PDA

View Full Version : I think I have entered the twilight zone



spibou
April 23rd, 2011, 06:01 PM
At 16:26 UTC, 2011-4-23 I downloaded http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/08/kelly_v_california.wmv .Note that this is the U.S. supreme court website. What I got is a home movie :D :D :D
The other video file which can be seen at media page (http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/media.aspx) also doesn't seem...normal.

Am I hallucinating or has someone cracked the SCOTUS website ?

Thewhistlingwind
April 23rd, 2011, 06:36 PM
Unless that was intentional, they appear to have been rooted, yes. (You could always try running an AV over that movie BTW.)

EDIT: And I quote, "unless that was intentional"......

dmizer
April 23rd, 2011, 06:43 PM
Not a hack. Video was used as evidence in this case: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/kell120707.htm

spibou
April 23rd, 2011, 06:48 PM
Unless that was intentional, they appear to have been rooted, yes.
If it's intentional then it must have come from some disgruntled employee who's tired of his job. Reminds me of this (http://www.emmaclarke.com/fun/mind-the-gap/spoof-london-underground-announcements).

(You could always try running an AV over that movie BTW.)
What does this mean?

Thewhistlingwind
April 23rd, 2011, 06:52 PM
If it's intentional then it must have come from some disgruntled employee who's tired of his job. Reminds me of this (http://www.emmaclarke.com/fun/mind-the-gap/spoof-london-underground-announcements).


What does this mean?

Or evidence, see above.

And my suggestion was to run an antivirus over the movie, as I doubt someone would root a high profile site to upload some random netizens home movies without a purpose for it.

Rasa1111
April 23rd, 2011, 06:53 PM
Another demonstration of our systems incompetence.? lol
Will check it out.... ;)

maybe someone's cracked the site.. and you're hallucinating! :lol: :P

edit: hmm. dmizer seems to have spoiled the party! lol :P

spibou
April 23rd, 2011, 06:53 PM
Not a hack. Video was used as evidence in this case: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/kell120707.htm
Ok, that explains it. And for the other video the explanation can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_v._Harris).

dmizer
April 23rd, 2011, 06:58 PM
edit: hmm. dmizer seems to have spoiled the party! lol :P

Protip:
Research first, speculate later. ;)

spibou
April 23rd, 2011, 07:03 PM
Or evidence, see above.
This seems to be the case. But they should have included an explanation to that effect. When I saw the page with the videos I was expecting they would be of a court session.


And my suggestion was to run an antivirus over the movie, as I doubt someone would root a high profile site to upload some random netizens home movies without a purpose for it.
How running an antivirus would be useful on Linux ? I've just had a look at the Wikipedia page on the WMV format and it doesn't look as if it's a programming language (unlike Postscript say) or allows one to call arbitrary executables. So how would a WMV virus cause harm on Linux ?

Thewhistlingwind
April 23rd, 2011, 10:05 PM
How running an antivirus would be useful on Linux ? I've just had a look at the Wikipedia page on the WMV format and it doesn't look as if it's a programming language (unlike Postscript say) or allows one to call arbitrary executables. So how would a WMV virus cause harm on Linux ?

It wouldn't cause harm in Linux. The point was to scan for a windows virus. As that would be the target OS if someone bothered. And I wouldn't be so sure, there's been Ogg files that crashed Linux. (Supposedly.) Basically, I was saying that one way to tell if it was rooted would be to see if they uploaded a virus.

NMFTM
April 24th, 2011, 12:24 AM
I thought that in the US you weren't allowed to record court cases involving criminal charges. Which is why you always see watercolor sketches of the court case when it's on the news.

dmizer
April 24th, 2011, 12:51 AM
I thought that in the US you weren't allowed to record court cases involving criminal charges.
It depends on the jurisdiction.


Which is why you always see watercolor sketches of the court case when it's on the news.
Neither of the two videos referred to in the OP are recorded in the court room. Both of the videos were merely entered as evidence.

spibou
April 24th, 2011, 01:50 PM
I thought that in the US you weren't allowed to record court cases involving criminal charges. Which is why you always see watercolor sketches of the court case when it's on the news.
During supreme court oral arguments they only discuss legal stuff , the original accused or witnesses do not make an appearance so I can't imagine any practical reason why court appointed persons could not videotape the oral arguments. Having said that I haven't seen any video recordings although you can download audio with the oral arguments.