by the FBI and reported to the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, prompting an investigation, according to the FBI?release.


The FBI caught the FBI peeping. So, who at the FBI was looking at the tape of these teenagers and how long did they watch the tape. Was it only long enough to determine there was a heinous crime or did they enjoy themselves and as such, are also criminals? We need to get to the bottom of this... so to speak...




Busted
By snikt on 4/21/2009 6:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the individual's kids that reported the FBI agents didn't make it onto the Cheerleading squad?




Newsworthy?
By BeastieBoy on 4/22/2009 4:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
As interesting as this story may be, is it really tech news?
It is under the heading of Science. Where is the science?




"FBI survelliance unit"
By frozentundra123456 on 4/25/2009 1:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
To me, the headline is somewhat misleading. The actual cameras were not FBI equipment, it was just the agents were from the FBI. From the headline initially, I thought the FBI was using some new super-secret anti-terrorist equipment to do the spying.

Nevertheless, the agents should be fired and prosecuted, although labelling them "sexual predators" seems a bit much.

I also agree that the mall should have had a more secure private room for the dressing room, although that is no excuse for the FBI spying.




By joeindian1551 on 4/21/2009 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 1
FBI satellite control room at the mall? Really? You want me to believe that?
Is it between Claire's and Spencers? Maybe Hot Topic & The Finish Line?

What goes on at this mall in West Virginia? Lots of missing persons? Terrorist suspects? Felonious shoplifting at the Victoria Secret?

Or are they trying to destabilize the management of the mall so they can get their own person put into power?
Oh yes, that has to be it. "After we get Smith into position as Head of the Food Court it will be all the Mrs. Fields cookies we can eat!!!"

Great story either way Mick.




Even the FBI isn't safe :(
By blueboy09 on 4/26/2009 2:51:16 AM , Rating: 1
When it come to the FBI, they SHOULD BE setting an example as regards to privacy. It makes me sick to see that the talent of the FBI came down this low to watching 2 girls undress. The FBI doesn't have any morals anymore. If they did, they would've seen this coming a loooooong time ago!! - BLUEBOY




No expectation of privacy
By the goat on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: No expectation of privacy
By Silver2k7 on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: No expectation of privacy
By Natfly on 4/21/2009 10:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The pair allegedly used one of the building's built-in security cameras


So they already had a security camera located at the place where they were changing clothes. A regular security guard monitoring security cameras might have seen anyway.

I'm not saying it isn't wrong or creepy, it was just a bad situation to begin with.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By bighairycamel on 4/21/2009 10:58:48 AM , Rating: 4
I can't imagine the amount of work these two did just too see some chicks naked...
They had to...
- Think of an event to run
- Put up some form of advertisment to attract teenage volunteers
- Get stores to donate dresses to be used
- I'm sure they had to schedule meetings with store owners/managers to coordinate all of this, as well as mall owners/managers
- Organize and/or design and/or build (or contract out) the staging area as well as dressing area

This is the 21st century for crying out loud, use the internet like everyone else!!! It's much less hassle.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/21/2009 11:28:02 AM , Rating: 2
Any URLs you can recommend? Just kidding.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By plowak on 4/21/2009 2:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
www.nakedteenagegirl.com


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Ryanman on 4/21/2009 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention, the chicks doing the model show might have stripped down for free.
Depending on the attractiveness of the FBI agents, of course : D


RE: No expectation of privacy
By murphyslabrat on 4/21/2009 11:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know, they did say that one of them was 40, but this was a "charity" event...what could be more charitable, right?


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Etsp on 4/21/2009 12:07:12 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds to me that the event was going to happen anyway, they took no part in that. They simply saw that a camera could see inside the dressing rooms and took advantage of that....it could have been done on a whim. Doesn't make it any better, but it didn't have to be premeditated...


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
What if the event and the peeping took place every year, this was only the first year they got caught? What if that was the designated makeshift changing room without a ceiling area for *good* reason?


RE: No expectation of privacy
By notegra on 4/21/2009 10:17:48 AM , Rating: 3
No it's not. They CHOSE to peep teenage girls and abused their power. Leaving your keys in the car is just dumb, but not an abuse of power.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By rippleyaliens on 4/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: No expectation of privacy
By bigboxes on 4/21/2009 10:43:11 AM , Rating: 5
Right, because they might have found vaginas of mass destruction under those panties. :eyeroll:


By djkrypplephite on 4/21/2009 11:59:01 AM , Rating: 5
giggity.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By vapore0n on 4/21/2009 10:44:24 AM , Rating: 5
Moral of the story is

do drugs naked


RE: No expectation of privacy
By ClownPuncher on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not, but I suppose an argument could be made that they were monitoring the dressing room in case anyone tried to steal any of the garments, jewelry, etc, by concealing them while changing. I don't mean that justifies it, as there is precedent that cameras aren't put in changing rooms, but we as a society do seem to waiver our rights if a law enforcement official claims they suspect something.

Take for example one day my car was snowed in and I walked to the store late one night. The police were being nosy and stopped me to question me simply because they didn't understand why I was out late in the snow. Most people would think it unreasonable, but we tolerate these things because often criminals try not to look suspicious either.

All the above is implausible of course, and improbable given only the details provided in the article(s), but what if there was some jewelry or garments missing and that didn't make it into the news because it was less sensationalist than leaving these details out?


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/22/2009 1:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
You are simply creating hypothetical situations with no basis in the stated facts. There are some jurisdictions that allow for the placement of security cameras in changing areas. Guess what, NUMEROUS legal cases have said that the people responsible must place clearly visible signs notifying the user that they are being monitored, that those cameras must be placed in order to maximize privacy (e.g., view bags but not bodies), and that observers must be gender-matched to the change room. All of this because PEOPLE HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN CHANGE ROOMS.

The police can ask you whatever they want. You have no right to not be asked questions. You have the right not to be detained without reasonable cause. In most jurisdictions, you would have been well within your rights to say, "None of your business" and to keep walking.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/22/2009 3:42:37 AM , Rating: 1
They are entirely facts, that you can't deal with.

Guess what, NUMBEROUS legal cases are based on L A W, not your nonsense about personal ethics.

NO, people do not have a reasonable expectation when it is not a changing room, rather it is a skirt around an open area.

I am not excusing what the supposed FBI, police, or rent-a-cops did, rather, your arguements are just crazy nonsense based on voodoo morals which are not binding on anyone, anywhere, ever.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Alexstarfire on 4/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/21/2009 11:25:13 AM , Rating: 3

And THAT's why I doubt that you've ever read a book or taken a course on ethics. Those who have fiduciary relationship have an obligation to act in the best interest of others, not themselves. YOU may have watched the camera. I may have watched the camera. An agent working on behalf of the government should have thrown a towel over the monitor or turned off the camera.

I wouldn't expect much from private security guards but I think we should all expect a higher standard of conduct from the Feds, don't you?


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Alexstarfire on 4/21/2009 6:01:10 PM , Rating: 1
No, because they are guys. Do you honestly think there is anything that really sets government agents apart from normal people other than some training? I certainly don't think they are morally superior to normal people.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/21/2009 6:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
When you accept a role of higher authority, you're supposed to hold yourself to a higher standard of ethical behaviour. That's why we trust that our physicians aren't prescribing just to get kickbacks. That's why the testimony of a police officer has more credibility in court than the testimony of the average citizen. That's why our lawyers and accountants have access to loads of our personal information but aren't allowed to use it for their own ends. That's why teachers aren't supposed to sleep with their students, even when they're adults. Those things might not happen in reality, but that doesn't mean that the people in those positions are excused from their responsibility.

Look into almost any established profession. They have codes of conduct and ethical behaviour that far exceed legal standards. It's easy to lose your license as a professional physician, psychologist, law enforcement officer, teacher, architect, lawyer, or accountant even if you haven't broken a law. Saying, "Hey, I'm only human" isn't supposed to cut it.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Jimspar on 4/21/2009 7:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
But you have to remember; power corrupts, or do you believe that all cops are good and the IA is out to frame them?


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Alexstarfire on 4/21/2009 11:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
And I believe all that is total crap. Now I'm not saying that teachers should be sleeping with 15-16 year old students I don't see what is wrong with it if they are both adults. If said status is used to acquire better grades though..... that's a big issue. I also don't believe what a cop says should count any more than the average citizen, though I do believe that it should count more than a known criminal's.

The stuff about lawyers and doctors though it could very well be illegal for them to receive kickbacks for prescribing unnecessary medications or for lawyers to use your personal information. Considering the type of information that those two professions have access to they should be treated differently. But as I said, much of what they would do with that information is illegal, with some exceptions.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
Unless a person was convicted of *lying*, if they have no past documented history of that and their word is not being used in a way that is a conflict of their interests, I would have to disagree that merely because someone is a "criminal" as-in convicted of something in the past, that their word should count less than what any other citizen says.

If these criminals are so untrustworthy they should be in prison still, but once they are released they have done their time and should be treated as any citizen would, within any limited placed on them like parole, bans from purchasing handguns, etc.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 2:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, the other fellows arguments sounds good, but guess what - the GOVERNMEWNT is the one that uses the biggest criminals coming and going for witnesses and for their cases and initial convictions.
We all should realize how it works by now. If they can't threaten their suspected targets into lying for them, the cop will take the stand and lie, or in the Stevens case for instance, the FBI agent was humping and licking in bed with the governments star top #1 witness.
This is how it worls nowadays, and it works that way EVERYWHERE as far as I can see - right down to rural America, and believe me I've heard it firsthand.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
This ethical argument is really great, but it is not valid. You can hope for and expect whatever you like, but the truth is either they are breaking laws (which they may be, IANAL) and may be punished for that, or breaking workplace policy and may be disciplined or fired by their employer.

The thing about ethics is, once you start feeling yours matter more than someone else's, you're bound to come upon someone else who has different ethics which don't match yours. It has to be an objective constant we follow instead of subjective.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/22/2009 1:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
You are TOTALLY missing the point. The point is that professional law enforcement officers ARE held to a higher standard of conduct than the average citizen, at least in principle. You can get thrown off the police force or lose your license as a doctor / lawyer / accountant / teacher for much less than violation of the criminal code.

These ethics aren't arbitrary, they are codified by the profession. There are quasi-givernmental regulatory bodies like licensing boards that are CHARGED by the government to regulate the profession in the best interests of the public, not the profession.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/22/2009 3:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
No, I am not missing any point.

You have this false idea that people are supposed to adhere to your ideals.

Oh wait, do you adhere to their ideals? OOOPS!

No, you are not a professional and have no basis for claiming codification.

Get a reality check please! This is the purpose of law. Either it broke the law (which it very well may have), or it did not, in which case we do not care what you think beyond your input as one voter, to enact law.

Personally, I happen to think there should indeed be law against misusing video surveillance monitors are they did, but your entire nonsensical platform is just, plain, wrong. The world does not center around your ethics, no matter how much you pretend they are like someone else's ethics.

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE LAWS!!!


By frozentundra123456 on 4/25/2009 1:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
I used to work for the Federal Civil Service in the Department of Veteran's Affairs. I can definitely tell you that there are special rules that apply to government workers that can cause you to lose your job for actions that are in no way criminal. For instance, there are very strict limits on receiving gifts from subordinates or fellow employees(cant even receive a gift of over 20 dollars, not supposed to receive private phone calls, strict limits on use of computers, etc). I am sure that many private companies also have many rules specific to the organization. So you cannot excuse their conduct just because it did not violate any laws. It is not a matter of personally setting a moral code, it is a matter of living up to the rules of the organization that you are working for.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
They have to be morally inferior, so they can be controlled, manipulated, on counted on to do the dirty work that goes directly against law and the Constitution.
It's best iof they have a record or some deep dark secrets like "not being investigated" because a family member of friend is the DA or a local judge or something like that - that way they must play along, be part of the team, and be AFRAID enough to not tell the public the truth, lest the HAMMER come down on their little "problem".
So in fact you must be CORRUPTED already to get in.
That's how things work now.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 3:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to argue, just look at Waco or Ruby Ridge, or better yet, the Obama appointments - the MACHINE appoints tax cheats and the like - the dirtier the better - and the criminal also has "experience" - and that experience is why they got off that last gross violation of law.
That's how it works my friends - right down to every congressperson getting the money and jobs for their friends and families and relatives and the power players so they can get out of it all in the end.
Maddoff just happened to be an abolute pure 100% lie that only fell when everything else collapsed, otherwise he was the hero that started the NASDAQ market.
Wake up - the criminals run the roosts of power, it's not "religiously restrained individuals" anymore - you are heckled and belittled if you're like that.
Tax cheats are great for running the IRS.
Corporate swindlers should run the Fed and pump your tac dollars into the very companies they led to destruction before the bailout.
If you can't see it, you're so blind you deserve tyranny for your own good.
Time to give up the fantasy that the people in power are good - they lost good when they doped themselves into oblivion in the 60's, and nearly every one of them did that - they are the rebels that never restrained themselves, what the heck do you expect ?
They lie to us on TV every day in their press conferences and they do it with regularity and increasing skill and wordiness. It's all a game anymore.
The shock comes when one of them actually tells the truth - but soon that kind is removed from the public eye.
Ever see a police chief come out and claim his people will suffer the consequences of obviously breaking the law when we have it ON TAPE with sound for all to see and hear ?
NO !
They say just the exact opposite- every single time - 100% innocent, nothing wrong was done, there will be some investigation as soon as they find out if anything untoward occured, but they are confident all the rules were followed.
They have rules - you have "criminal behavior" and "crimes". They have "guidelines" you have " dangerous criminal behavior".
Figure it out already, please.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
You've taken a concept and oversimplified it.

How were they acting against the interests of others if they did not act on what they saw, if those being watched did not know it was happening? What would have been in the best interests of everyone would have been if those girls were never made aware it had happened, if the agents were punished internally, quietly, so as to not cause the unknowing "victims" any grief over it.

I doubt the agents had the option of blocking or turning off the camera, but certainly what they should have done instead is to not alter the normal operation of it, not keep it focused on the dressing room but rather do what they do every day as if there were no dressing room present. IMO, by altering their standard procedure, that is what got them into trouble.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Spivonious on 4/21/2009 11:27:08 AM , Rating: 5
They moved the camera and zoomed in on the dressing area. It's not like they were just watching the monitors and all of a sudden there were naked chicks.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By Alexstarfire on 4/21/2009 6:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
I did not read any of the links. If so then that is certainly a total abuse of power.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By djc208 on 4/21/2009 10:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
Technically if you leave your keys in the car and someone takes it it's still steeling. Police set up stings like this all the time.

It may not have been the smartest of things to do but that doesn't make it any less criminal. A MORAL person wouldn't have looked, just like they wouldn't have stolen the car.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By adiposity on 4/21/2009 12:08:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A MORAL person wouldn't have looked, just like they wouldn't have stolen the car.


What a "moral" person would do is completely up to the morality of the person. Most guys would look. Most guys would not steal a car. If you would not have looked, great. But let's stop pretending that only "bad" people would look at scantily clad women. It seriously is the most normal thing for a guy to do, that I can think of.

It may be disturbing that FBI agents did not act as "model" citizens, given their responsibility, but it really isn't surprising. They are just like anyone else and are only "held" to a higher standard. Instead of being shocked we should be saddened that these powers over the populace are given to average joes who are just as susceptible to error and abuse as anyone.

-Dan


RE: No expectation of privacy
By ccmfreak2 on 4/21/2009 12:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are just like anyone else and are only "held" to a higher standard.


That's right, they are held to a higher standard. And that higer standard says that as long as you are wearing this uniform, you are NOT just an average Joe, nor should you act like you are an average Joe. We expect more out of these individuals due to their position of authority.

What is moral is an individual thing. What is ethical is determined by those above you (employer, courts, ect). Whether or not it was moral is subjective, but it is NOT subjective to say the actions where definitely unethical.

These were not adult women they were watching - these were teenage girls. This makes all the difference in the world, and why it's much more notable. They made a conscious effort to zoom in to get a better view. I don't know the law that well to say what might happen to these men, but probably won't be a simple "Peeping Tom" case.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By adiposity on 4/21/2009 12:37:34 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished. I'm just saying, you give regular people (i.e., any person) surveillance equipment, and this sort of thing will happen...guaranteed. Most of the time, they won't even get caught.

As for whether they were adult women, the summary did not say. It said they were "teenage" girls. Since they were going to prom, this likely means ~18 year old girls, which is legally adult. There's a good chance some were 17 years old, but we don't know. As for "all the difference in the world," I must disagree. I really don't see a big difference between 17 and 18 years old. Yes, there is a stark legal difference, but the actions are basically the same.

And honestly, it's a little disturbing that peeping on a grown woman is somehow less offensive than peeping on a 17-year-old one. Why should we care less about how we treat a women? The primary reason for the age distinction is for consent. If there is no consent, the age shouldn't matter.

-Dan


RE: No expectation of privacy
By tmouse on 4/21/2009 12:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well it seems that they currently are just being charged with misdemeanors, BUT it is still an open case and if anyone comes forward who is on the tape and is a minor then they are in deep crap. Currently the FBI and police have no identities on the victims. It should be noted that these were NOT FBI agents more like mall cops i.e.; security for the FBI center in the mall, and it should be also noted the FBI were the ones who caught them through an internal investigation, THAT was NOT mentioned (guess it makes for a "better" story).


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's an interesting point you make, were these mall cops even real police officers or were they only security guards called police incorrectly? How far do we extend expectations of conduct, we could say we disapprove of their conduct but I could as easily say I disapprove of the conduct of anyone who didn't swear to uphold the law. Do security guards swear to uphold the law or only to provide security?

If it's the latter, they have failed at their job by not securing the view through the top of the dressing room from themselves and others.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By tmouse on 4/22/2009 7:41:42 AM , Rating: 2
I should qualify my statement somewhat, they do work for the FBI and they are law enforcement officers (and as such should be held as accountable as any officer). As such they are probably going to be dismissed and lose their pensions for this infraction. The rules for employment are really strict; if you have ever been arrested (not convicted) of DWI or fired (or forced out)from another job for harassment, theft, workplace violence ect its an automatic disqualification for entrance. Abuse of authority (in this case misuse of government equipment ie: the surveillance system) is probably grounds for dismissal even though the crime is currently a misdemeanor. They are not really like a private security firms "rent a guard" they are staff; but that's a far cry from a special agent. I have little sympathy for them, they are well aware of the rules and risked their jobs for some cheap thrills.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/21/2009 11:21:59 AM , Rating: 5
Do you think the teenage girls set up the location of the change room? Do you not think that THEY had a reasonable expectation of privacy? It's a CHANGE room - if one does not have an expectation of privacy there, where should one expect privacy? Do you examine every ceiling fixture in your hotel room to make sure it's really a smoke detector?

As for leaving keys in the car, it is certainly a foolish thing to do but it does not negate the criminal act of theft. Someone certainly can steal a car even if the keys are left in it. One person's negligence does not mitigate the criminal liability of another. Practically, it's wise to take responsibility for one's action but the view that "he had it coming" excuses the criminal act.

In my opinion, you have an unusual way of seeing things.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By the goat on 4/21/2009 2:09:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do you think the teenage girls set up the location of the change room? Do you not think that THEY had a reasonable expectation of privacy? It's a CHANGE room

No it was not a changing room. It was the middle of a public shopping mall. Somebody put up a flimsy piece of fabric that didn't successfully block the view from outside. That means somebody f'ed up.

Should the guys watching the camera tell somebody after they saw the view? Sure of coarse. But, the guys watching the camera didn't sneak in and plant a hidden camera. The camera it was already there in plain site.

And yes I do look for surveillance cameras when I am in public places. If you don't then you deserve to get filmed doing something embarrassing. Also the victims being "teenagers" doesn't make this any more criminal.

quote:
Someone certainly can steal a car even if the keys are left in it. One person's negligence does not mitigate the criminal liability of another.


In that case I wish you good luck convincing your insurance company to buy you a new car.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/21/2009 6:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, there's some serious rationalization going on in your head.

Whether it was a curtain or partition is not the issue. The girls were provided with a place to change and a reasonable person would say that such a place was provided in order to provide them with privacy.

The girls being teenagers EXACTLY makes it more criminal if they are underage. The action of spying on them is seen by society as being as more heinous.

A contract between you and your insurance company says nothing about the criminal liability of another person's actions. A contract between you and your insurer is an issue of tort law and can specify your responsibilities to show due diligence. It does not in any way mean that the person who stole your car would be charged with a lesser crime.

Wow. Sounds like someone missed ALL their civics course.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/21/2009 6:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
Strike 'tort'. It should be 'contract'.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/22/2009 12:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
We could as easily argue that no reasonable person expects privacy when they undress in the middle of a public mall while there is no top cover on the dressing room and a security camera nearby.

A reasonable person would say this was not as private as a proper dressing room is. From there we have to consider how it is not as private, why is it normal dressing rooms are not set up like this?

Once again you have throw around morals. Forget morals, it is irrelevant what is heinous. What is relevant are the laws which they may very well have run afoul of, but not your interpretation of whether they are acting responsibly.

Put simply, the whole reason we have law is to avoid the very thing you are trying to do, suggest your beliefs are the right ones no matter what someone else believes. You are against the purpose of law when you do this, which is not being very ethical in itself if you then proceed to suggest punishment for being "more criminal" without the distinction that we don't have to approve of what they have done, but we do have to have already put in place law that prohibits it.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/22/2009 1:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, no. Take a poll. Even in an impromptu change room, most reasonable people would expect privacy. Especially in an impromptu change room, one should expect privacy. Otherwise, why institute a temporary change in the environment?? TO CREATE PRIVACY. The argument is internally consistent and self-evident.

Are you suggesting that the interpretation of law does not require judgment??? Law is NOT the written statute passed by a legislator. Law is the living interpretation of the statute based on how cases are won or lost. There are many statutes on the books that are not enforceable and a few laws that are only loosely based on statute but have strong case law supporting it (the 'right' to privacy comes to mind). There are even statues that have been declared unconstitutional. In cases that do not involve criminal charges (which use the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard), the judge or jury is often asked to consider what the fictional 'reasonable person' would conclude in applying the specific facts of the situation to the case law.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/23/2009 12:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
I am stating that we, based on mere text in a news article, are most certainly not fit to pass judgement and equate it to an interpretation of law for the purposes of assigning legal guilt.

Further, it is not enough that you simply think something brushes against your morals because laws are not enacted by your vote alone.

You keep making a terrible leap in thinking that what you disapprove of is automatically what is illegal.

I have never claimed the FBI agents were entirely innocent in all ways, rather stating that what you have argued is not relevant. You may be displeased but that has no bearing. I am displeased when people drive 5MPH below the speed limit but that doesn't make it illegal.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/23/2009 12:42:18 AM , Rating: 2
TO clarify, what they did may indeed be illegal, but it is not subjective thought that matters in this issue, if interpretation matters it is that of someone esteemed as fit to interpret it, after hearing all factual evidence presented, not some 3rd party insisting they know it brushes against their morals from reading a few paragraphs 3rd party.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/21/2009 11:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
The better question is, did the person who set up the open top dressing room have a reasonable expectation that with cameras in range, there was really 100% privacy?

The girls trusted the person who set up the dressing room, just as a hotel's guests trust they have privacy in a hotel by trusting the hotel, but not expecting that privacy if there is a video camera in plain view in their room! Is there any evidence this camera was deliberately hidden?

I'm not suggesting what these peeping toms did is ok, but it is not so black and white as you imply.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/22/2009 1:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
The person who set up the change room may have been negligent but they did not have any ill intent, did they? That fact is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The girls, provided with changing facilities, did have a reasonable expectation of privacy. To argue otherwise is simply illogical. Why create a changing area, visibly separate from others, except to create privacy??

In some jurisdictions where they have placed security cameras in changing areas, they have had to plaster that area with a declaration that the area is being surveyed. Do you think that happened in this case?

The facts of the case do not appear to be in dispute. The agents had access to surveillance equipment that overlooked a temporary changing facility where teenage girls undressed. No one is saying that they placed the camera there. They viewed the images from that equipment for their own sexual pleasure and manipulated that equipment to improve their vantage point. Those are the facts and they do not appear to be in dispute.

Exactly what is the proposed defense? "Your Honor, I couldn't help myself?" "Your Honor, I didn't put the camera there?" "Your Honor, someone else should have covered the area with a screen?" "Your Honor, I'm only human?" None of those statements change the facts.

It may not be black and white but it is a simple case of right and wrong and if you don't see that, you are missing the forest for the trees. Moral relativism is no excuse for sloppy thinking.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/22/2009 1:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
Mindless:

Seriously, you seem like a really bright guy/girl but don't use your intellect to distort or obfuscate the truth.

Intelligent people such as yourself can talk yourselves into circles forever drawing up fictional hotel rooms, negligent stage hands, and jewelery theft rackets. Less bright people such as myself try to see the facts, draw inferences from them rather than thin air, consider alternatives, modify beliefs as necessary, and conclude our opinion. It's a lot simpler that way.

Best,

Michael


RE: No expectation of privacy
By psychmike on 4/22/2009 1:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I forgot to mention your fictional flashing teenagers.

Sigh. Not enough of those!

Michael


RE: No expectation of privacy
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 3:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
" The girls, provided with changing facilities, did have a reasonable expectation of privacy. To argue otherwise is simply illogical. Why create a changing area, visibly separate from others, except to create privacy??
"
With todays braindead know it alls and liars, they will argue that plain and apparent point till they prove how dumb they are.
Ten thousand lines of insanely communist pro tyranny speech will be spewed about to negate that simple, common sensed fact.
Nowadays, it seems the idea that up is down and down is up is so exciting and rebellious and such a way to speak truth to power and be a brilliant internet lawyer doing so, that the idiots pumping it never realize they are in the long run screwing themselves - and everyone else as well.
It's amazing.
I have no doubt though, that the government will argue that very preposterous thing, in defense of their perv homeland security stop the mall terrorist perps.
No doubt.
" There is no expectation of privacy "
Of course not - never is - absolute search and seizure for any idea is ok since the drug war - and now terrorism helps that cause, too.
Anything they want to do, they'ell make up the legalized excuse later if they feel the need, 5 years and 3 million in taxes later, in court...
The ridiculous is becoming the norm, the kookballs and liars are running the ship.


RE: No expectation of privacy
By mindless1 on 4/23/2009 12:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, what information we have about the case is presented as being factual information, regardless that it has not been proven to us.

I have never suggested there is an excuse as a defense such as "I couldn't help myself", but if they had not altered the operation of the camera then indeed the fact that they had not placed the camera there with forethought about the upcoming event's dressing room, had only obeyed orders to monitor everything the camera was set up to monitor, would be acting as required per their job.

As I'd already mentioned, their mistake was altering their regular activities to watch the dressing room.

The issue I have is not with that, they have indeed, if the info is fact, done it. The issue I have is with your continual insistence that it is up to you, or I, to play moral leader and declare right and wrong.

It does not matter whether either of us thinks it is right or wrong and you introduce irrelevant discussion each time you mention morals. The relevant factor is LAW, their job requirements, and their job restrictions.

To put it another way, you would be mistaken if you thought all federal agents always act according to your personal set of morals, though they might be acting by their own, or under orders.

There is no room for errors such as consideration of subjective interpretation of whether you think it is right. Would it be a good hint that terrorists thought it right to blow up a certain building a few years ago?


By frozentundra123456 on 4/25/2009 2:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
Again, one's personal morals are not the object in this case. For sure the guards were not properly monitoring other areas they were assigned to monitor when they had the cameras focused on the dressing rooms. This is failure to do your duty just as surely as if they had left their post or fallen asleep at the monotor. I am sure they could be fired for this. If the cameras had accidentally picked up the undressed girls, they could have an excuse, but if they in fact manipulated the cameras to view the girls, they difinitely violated their duty as employees.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki