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

We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 138 posts

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#11

Post by tegfdsc »

deogeo wrote: post #6

Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f... Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.

"Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece?"

No.

"They used to know better"

Wrong again:

1. They should have published it.

2. That article from the Bush era revealed something. The article posted here today is an editorial that doesn't reveal anything new. Instead it discusses a report from a government agency.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#12

Post by frockington1 »

JPKab wrote: post #8
deogeo wrote: post #6

Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f... Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.

Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show. We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war that cost trillions an…

Democrats need to realize that if this is pushed under the rug it will give evil orange man even more credibility and fire power about the "Deep State". If they push this under the rug this will be a huge rally cry (literally in the case of orange man) for 2020.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#13

Post by ailideex »

snowwrestler wrote: post #7
mc32 wrote: post #5

If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary citizens. Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national. Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, t…

It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a specific investigation. You always have the…

> It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents.

Just because something is illegal does not mean it should be illegal - and as far as dumb ass things to be illegal goes I think lying to the FBI is high up on that list.

There is already obstruction of justice which is significantly more reasonable a crime to charge someone with and if your lying was not obstruction of justice I don't see why the FBI should get to jail you for it.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#14

Post by CWuestefeld »

deogeo wrote: post #6

Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f... Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.

The election isn't for another year. What's the horizon that you're going to make us wait for?

This question has nothing to do with Trump and the election. It's about the misbehavior of our law enforcement and courts. That's a present danger, and important to address ASAP.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#15

Post by thanksgiving »

snowwrestler wrote: post #7
mc32 wrote: post #5

If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary citizens. Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national. Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, t…

It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents. Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a specific investigation. You always have the…

> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”.

The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something to hang me by if you let me ramble for hours.

> You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie).

I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing.

What we have to remember is it is just a job for law enforcement and prosecutors. It is best to think of them as machines that act on some kind of feedback loop (incentives). We cannot directly make improvements to the machines. We have to try to change the incentive structure if we want any change in how the machines work.

So the question is: what are the incentives and what needs changing?

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#16

Post by ailideex »

deogeo wrote: post #6

Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f... Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.

> Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece?

Why?

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#19

Post by davidw »

JPKab wrote: post #8
deogeo wrote: post #6

Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to publish this piece? They used to know better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-f... Edit: I was being extremely sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would be enough of a clue.

Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show. We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war that cost trillions an…

They're planning for his children to be his successors on the throne. He doesn't seem interested in the constitutional term limits, either, and it's hard to see how you lose an election if you are free to cheat in it. I think the threat is real, and I've been around for a while. This isn't just the latest partisan spat.

That said, yes, you're correct about the FBI and surveillance stuff and all that.

Also: the NYT is part and parcel of the "shit show". Endless reporting about Her Emails. We've already forgotten that the orange man regularly uses unsecured personal cell phones to conduct business free from oversight, since that came out ... let's see... last week.

Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

#20

Post by RandomTisk »

davidw wrote: post #19
JPKab wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show. We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war that cost trillions an…

They're planning for his children to be his successors on the throne. He doesn't seem interested in the constitutional term limits, either, and it's hard to see how you lose an election if you are free to cheat in it. I think the threat is real, and I've been around for a while. This isn't just the latest partisan spat. That said, yes, you're correct about the FBI and surveillance stuff and all that. Also: the NYT is…

By cheating, you're referring to the 17 'unbiased' errors, 100% of which somehow simultaneously helped the Hillary campaign and pushed a sham special council investigation and impeachment on the people, all the while the media was pinky swearing there was more evidence than there actually was, right?
Post reply on HN