You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Report: Project Veritas workers acquired Bay Area tech company info by posing as dates, recruiters
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
anikins
Guest
Hopefully they’ll be arrested.California is a “two-party” state, meaning it’s almost always illegal to record a person speaking without their knowledge. Nevertheless, the report claims that Project Veritas may have illegally acquired such recordings by nefarious methods, like by posing as tech company recruiters, new friends, or new romantic interests.
U
upant
Guest
why? it was legalHopefully they’ll be arrested.
do you disagree with what they have reported?
K
Kathleen18
Guest
I wonder how you would feel if someone recorded you without your knowledge.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It might not be legal given California’s laws on secretly recording someone.why? it was legal
It’s also worth mentioning that because of the legal doctrine of “the fruit of the poisoness tree” that their recordings also might not be admissible for evidence any any court actions against the entities that they target.
There’s a lot of their reporting that is the interjection of their opinions and not actually demonstrated as fact. They also appear to rely on people not applying critical thinking to what has been reported. Logical fallacies form the foundation of some of their assertions, especially “begging the question.”do you disagree with what they have reported?
They report that Twitter is ready to turn over Trump’s tweets to the DOJ if the DOJ were to request them. A casual reader may take this as evidence of Twitter specifically targeting Trump. But a look at Twitter’s own publicly published policies shows that Twitter has a process through which the Tweets of any user can be requested by officers of the law with a warrant. Twitter also notifies the user when such a request is made.
Twitter announced that they had hired human moderators (as did other social media companies). The big Social Media companies also primarily make their money from targeted advertising; so a Dog Food company could for example pay to have their advertisements show to people that tweet about dogs or a political candidate could pay to have their advertisements show to people that meet some criteria. Project Veritas’s reporting of this is that that Twitter has hundreds of people looking at your [penis] pictures. I get the impression that from the beginning they are seeking to tell a negative story and that intention drives the decisions behind how collect information, edit their videos, and the views that they interject into the videos.
U
upant
Guest
i always act like i am being recorded. there are cameras everywhere.I wonder how you would feel if someone recorded you without your knowledge.
neighbors on both sides of me have cameras all around their house.
every business call i make starts out this call may be recorded.
might is the key wordIt might not be legal given California’s laws on secretly recording someone.
have they been charged for the twitter video?
is that their goal? i think it is more just public awareness.their recordings also might not be admissible for evidence any any court actions against the entities that they target.
i see it as they take a rumor and investigate it. if it is true and they find what they interpret as bad, we see it. if the rumor isn’t true, we don’t see it.I get the impression that from the beginning they are seeking to tell a negative story and that intention drives the decisions behind how collect information, edit their videos, and the views that they interject into the videos.
a lot of people are waking up to the manipulation of the public by social media. al franken wanted restraints placed on them. even tho they are private, they are too public to be allowed to censor just anyone they want imho.
A
anikins
Guest
It was not legal.
U
upant
Guest
have they been charged? why isn’t it legal? they claim their lawyers said it was legal.It was not legal.
do you disagree with what they have reported?
S
sallybutler
Guest
Each state has different laws about audio recordings. In California, absent a court order, the recorder must tell the recorded that they are being recorded. Even reporters have to give notice they are recording.
I would assume that Veritas has opened themselves up to potential legal and civil liability.
I would assume that Veritas has opened themselves up to potential legal and civil liability.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
“Might” is the strongest description I myself would give until/unless there is a conviction. I’m not licensed to practice law so I avoid making definite declarations on one’s guilt on a matter. That said I think it’s also too early to declare that it was legal. Their description of how they acquired these recordings is not congruent with the word of the law in California.might is the key word
If it is I wish the things they brought into awareness were uncorrupted truth.is that their goal? i think it is more just public awareness.
I don’t think it’s a good thing to start or willfully spread a rumor; rumors can be weapons and do damage to people and entities that are not guilty of what they are accused of.i see it as they take a rumor and investigate it.
Not yet, legal processes can be slow. For reference there is a pending case against them for actions from 2016 for which a judge just denied their request to dismiss the case in January 2018.have they been charged? why isn’t it legal? they claim their lawyers said it was legal.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
yes, but how soon after the incident were they charged?Not yet, legal processes can be slow. For reference there is a pending case against them for actions from 2016 for which a judge just denied their request to dismiss the case in January 2018.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I thought California was a sanctuary state where laws don’t matter? I guess some laws do. If there is a trial hopefully someone who believes in jury nullification gets chosen.Hopefully they’ll be arrested.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Just to connect some dots, last year there was a woman that tried to give the Washington Post a story about being impregnated by Roy Moore apparently to bring to question the integrity of the other women that made claims of sexual misconduct. The Washington Post never published the story. They did find that she worked for Project Veritas. James O’keefe was charged and convicted in 2010 after and and others posed as telephone repair men in 2009 to gain access to a US Senator’s office to make secret recordings. At the end of last year New York was considering barring Project Veritas from fund raising in their state because of the lack of criminal convictions in the organization’s declarations and Florida has specifically banned O’keefe from fund raising in their state. The current case filed June 1 2017 against him is for trespass, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy from actions taken in mid 2016.
U
upant
Guest
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Could you spell out what you mean by the “same game”? This video doesn’t display, suggest, or alleged conspiracy, misrepresentation, deceit, illegal surveillance, or access to an unauthorized private space on the part of any Washington Post employee.both are playing the same game.
Last edited:
A
anikins
Guest
You don’t understand what a sanctuary state is at all.
U
upant
Guest
do you deny that the washington post uses undercover people in a similar way for their explosive stories?Could you spell out what you mean by the “same game”?
of course not, the wp guy didn’t answer.This video doesn’t display, suggest, or alleged conspiracy, misrepresentation, deceit, illegal surveillance, or access to an unauthorized private space on the part of any Washington Post employee.
however, the wp guy didn’t contest what pv was asking.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m wondering why you are engaging in using unsupported whataboutisms and what the motivation may be in trying to steer conversation away from being about Project Veritas. Their only relevance in this conversation is that Project Veritas tried to engage them with a false story and a false identity.do you deny that the washington post uses undercover people in a similar way for their explosive stories?
There was no such accusation made in the video to which to respond. Even if there were a non-response to an accusation it would not be supporting evidence for the accusation. To argue otherwise is to argue in favour of arguments from ignorance.of course not, the wp guy didn’t answer.
however, the wp guy didn’t contest what pv was asking.
Last edited:
I
Imdaman
Guest
Was there a crime commited by the bay area tech firm if so then the two person law may not be valid.
“There are some exceptions to the two-party consent rules. In California, for example, you can record a conversation without the other person knowing if you believe it will collect evidence of a serious crime. During the trial of Scott Peterson, the court admitted a phone recording made by his mistress Amber Frey at the behest of police when she believed Peterson might have killed his wife. There are also exceptions to two-person consent when there’s no “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For example, a conversation at a legislative hearing could be recorded without informing all parties, since recording things is what people do in legislative hearings. Same with public speeches, shouting matches on the street, or any other scenario where you simply can’t expect privacy.”
“There are some exceptions to the two-party consent rules. In California, for example, you can record a conversation without the other person knowing if you believe it will collect evidence of a serious crime. During the trial of Scott Peterson, the court admitted a phone recording made by his mistress Amber Frey at the behest of police when she believed Peterson might have killed his wife. There are also exceptions to two-person consent when there’s no “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For example, a conversation at a legislative hearing could be recorded without informing all parties, since recording things is what people do in legislative hearings. Same with public speeches, shouting matches on the street, or any other scenario where you simply can’t expect privacy.”
U
upant
Guest
the relevance is that you are holding them to a higher standard than traditional sting operators.I’m wondering why you are engaging in using unsupported whataboutisms and what the motivation may be in trying to steer conversation away from being about Project Veritas. Their only relevance in this conversation is that Project Veritas tried to engage them with a false story and a false identity.
what accusations are you referring to? the wp guy was asked several questions which he didn’t answer.There was no such accusation made in the video to which to respond. Even if there were a non-response to an accusation it would not be supporting evidence for the accusation. To argue otherwise is to argue in favour of arguments from ignorance.
a non-response to an accusation would not support evidence, but it does tell its own story. what is he hiding, why won’t he answer?
the wp is no better than pv.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.