i'd like to think that if something happened and i had a pic to start as my evidence then i would at least do a bit more investigating before walkin up to someone with a pic and knockin them in the jaw

10/31/2005 8:44:09 PM

and besides, that's the reason we have laws/courts, etc. to try and eliminate the double standard, to protect people who are wrongfully accused, even when it appears they've done something, hell it's why we are using dna evidence more now

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 8:46 PM. Reason : didn't mean to double post ]

10/31/2005 8:46:03 PM

Well, you can insist anything you want, but in court, real court, pictures aren't admissable. I know we're not talkin about real court in this particular case, which is why all this bullshit passes as "evidence"

10/31/2005 8:46:39 PM

Quote :

"It just seems like everyone here thinks it is dead wrong to rely on Facebook pics to prove that someone broke a rule/policy/law. I wonder if these same posters would insist that the pics can be used as evidence is they are the victims..... It's the old double standard."

You're using the same double standard you're waving like a red flag.

The fact is that a digital photograph is unreliable evidence. At best, it can be used as a lead to find something more concrete. In the case of theft, the obvious piece of evidence would be possession of said property.

In a victimless crime or policy violation, well, i guess you're shit out of luck. Perhaps a closer eye can be kept on these people to actually catch them in the act.

10/31/2005 8:49:09 PM

By the way, if you are an RA and you post on here and you get fired... thats bullshit, and grounds for a suit of wrongful termination. Nobody can prove who is who... for example...

I'm an RA.

Im not, but i said i was. See how easy that was?

Ask jackleg about how this shit isnt admissible. then sue the fuck out of them for wrongful termination.


ps.

10/31/2005 8:50:45 PM

I really do hope that someone plans on blowing that picture up, sticking it on a piece of cardboard taped to a long stick and taking it into that meeting

10/31/2005 8:54:20 PM

Quote :

"It just seems like everyone here thinks it is dead wrong to rely on Facebook pics to prove that someone broke a rule/policy/law. I wonder if these same posters would insist that the pics can be used as evidence is they are the victims..... It's the old double standard."

you missed the point where not all cases are the same. and the severity of cases vary, so the same evidence for a case of murder would be taken more seriously than a case of a misdemeanor.

10/31/2005 8:54:59 PM

Quote :

"Just curious....if someone ripped off your laptop, then you saw pictures on Facebook of someone taking your laptop from your room, would you go after them? Or would you ignore it because you can't be sure the pics were real........"

Probably, but I bet the judge/jury wouldnt pass sentence on the guy unless the cops had HARD proof (like a search warrant). The pic by itself probably wouldnt pass as "beyond reasonable doubt". after all how the hell can you tell your laptop from another in a picture, its not like they only make ONE of each model.

Now, just like in laptop example, I can see a picture being used as evidence to get, say, a search warrant to look for booze, but that is about it.

10/31/2005 8:56:10 PM

************************************************************
TOWN HALL MEETING

Senate Hall, 2nd Floor Witherspoon Student Center
Thursday, November 3, 9PM

Co-Sponsored by the Inter-Residence Council and Student Government.

************************************************************


... you heard it first on TWW. This is final and will not change. The reason why it was moved from Wednesday is because Forrest and I agreed it would be best dealt with as a meeting in itself. Previously it was tied in with another meeting and it would have been more difficult to accommodate everyone as well as find enough time to address the issue fully. This was also done in order to give a better opportunity for the administrators we will be inviting out who have a say in this situation to hear students’ views, provide information, and participate in discussion on the University’s side of things. The meeting will last about 90 minutes (more if needed!!!)

There will be an agenda posted shortly, as well as a press release to provide more details. I’ll be up late putting this all together. EVERYONE is welcome to attend who would like to comment on this issue. We are hoping to have in representatives from Student Legal Services, Campus Police, and Student Conduct that we will be asking to address this issue from the perspective of off-campus living as well. By the end of this meeting we hope a clear message will be sent to University administration on how students feel about the issues surrounding Alexander.

I hope you see you there! Spread the word. If you have questions, post them here, I’ll try to answer as many as I can.

10/31/2005 11:22:45 PM

Quote :

"wow..... it is insane that certain people in high positions people feel so threatened by this message board that all the RA's that have posted on this message board are being reprimanded."

Are you making this up?

11/1/2005 12:02:53 AM

The Democratic Peoples Republic of University Housing does not think it is good for the Outer Party to see "degenerate" websites.

11/1/2005 1:35:03 AM

i'm going to try to make this town hall meeting. I'm not about to see RAs get threatened with their jobs cause of Housing's awesome internal politics.

11/1/2005 6:46:54 AM

Someone has a lot of free time...

11/1/2005 7:30:25 AM

let us know how the meeting goes.

11/1/2005 9:28:27 AM

I have heard countless people in this thread say that a photo isn't admissable in court. Well why did the judge let the jury see photos of OJ Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli shoes that he swore he never owned? Yet another reason never to turn to TWW for any legal advice.

11/1/2005 11:03:45 AM

digital photo != film photo

11/1/2005 11:17:24 AM

^^ I believe he was found not guilty too.

11/1/2005 11:24:50 AM

Did Paul Cousins really compare this to Abu Grahib in today's Technician?

11/1/2005 11:30:35 AM

he certainly did

11/1/2005 11:37:43 AM

^^^^ Says who? Cite one case where a photograph's integrity was judged based on whether it was taken on a digital or film camera and I'll reconsider.

Those pics of OJ wearing Bruno Magli shoes were attacked very heavily on the grounds that they could be altered. Camera tricks didn't start with the invention of digital photos.

^^^ Yeah, but OJ wasn't being charged with wearing Bruno Magli shoes either.

And don't get me wrong; I abhor this type of shit. Still, I wouldn't let my emotion get in the way of good judgment and my judgment says that University Housing doesn't care if they were taken on a digicam.

Maybe University Housing will care about the backlash that they are receiving. I'd say that stands a better chance than trying to make an ill argument about photo editing.

11/1/2005 11:40:12 AM

Quote :

" Those pics of OJ wearing Bruno Magli shoes were attacked very heavily on the grounds that they could be altered. Camera tricks didn't start with the invention of digital photos."

11/1/2005 11:56:53 AM

"Did Paul Cousins really compare this to Abu Grahib in today's Technician?"

From what I remember from the Abu Ghraib, it was not started by the photos. (the media explosion was, but not the actual investigation)

11/1/2005 12:24:04 PM

In response to the Abu Grahib argument, someone should bring up that british tabloid (Sun?) that printed pics of british soldiers doing all kinds of horrible things..... that later proved to have been photoshopped and faked

11/1/2005 1:16:00 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/world/main617564.shtml

Quote :

"The Daily Mirror newspaper apologized Friday for publishing faked photographs of alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British forces, and the editor stepped down. "The Daily Mirror published in good faith photographs which it absolutely believed were genuine images of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner," the newspaper said. "However, there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that these pictures are fakes and that the Daily Mirror has been the subject of a calculated and malicious hoax." The government had denounced the photos as fake on Thursday, and the regiment involved said it had conclusive evidence that a truck seen in the photos had never been in Iraq — where the Daily Mirror had claimed the photos were taken. The newspaper said it would be "inappropriate" for Piers Morgan to continue as editor. He resigned effective immediately. Earlier this week, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that photos of British troops allegedly abusing an Iraqi prisoner, published by the Daily Mirror newspaper, "were almost certainly fake." The allegations prompted by the photographs were "immensely damaging," in his words, to Blair's premiership. Earlier this month, in a decision that expanded Britain's privacy protection, the highest court, the Law Lords, ruled 3-2 that The Daily Mirror breached supermodel Naomi Campbell's privacy by running photos showing her leaving a drug counseling meeting and a story detailing her treatment. It ordered the Mirror to pay Campbell $6,300. "This is a very good day for lying, drug-abusing prima donnas who want to have their cake with the media, and the right to then shamelessly guzzle it with their Cristal champagne," Morgan said after that verdict. "If ever there was a less deserving case for creating what is effectively a backdoor privacy law, it would be Ms. Campbell, but that's show biz," he said. "

to everyone who's championing the use of photos as the only evidence used in a case (whether legal or student conduct) put that in your pipe and smoke it

11/1/2005 2:03:43 PM

It's also possible to put a "ghost" (image) in a scene where it doesn't belong. An example of this would be to get a camara and take a picture of someone. Now don't advance the film but go and point the camera at something/where else. Take a picture on the already used portion of film.

When you develop the film you'll have a ghost image on the frame. OoooOo... spooky. Bleh.

11/1/2005 2:28:14 PM

That's an excellent example of why photographic evidence by itself in this digital age should always be regarded as questionable.

Couple photographic evidence with other physical evidence and/or witness testimony, and then it has value-add.

Ultimately, this could prove to be a dangerous precedent. Let's say some dude gets dumped by his girl. To get back at her, he could doctor up some photos, post them on facebook or TWW, and send an anonymous email to an RA, RD, or other housing official pointing to said photos. Based on this precedent, that girl's gonna be in deep shit.

11/1/2005 2:30:35 PM

dude, I'm turning in Kosmo, he was definitely an underage drinker...

11/1/2005 2:34:25 PM

This ferret looks underage to me.

11/1/2005 2:58:23 PM

haha damn underage drinkers

11/1/2005 3:00:11 PM

Quote :

"I have heard countless people in this thread say that a photo isn't admissable in court. Well why did the judge let the jury see photos of OJ Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli shoes that he swore he never owned? Yet another reason never to turn to TWW for any legal advice."

they had pictures of the glove too...and they had the actual glove to back them up

11/1/2005 3:03:23 PM

the ra that reported the people on facebook must have serious issues. I mean can you not just look the other way, wtf. If you catch them in person and want to be a dick then whatever, but I mean on facebook? just pretend you didnt see it, damn (yea im sure i entered this like a week late, but whatever)

11/1/2005 3:06:23 PM

Quote :

"Says who? Cite one case where a photograph's integrity was judged based on whether it was taken on a digital or film camera and I'll reconsider. "

The only way to ENSURE a digital photo is the original is if it retains it's original EXIF information. The EXIF info is changed everytime an image is altered, and is nearly impossible to forge (it is certainly beyond the ability of any layman or normal PC user).

The problem is, when you upload photos to facebook/xuqa/tww/myspace/photobucket/webshots the server actually rewrites the image, destroying that data and ANY ability to know whether it's authentic or not.

11/1/2005 3:07:45 PM

jesus noen


stfu about the EXIF already

11/1/2005 3:08:24 PM

nc statute says:

Rule 1002. Requirement of original.
To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing,
recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by
statute. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.)

Rule 1004. Admissibility of other evidence of contents.
The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing,
recording, or photograph is admissible if:
(1) Originals Lost or Destroyed. – All originals are lost or have been
destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or
(2) Original Not Obtainable. – No original can be obtained by any available
judicial process or procedure; or
(3) Original in Possession of Opponent. – At a time when an original was
under the control of a party against whom offered, he was put on notice,
by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of
proof at the hearing, and he does not produce the original at the hearing;
or
(4) Collateral Matters. – The writing, recording, or photograph is not
closely related to a controlling issue. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.)

furthermore

§ 8-97. Photographs as substantive or illustrative evidence.
Any party may introduce a photograph, video tape, motion picture, X-ray or other
photographic representation as substantive evidence upon laying a proper foundation and
meeting other applicable evidentiary requirements. This section does not prohibit a party
from introducing a photograph or other pictorial representation solely for the purpose of
illustrating the testimony of a witness. (1981, c. 451, s. 1.)


SO...pictures are admissable but you have to have the original or proper evidentiary groundwork to support the picture...in this case someone would need to come out and be a witnesss and have seen the underagers drinking at the time the pictures were taken or something to that nature.

BUT...this isn't NC court...this is campus and have their own rules and can do whatever they see fit with the pictures.


[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2005 3:16:23 PM

i dunno whats up with the urban legend about jackleg and the admissibility of what is said on the wolfweb

11/1/2005 3:55:29 PM

haha, all you armchair lawyers are full of shit. There's no violation of privacy (they're posted on publicly accessable sites), no violation of speech (the photo's aren't the issue, the action within them is. if I take some polaroids of me killing people, the expression within photos aren't the part that's gonna get me sent to prison...), and no Jurisdiction issues (anyone in the dorms signed papers agreeing to abide by these rules).

What you've all failed to realize is that the NCSU Board of Student Conduct is NOT a legal institution and is not subject to the same stringent procedural rules of evidence. It's a form of Mediation that is not legally binding (which is kind of redundant because Mediation is never legally binding...but nobody here would get that). Neither party has to comply with the decisions made. Of course if you the student want to continue to attend NCSU, you must comply but that choice is your own. If you feel that you have been slighted by the Board's decision you can appeal to the Board or you could sue the school but good luck with that one. You'd better have the $$.

Anyone who was dumb enough to post pics of themselves drinking in a dorm underage deserves what they get. They'll get their chance to explain it to Paul Cousins and they'd better have a damn good explination other than "that photo is a fake." I'd try a good honest, "I screwed up, I'm sorry. I'll take the classes and the punishment. Don't toss my retarded ass to the curb." Along with a healthy dose of "Yes, Sir. and No, Sir."

Of course the RA that wrote them up needs a talking to as well. She's going to have one helluva hard time dealing with all her residents now. Dumbass should have realized that there are some battles you fight and some you don't. I don't think this was a wise choice on her part...she's now got a lot of pissed off residents who are going to make her already shitty job even worse.

11/1/2005 4:04:36 PM

Quote :

"jesus noen stfu about the EXIF already"

??

Quote :

"(2) Original Not Obtainable. – No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; or"

You can get a warrant and seize the person's computer, digital camera and media cards.

And if you take a case to student "court" they effectively follow the same judicial order as regular court does, but I don't know how or if outside legal precidents apply.

These kids should get off for many many reasons.

11/1/2005 4:05:05 PM

11/1/2005 4:11:10 PM

they follow similar procedures (much like model UN follows UN procedure for debates) but the "student court" is nothing more than Mediation which is not legally binding. They're not going to allow lawyers or motions to supress evidence or any of that. They're going to look at what they have, decide if evidence is good or not, get people's stories and make a decision. The student can then decide to abide by that decision or withdraw from the University.

11/1/2005 4:12:38 PM

i don't see why people in this country make such a big deal about underage drinking anyway. yeah if you are being stupid then you get what you deserve. other than that why do law enforcement/ school officials go out of their way to find and punish underage drinkers when they should be focusing on teh real problems with society

11/1/2005 4:14:50 PM

Quote :

"The student can then decide to abide by that decision or withdraw from the University."

And if they withdraw the record will be removed or the punishment will be withdrawn? Like hell. The only reason the "punishment" would be withdrawn is b/c you're not here, if that punishment was being kicked out of the dorm or the university then well...

And if it's writing a paper or doing community service, they might not do anything if you don't do it anyway. But if you want it off your record or want to be accepted back in the dorm or the university it's "abide by the decision or abide by the decision". Getting the slap on the wrist punishments aren't the serious punishments, no one is crying for these people b/c they had to write a paper apologizing for their actions.

You have as much ground to argue totalitarianism should be accepted on the basis of "the participant began on his own will" as you do arguing about credit records.

11/1/2005 4:48:52 PM

Quote :

"You have as much ground to argue totalitarianism should be accepted on the basis of "the participant began on his own will" as you do arguing about credit records."

I'm sorry, so you're saying that if someone breakes the rules, gets caught and is punished that punishment is wrong because he/she has no choice in the matter and/or that their choices are difficult and/or force the one being punished to lose some benefit? I'm confused. Maybe I've missed the definition of punishment somewhere along the way.

11/1/2005 5:03:20 PM

I think what you've missed is the dangerous precedent that this sets for the use of digital photos as the ONLY evidence in student conduct violations.

11/1/2005 5:17:09 PM

^ yep, i'm confused as to why this amanda chick isn't going in front of cousins because of the picture posted in this thread.

11/1/2005 11:59:19 PM

so there were pics of kids with beer, they got in trouble. so now there are pics of the RA with beer. so either they both go down or they both get off free. I am no computer specialist, so i must think all the pics are real....

this is silly, the university should fire the RA for being a nasty beeeotch and repremand the RD for allowing the RA to be a nasty beeeotch.


And having that guy compare this to Abu Grab(sp?)... well I should just slap my dick across his face.. what a moron.

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 12:31 AM. Reason : Viva La Revalutione!]

11/2/2005 12:29:50 AM

If I wasn't working thursday, I'd go to the meeting with a sign with that pic of her on it.

That shit would be great.



This entire situation is ridiculous and should not even exist

11/2/2005 3:26:51 AM

I was in Germany at the time, I swear

11/2/2005 3:51:30 AM

the dick slap is for hot people only

11/2/2005 4:35:36 AM

Quick question: Did EVERYBODY in the photos get written up ... or just the ones holding clearly marked containers ... or anybody holding a container (i.e. cup) or ... what was the criteria?

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 5:57 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2005 5:57:32 AM

Quote :

"Of course the RA that wrote them up ... should have realized that there are some battles you fight and some you don't. I don't think this was a wise choice on her part...she's now got a lot of pissed off residents who are going to make her already shitty job even worse."

Agreed. There are many things that can be promoted later to deter future problems created by situations like these from coming up. One thing I’ve thought of is having University Housing (through RA training or otherwise) make it more explicit to RAs what types of evidence should warrant writing students up for violations so when one’s common sense and/or reasonable judgment fails a staff member it’ll stop right at the RA themselves or the levels above (RD or AD). However there is a LOT to look at before any reforms of a long-term nature come up or can be followed through with. So for now I guess I’m throwing one of my random ideas out there. [Note, I understand this is not complete]



Posters for Town Hall Available!
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jmsevits/alexander.htm
Help spread the word. I printed 275 and am putting them up over campus in the next few days. About 75-100 are up now.

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 6:47 AM. Reason : append for no dp]

11/2/2005 6:35:48 AM