Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#91

Post by kirykl »

Liquix wrote: post #29
raxxorrax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the western intelligence community actively created rumors of the Russia scare 2.0. This should have severe consequences on every level of relevant institutions.

Thanks for pointing this out.. I (like most other US citizens) have zero idea of what things are actually like in Russia. The news reminds us daily that Russia is a frozen hellscape filled with miserable savages, Russians are the 'bad guys' of choice in a disproportionate amount of high visibility movies and Netflix shows (Stranger Things season 3 comes to mind), our school system teaches kids next to nothing about t…

This youtube channel is a great way to get a picture of Russia from a foreigners perspective, its basically a vlog made by an English guy backpacking thru rural Russia and former Soviet countries.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxDZs_ltFFvn0FDHT6kmoXA

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#92

Post by [deleted] »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #58
cameldrv wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a gag order can be reasonable. Wiretaps with warrants usually have them. IMO, there should be no gag order, and the subject of the subpoena should be required to be notified and allowed to challenge the subpoena if it is issued without a judge. Gag orders should be allowed, but only if signed off on by a judge, and only for a reasonable amount of time to complete an investigation. If the government gets your inf…

> If the government gets your information, and decides not to bring charges, you should have the right to know about that at some point. Disagree. There are numerous cases where it takes multiple investigations to "get" a career criminal (think organized crime). If each batch of subpoenas or sealed warrants were exposed even when there is no charge this time, that gives said suspect a very nice opportunity to clean u…

[deleted]

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#93

Post by rjf72 »

kazagistar wrote: post #42
whatshisface wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that Snowden is a traitor is inseparable from the idea that the government and the people are separate entities, so that it's possible to betray one in service of the other. In that world Snowden would be a traitor to the US and everybody else at the NSA would be a traitor to the people. Obviously such a thing is only possible if democracy breaks down to the point where the government no longer expresses th…

While I think Snowden is a hero and whatnot, I think a black and white reasoning about being a traitor isn't particularly helpful. If anything, the concept of a traitor is a weak one, and shouldn't matter in discourse... it's not a harm or benefit in and of itself, and any celebration or punishment should rest on the extent of those harms and benefits themselves rather then some abstract and largely tribal concept li…

There's one very key reason that traitors, spies, 'turncoats', and others have been been so harshly punished throughout history (and present). It entails a violation of good faith and trust. That has nothing to do with 'tribalism'. Compare your reaction to the notion of a person killing a stranger to steal their watch, and another person killing their coworker to steal their watch. Exact same crime which is absurdly vile in itself, yet one is somehow vastly more repulsive.

And so I do fully support Snowden but only because the tremendous magnitude of bad behavior he revealed compensates for his treachery in doing so. By contrast I think individuals like "Reality Winner" simply lack ethics. She violated trust on what seemed to have been a very poorly conceived whim to reveal something of relatively minimal benefit to the public good. Indeed checking out the Wiki to see what came of her case I'm rather unsurprised to find that she apparently wrote in her diary of support for Bin Laden and the Taliban. [1]

In military and such organizations this is even more true as individuals take numerous oaths. And one who would break an oath without very substantial reason, is a person the world would be much better off without.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#94

Post by mirimir »

guelo wrote: post #63
RonaldSchleifer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your reporting on this, even if it just seems to chronicle the ever accelerating deconstruction of the Constitution. Even if American Constitutionalists were able to walk back these types of clear abuses on the social compact that keeps peace by two steps, it will only be without realizing that five steps were taken towards the progress of disassembling the Constitution. An old, irrelevant, outdated doc…

Not sure what you're talking about, the courts have ruled that NSLs are constitutional.

That's the problem. I'm almost 100% sure that, if you explained an NSL to Jefferson, he'd say that it clearly wasn't constitutional. Washington too, very likely. Adams, though, might have gone either way.

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#95

Post by Merrill »

hammock wrote: post #9

NSLs are not subpoenas. They are "administrative subpoenas," the difference being that they are not issued by a court and have no review or oversight by any judge or court officer. They are about as much a subpoena, as the FISA "court" is a court of law.

>"In most instances, a subpoena can be issued and signed by an attorney on behalf of a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice law. If the subpoena is for a high-level government official (such as the Governor, or agency head), then it must be signed by an administrative law judge. In some cases, a non-lawyer may issue a subpoena if acting on his or her own behalf (known as pro se representation)."

https://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/what-is-a-subp...

A judge's approval is not needed. The attorney (e.g. a prosecuting attorney) is the "court officer".

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#96

Post by GhettoMaestro »

kerkeslager wrote: post #81
GhettoMaestro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the government gets your information, and decides not to bring charges, you should have the right to know about that at some point. Disagree. There are numerous cases where it takes multiple investigations to "get" a career criminal (think organized crime). If each batch of subpoenas or sealed warrants were exposed even when there is no charge this time, that gives said suspect a very nice opportunity to clean u…

> Disagree. There are numerous cases where it takes multiple investigations to "get" a career criminal (think organized crime). If each batch of subpoenas or sealed warrants were exposed even when there is no charge this time, that gives said suspect a very nice opportunity to clean up loose ends. Subpoenas are only supposed to be issued if there's a reasonable belief that the subpoena will find evidence of criminal…

I see your point. It opens a door for a lot of bullshit.

Really, I suppose I am advocating less for secret subpoenas and more for secret warrants. If someone really has a reason to keep something concealed in the interest in justice, then they should have no problem with a Judge signing off on it, under seal of course.

And if the secret warrant is a part of a series against a suspect, again I think a reasonable Judge could be convinced of the necessity of keeping the ongoing investigative activities concealed for the time being.

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#97

Post by eatbitseveryday »

cwkoss wrote: post #84
mirimir wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for writing it. This is certainly disturbing news. And it's great to know about it. But I'm left feeling hopeless. Because we've been fighting this bullshit for decades, with little to show for it. And personally, there's nothing actionable. So it goes.

Minor method of resistance: whenever you get a resume that lists work with the FBI, put it directly into the circular file.

You realize people self-report their work history on their resume? I can omit something and it isn’t a liability for anyone.

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#98

Post by mirimir »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #97
cwkoss wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor method of resistance: whenever you get a resume that lists work with the FBI, put it directly into the circular file.

You realize people self-report their work history on their resume? I can omit something and it isn’t a liability for anyone.

Lying on a resume may get you fired. Or so I've heard.

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#99

Post by wallace_f »

chrischen wrote: post #71
Porthos9K wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent and deeply disturbing article, but all I can do in response right now is suspect that if J. Edgar Hoover were still alive to see what shenanigans the modern FBI gets up to when nobody is looking, he would wholeheartedly approve. It's obvious that the agency has learned all the wrong lessons from the exposure of COINTELPRO. The FBI is still The House J. Edgar Built, and Congress ought to tear it d…

You can't assume that Hoover would have been against increasing the power available to himself and his agency.

No this is right. If left-, right-politics have taught me anything, it is that your personal business, emails, and bedroom behavior are the concern of the federal government and its electorate--at least the 50% that agree with it.

Re: Secret FBI Subpoenas Scoop Up Personal Data from Scores of Companies

#100

Post by Porthos9K »

wallace_f wrote: post #99
chrischen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't assume that Hoover would have been against increasing the power available to himself and his agency.

No this is right. If left-, right-politics have taught me anything, it is that your personal business, emails, and bedroom behavior are the concern of the federal government and its electorate--at least the 50% that agree with it.

Hoover was running his little fiefdom with minimal oversight under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Both sides used him, and doubtless both sides feared the dirt he had on them and what he might reveal if called to account by Congress.

Kompromat might be a foreign word, but it's hardly a foreign concept.

Post reply on HN