Pi-Search Result:

search string = "gary"
20-bit binary equivalent = 00111000011001011001

search string found at binary index = 3379413760
binary pi : 1011110000111000011001011001000000000110110111001001101001101101
binary string: 00111000011001011001
character pi : miotjfsaks.,gary_av,sivr-qpt.dlq,bczh
character string: gary

Pi-Search Result:

search string = "mel"
15-bit binary equivalent = 011010010101100

search string found at binary index = 2506512872
binary pi : 0001111001101001010110000000000000010010010101000100010000011101
binary string: 011010010101100
character pi : nfpmvx,,xhz:p;mel__drthpn:p.xobmthrdp,
character string: mel

Pi-Search Result:

search string = "anna"
20-bit binary equivalent = 00001011100111000001

search string found at binary index = 2352743612
binary pi : 1101000100001011100111000001000000000011001010000101110110001001
binary string: 00001011100111000001
character pi : mk.;mdodbybaseoa;qanna__yhkvd;dtvxmi.f
character string: anna

Pi-Search Result:

search string = "ats"
15-bit binary equivalent = 000011010010011

search string found at binary index = 753798096
binary pi : 0110010100001101001001100000000000001000010001001111011100010001
binary string: 000011010010011
character pi : bvsi;:_:hcmnm:ceats__bbd;,hr,rnvsg_;_j
character string: ats

Pi-Search Result:

search string = "larry"
25-bit binary equivalent = 0110000001100101001011001

search string found at binary index = 1998405976
binary pi : 0010001001100000011001010010110010000101010000011001101000110011
binary string: 0110000001100101001011001
character pi : w_a:b_pjbre-pzpqblarryajashyrxwfz,j:jm
character string: larry

H2.myhead {
position: relative;
top: 5px;
left: 5px;
font: italic 72pt times, serif;
color: #FFCC00
}

H2.myhead36 {
position: relative;
top: 5px;
left: 5px;
font: italic 36pt times, serif;
color: #FFCC00
}

H2.myhead24 {
position: relative;
top: 5px;
left: 5px;
font: italic 24pt times, serif;
color: #FFCC00
}

H2.myhead18 {
position: relative;
top: 5px;
left: 5px;
font: italic 18pt times, serif;
color: #FFCC00
}

<h2 class=myhead>This is 72 point</h2>
<h2 class=myhead36>This is 36 point</h2>
<h2 class=myhead24>This is 24 point</h2>
<h2 class=myhead18>This is 18 point</h2>

Map Of
Central Command Area

This is the area assigned to the Army's Central Command. To see a larger version of the map, click on it.

<div style="width:350px;text-align:left;
padding:5px;background-color:#CCCC99;
border:5px solid black;font-size:12px;padding:10px;">
<A HREF="#"
onClick="docWin=window.open('http://home.corninglink.com/gwms/centralcommandbig.htm',
'myWindow1','resizable,scrollbars=yes,width=841,height=750');
return false;">
<IMG NAME="Map Of Central Command Area" SRC="http://home.corninglink.com/gwms/centralcommandsmall.jpg"
WIDTH=280 HEIGHT=250 alt="central command area"><h3 style="position: relative;top: -200px;font: normal normal normal 30pt Haettenschweiler;color: #FF3300;margin-left: 50px;"><b>Map Of<br> Central Command Area</b></h3></a>This is the area assigned to the Army's Central Command. To see a larger version of the map, click on it.
</div>

<TABLE STYLE="filter:shadow(color=gray)">
<TR><TD>
<h2><i>This text is shadowed!</i></h2>
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

<table width="200" style="filter:SHADOW">
<tr>
<td>
<span style="font-family: Arial Black;
font-size:32px;
color: lime;">
Colored Shadowed Text
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

Douglas Cronyn continues the debate:

Dear indymedia folks,

The previous transmission I intended only to send to Amy and inadvertently sent it to the group in replying. That said, I feel the need to expand a bit on my views on the "pull or not" debate over Amy's picture.

I can hardly disagree more with the intractable stance SC-IMC has evidently decided to take. I am appalled at the shoddy journalism that is being engaged in in defending SC-IMC's position, excepting Bradley's response.

First off, nothing in the press release you and the participants in the event received would lead me to think that in volunteering one's body for this event would lead to a solo shot being posted on the web. The making of a large peace sign was what was called for.

Beyond that, saying that pulling the disputed shot would be "censorship" is an appalling exaggeration. The words that come to mind for me are "discretion, respect, and taste." Does indymedia SC not see how the treatment of this issue engenders mistrust toward you? In thinking of precedents, this would be one to consider. Is building trust in sources not a key point of journalism? It would make me think twice about how much SC-IMC, or at least those involved in putting this piece together, could be trusted for any story secretive in nature that could arise in the future. Going from a purely fear of libel angel, maybe you would just say "oh you didn't say that explicitly would be off the record" or such. I turn to indymedia to rise above this sort of trash, not degrade itself to Enquirer like standards of publishing or not.

Finally, the gender dynamics of the seeminly all male SC-IMC recording and reporting on a mostly female nude picture needs consideration as well. Are you absolutedly insensitive to the potential objectification laying below this type of scenario? If people want to pose in the nude for all to see, great and all power to them, but if not, then this needs to be respected, especially in a collaborative effort like that on Bonny Dune beach between newsmakers and publishers. How far should collaboration go- "take your clothes off and shut up?"

It is unfortuanate that this flap has turned an otherwise beautiful event into some sort of webporn. Is this the standard and community accountability you expect for yourselves, the sort of misrepresentation? I appreciate the time and dedication that you guys and indymedia in general have done, Brad, Aeronius, etc. Hopefully we can all learn from this experience, though the damage is done........

respectfully,

Douglas Cronyn

This is a crock, Doug. Describing Van's work as e-porn is offensive and stupid. The montage is not porn, instead is a good picture of what the demo was like if you went. I'm sorry Amy didn't like it, but if you advertise for coverage you have a responsibility to behave in a way that you'll like when you see it published.

In my humble opinion.

--Gary

fascinating debate.
the most unsettling aspect of the discussion however is the lack of female voices other than amy's. lisa, please chime in if you're out there.
as a journalist, i side with van and ted inasmuch as i feel that censorship should be avoided at all costs regardless of a personal relationship that may exist between reporter/subject.
and because my opinion as a journalist has leverage against my opinion as a sensitive person who doesn't want anyone's feelings to be hurt, my feeling, in the end, is as stated above.
i think it is fair to say that had there been more men at the event, we would have seen more nude shots of men in the collage. yes?
anyway, it's a moot point.
setting a precedent, however, is not. thank you ted, van, for elaborating on this. if we set a precedent in which subjects who have been reported on or photographed can simply request that we remove the photo/article, then we've essentially decided to become discretionary over content based on criteria which we a) have not agreed upon and b) are contrary to the basic tenants of free speech upon which this organization was founded.
thank you all for taking this issue seriously.
-aaronius

Oh, and thank you gary and doug. your recent engagement is much appreciated.
-a
(and aaronius quotes my note, above "this is a crock...")

At 05:51 PM 1/22/2003 +0000, Doug Cronyn wrote:

>First off, nothing in the press release you and the participants in the
>event received would lead me to think that in volunteering one's body for
>this event would lead to a solo shot being posted on the web. The making
>of a large peace sign was what was called for.

Take it up with the reporter in the appropriate forum - either private
email, or the public comment threads beneath the articles.

We just provide the means for publication. We're a portal, that's all. We
don't give assignments, we don't pay, we don't apply selection criteria
other than judging under-reportedness and general newsworthiness to Santa
Cruz. The article as published satisfies both. The specific image in
question is only a fragment of the article published, even if it were to
fail either of the above tests.

>The words that come to mind for me are "discretion, respect, and
>taste." Does indymedia SC not see how the treatment of this issue
>engenders mistrust toward you? In thinking of precedents, this would be
>one to consider. Is building trust in sources not a key point of journalism?

See above. SCIMC does not deal with sources, does not edit or verify
reports, does not take ownership of or responsibility for articles
posted. We deal with the audience, and the reporters. Reporters are
responsible for their own reports, and the audience is expected to act like
adults and decide for themselves how much they trust any one report or
reporter.

Likewise, sources must decide for themselves what reporters to trust, how
much, under what conditions.

However, as publishers we also respect people's right to privacy and do not
allow our service to be abused. If someone published a peeping-tom photo
taken from someone's bedroom, we'd remove it.

However, people have no right to privacy in a public place. What do you
think "public" means? It means you share access to it, but you don't
control it - only your own participation.

The "trust" of which you speak, is the same "trust" that the White House
has in CNN not to embarrass them with coverage of certain "activities" of
Washington. The same "trust" that the city council of Santa Cruz have in
the Sentinel to not report the concerns of activists regarding the
Council's regular legislature favoring the business community over the public.

We don't work for you. We don't work for them. Technically, we don't work
for anybody. We are volunteers, serving the audience and the
reporters. No one else.

> It would make me think twice about how much SC-IMC, or at least those
> involved in putting this piece together, could be trusted for any story
> secretive in nature that could arise in the future.

Take it up with the reporter privately, or in the public comment threads.

> Going from a purely fear of libel angel, maybe you would just say "oh
> you didn't say that explicitly would be off the record" or such.
> I turn to indymedia to rise above this sort of trash, not degrade
> itself to Enquirer like standards of publishing or not.

You speculate over something we "might" do, even when what we've actually
done is the opposite, and then you criticize us as if we're guilty of your
speculative action? How slimy is that?

>Finally, the gender dynamics of the seeminly all male SC-IMC recording and
>reporting on a mostly female nude picture needs consideration as
>well. Are you absolutedly insensitive to the potential objectification
>laying below this type of scenario?

Any "potential objectification" is in the eye of the beholder. The SCIMC
is a single-issue activist organization, and that issue is freedom of the
press (and related sub-issues of public empowerment towards that end). We
are NOT a women's liberation group, nor as a group do we wish to be
(individual members may contribute to such causes on their own time, using
their own resources.) We publish news, and if some people only view it
because they want to stare at tits, that's their loss. AND NOT OUR FUCKING
PROBLEM. I think you know where you can shove your Thought Police.

> If people want to pose in the nude for all to see, great and all power
> to them, but if not, then this needs to be respected,

If not, they shouldn't pose nude in public in the first place. Especially
not at a public relations event. Especially if they haven't asked the
photographer for privacy, or attempted to hide from the camera, or cover
themselves. Especially if they've made activist-related poses and gestures
at the camera. Pretty complicated, huh?

>It is unfortuanate that this flap has turned an otherwise beautiful event
>into some sort of webporn.

It is unfortunate that you can only see tits and ass, and not peace
activists. You see only porn, and not news. Ordinarily I pity people like
you, for what you miss out on. But at least they enjoy what little they
see, and everyone's happy.

But you only see these pictures as porn, and you don't even LIKE what you
see, AND you want to blame us for this? That's beyond sad. It's pathetic.

Who's "objectifying" women now? Bloody hell, we're treating them WITH
respect by allowing the reporter to show them naked entirely outside of a
sexual context! We're demonstrating that women's bodies can be worthy of
more than porn - they can be newsworthy, in an entirely unpornographic manner.

If anyone's repressing women's sexuality, it's you with your insistence
that they cannot be looked upon in their natural state WITHOUT it being
pornographic.

Maybe you should stop looking. No one's twisting your arm to visit the
website, you know. It's private property, and you are our guest. If these
pictures upset you, please restrict your browsing to the Sentinel. They'll
keep you safe.

> Is this the standard and community accountability you expect for
> yourselves, the sort of misrepresentation?

What misrepresentation? SHOW ME HOW WE HAVE MISREPRESENTED OURSELVES. Or
did you just make bad assumptions?

> I appreciate the time and dedication that you guys and indymedia in
> general have done, Brad, Aeronius, etc. Hopefully we can all learn from
> this experience, though the damage is done........

Anything damaged by this article, such as people's unwarranted expectations
that we hold their will, rather than the will of the audience, supreme
needs to be destroyed anyway.

We are not your friends - we are media activists. Truth is our first
loyalty, not anyone's Victorian sensibilities. Fairness and accuracy are
our standards, not the maintenance of anyone's public image. This is why
we exist.

Get that through your head - preferably before you cast slander and empty,
vague accusations.

>respectfully,

Bullshit. You don't respect us, or you wouldn't demand that we serve your
Puritanical radical-women's-lib thought-police agenda. You don't
understand the meaning of the word "respect".



/\oO/\ Vangelis <vangelis@qnis.net> - Life is my religion; the world is
my altar.
Tower of High Sorcery, Scott's Valley.
PGP encrypted mail preferred, key ID: 0x475EF91F

A good summary from Ted Coopman:

Man, tough call, but journalism is a tough profession,
even if you are an amature. I think we can see the
issues involved with journalists getting too friendly
with public figures.

Another issue with the internet is that unlike TV or
print, where a physical retraction would be
impossible, the internet can be altered after the
fact. Whether or not one should do it is another
matter.

The obvious solution would have been for this group to
take it owns photos, bar other photographers, and then
distribute the shots of the group.

I am truely sorry that Van has been put in this
situation, since it was a fluke that he knew the
subject. I also have sympathy for the subject, as she
had no idea that her local public display would become
public in a global media sense. This ties into a class
I'm taking but I won't bore you with the theoretical
implications.

I think we need to add an addendum to the axiom of
"never put anything in an email you don't want to see
printed on the front page of the New York Times or
have to explain to a prosecutor in court." That would
be "never do anything in public that you don't want to
see reproduced and posted all over the internet."

I have to stick to my original post on the issue. I
don't see how we could pull or alter it without a loss
of credibility and setting a dangerous prescedent.
What happens if we pull/alter this picture and then
get another similar request and refuse to pull it? All
they have to do is point to the first incident and
we're toast. Bias, hypocrits, and perhaps liable.

Chalk this up to lessons learned (on both sides).

As a provisonal member, I have no offical vote, but I
have to say I would be opposed to altering the post.

-TED

--- Vangelis <vangelis@qnis.net> wrote:
> Little bit of a follow-up.
>
> At 07:00 PM 1/20/2003 +0000, Amy Courtney wrote:
> >Yes I (we) went to a public beach with media in tow
> to be photographed,
> >but I (we) did it as a group for a group shot for
> the purpose of creating
> >an image of peace. I (we) did not go for the
> purposes of being filmed or
> >photographed up close and alone.
>
> Likewise, I went for the purpose of recording the
> event. The individual
> shots are, in my opinion, an interesting and
> informative part of that
> record for people who would like to have been there
> but could not attend
> (which is the heart of journalism, if you ask me.)
> The pictures only show
> what was in plain sight of anyone who might have
> attended. (As opposed to,
> say, if I was hiding spy cameras in a women's
> bathroom.)
>
> >I (and perhaps others) was (were) under the
> assumption that the same care
> >had been taken in organizing the second event and
> that all journalists
> >present were informed to honor that purpose.
>
> Nope. My only information on the event was this
> announcement:
>
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2861&group=webcast
>
> And while I stood on the cliff with participants
> walking past me, no one
> said a word like "So you're not going to take
> closeups, right?" In fact
> one woman even requested it (the side shot of the
> woman holding a
> camera.) And another of the people shown is
> actually my friend Catherine
> whom I showed the pics to later at lunch, just for
> fun (she was also my
> ride that morning.) Even though she groaned in
> embarrasment, she made no
> objections.
>
> > It may not be common practice to ask permission
> to use an upclose, solo
> > nude shot, but it does seem to be the respectful
> and courteous thing to
> > do, particularly when dealing with the internet
> where anything posted
> > becomes fair game for anyone and everyone to cut,
> paste, manipulate and
> > repost for their own purposes.
>
> As a rule, I don't ask permission for images
> captured in public space. The
> burden of any such requests should fall on the
> subject.
>
> >2) I was flashing the sign to Van, a friend, not
> Van the journalist
>
> People often tell me things in confidence.
> Traditionally these things are
> prefaced with something like "So, off the record?"
> Alas, no such agreement
> was requested.
>
> >under the assumption that a photo of us playing on
> the beach was neither
> >appropriate nor news worthy, the latter of which he
> seemed to agree with
> >in his tongue and cheek e-mail he sent to me
> entitled "Blackmail"- wherein
> >he wrote that I should not worry, that these
> pictures were not news worthy.
>
> This is entirely true. The email joke was the first
> thing I did with the
> photos, because it was quick and easy. At the time,
> I expected to find no
> journalistic value in the close-ups. Later as I
> reviewed the rest of the
> material I'd shot and compiled the collage, it
> occurred to me that some of
> the closeups were well suited to telling the whole
> story of the
> morning. So I changed my mind on a couple of them,
> though many others were
> still left unused, including I believe some of the
> ones I had sent to
> Amy. I used what I felt was sufficient, without
> crossing into art/porn
> (nudity for nudity's sake).
>
> I could have sent a follow-up email, noting my
> change of plans. I didn't,
> for no particular reason. Just as I sent the
> initial "blackmail" email and
> pics for no particular reason (except idle humor,
> and there was no humor in
> my change of plans).
>
> I admit that I never sought permission, nor intended
> to seek it. A reply
> that happened to indicate discomfort with the photos
> was received, but
> unfortunately not until after I'd already published
> the report. Had I
> received it earlier, I probably would have blurred
> her face out just as a
> favor since her personal identity wasn't really
> significant to the story,
> though with her having become a recent celebrity
> activist I think it an
> interesting detail.
>
> >Again, I am fine with the back side photos being
> posted, it is just the
> >frontal shot that creeps me out a bit.
>
> If either SFIMC or SCIMC would like my permission to
> blur the face out on
> that one pic, or requests a modified version from me
> with that change, I
> will grant either.
>
>
>
> /\oO/\ Vangelis <vangelis@qnis.net> - Life is my
> religion; the world is
> my altar.
> Tower of High Sorcery, Scott's Valley.
> PGP encrypted mail preferred, key ID: 0x475EF91F

Editorial says: Public figure in a public place. Leave it up.

We can take an official vote of the collective if folks think its needed.

joe
====
[quoted emails snipped]

At 04:29 PM 1/20/2003 -0800, Bradley Allen wrote:
>I'm almost surprised that the photos and the comments on the SC-IMC list
>haven't been reposted on numerous IMCs
>already.

Yeah, no shit. I expected accusations that SCIMC is publishing porn and
exploiting women, by now. Not from Amy, just the radical women's lib
sector in general. Nothing on Global, huh? I'm insulted.

I'm gonna have to work harder, I guess. My personal goal is getting the
SCIMC either sued or picketted by year's end.

B-)

(Dude, just imagine the publicity that would get! You want
"outreach"? There's outreach for ya.)

I'm with Van, the more people you piss-off, the better
job you are doing. If we could possibly piss-off
everyone, then we would have made it as a real news
site.

Concerning the blog question, sure, re-post away, and
I appreciate you asking permission, even though this
is technically a public forum. I think this is an
important debate and something every IMC should think
about. We jump on mainstream media for hidden (and not
so hidden bias) or preferential treatment, so we
should look to keep our own house in order. So far, I
think we have a policy on posts that keeps viewpoint
bias out of the editorial process (as opposed to
geographic bias which we are up-front about).

-TED
[quotes snipped]

Doug Croynon weighs in late:

Amy,

I can understand you wanting to pull the shot. I was under similar impressions as you regarding pictures. On the permission form, I only put Sarah's name on it as far as publishing goes. Looks like they're going to keep it, though, and are intent on pissing folks off, whoever it may be....He could easily have asked you for permission...If it's any consolation, it is a nice picture of you...Is this going to make you hesitant in the future to contact indymedia for stories???

d.


[long quote from previous emails snipped]

--
Neil Schwartzman, peteMOSS Publications
My hot teenaged toner cartridge does not need an herbal extension to her
Nigerian horsie mortgage, no matter what you say. Thanks anyway.
<http://spamNEWS.com><http://peteMOSS.com><http://spamFLAMES.com>

Hello, gwms@corninglink.com After some searching, I found your web site on the Internet.


I used Google and typed in the keyword "Flooring". A very long list of websites came up.


Did you know that if I type in "Flooring", using the Netscape, or Internet Explorer browser I could be immediately sent to YOUR WEBSITE!


I would not get a long list of companies to choose from, I would be connected directly to your website! Our technology can do this for you, It's called keyword ownership.


You have seen keyword ownership before, it's where a company asks you to use their keyword on AOL, then you are directed to their website. This is an application of our technology at work!


If you would you like to explore the possibilities of keyword ownership in our network of 30 million daily U.S. users, please respond with your contact name, website url and best time to reach.


Thank You- God Bless


For More Info...


Click Here For More Information (mailto:keyword-property@x5g.com)






Click Here For Permanent Removal (mailto:nomoreinfo@x5g.com)

Just saw a bit about a concept car show on Tech TV: a talking car.

The best part: the driver says, "Shut Up!"

and the car says, "Uh, OK, if you need me, I'll be in the glove compartment."

Nice to hear a car with a sense of humor.

Map Of
Central Command Area

This is the area assigned to the Army's Central Command. To see a larger version of the map, click on it.

<div style="width:350px;text-align:left;
padding:5px;background-color:#CCCC99;
border:5px solid black;font-size:12px;padding:10px;">
<A HREF="#" onClick="docWindow=
window.open('http://216.136.200.194/auction/Jan/20031206338584484663064.jpg',
'myWindow1','toolbar=no,width=633,
height=583, left=10,top=10 directories=no,
status=yes,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,menubar=no');
docWindow.focus();return false"><IMG NAME="Map Of Central Command Area" SRC="http://216.136.200.194/auction/Jan/20031207760986743716573.jpg"
WIDTH=280 HEIGHT=250 alt="central command area"><h3 style="position: relative;top: -200px;font: normal normal normal 30pt Haettenschweiler;color: #FF3300;margin-left: 50px;"><b>Map Of<br> Central Command Area</b></h3></a>This is the area assigned to the Army's Central Command. To see a larger version of the map, click on it.
</div>