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

21–30 of 138 posts

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

#21

Post by deogeo »

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…

I did not want to imply it's not a problem, but to highlight how untrustworthy the New York Times was, and still is.

Compare this with their coverage of a different revelation of state secrets: the US pressuring the UK to sell out their healthcare in the UK-US trade negotiations. They focus entirely on how it's "associated with a Russian disinformation campaign", with a tiny little addendum that "the leaks seem accurate".

They like to present themselves as trustworthy and neutral, and indeed their coverage is very accurate. But their selection of stories to cover, and angles to cover them from, hides a tremendous bias (which doesn't neatly map to US party lines, as the examples I gave illustrate).

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

#22

Post by davidw »

RandomTisk wrote: post #20
davidw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The orange man got caught attempting to use the powers of his office to cheat in the upcoming election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...

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

#23

Post by whorleater »

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…

You can avoid committing that crime by refusing to speak to agents.

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

#24

Post by mdorazio »

thanksgiving wrote: post #15
snowwrestler wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>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.

This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty.

But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as little as possible. The classic YoutTube video [1] on this topic is worth a watch if people haven't seen it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

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

#26

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem.

It's not as big of a problemas abuse of power by a federal institution that directed genocide and, incidentally, which that other federal institution answers to, which makes it strange that that's exactly what you are using it to minimize.

> Orange man didn't create this system.

The manner in which Donald Trump has corrupted the administration of the executive branch and for which is defenders—includig those who can't bring themselves to a direct defense by only engage in the kind do distraction you are engaging in now—are desperate to set the precedent of total absence of accountability is one of greatest dangers to democratic-republican government in the history of the nation. Certainly, it builds on a history tracing back at least through the Nixon pardon, the relative lack of accountability in Iran-Contra, the Republican Congress so burnt out from a failed attempt to impeach Clinton for lying about sex that it couldn't muster up accountability for a war waged not only without Congressional action, but against direct Congressional denial of authority, and scores of abuses, including bad faith in making determinations Congress required in the Iraq AUMF, war crimes, torture, etc., directed at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, etc.

But we're running out of opportunities to draw a line in executive abuses of power before there is no more capacity to restrain.

> Obama [...] did pardon Chelsea Manning.

In fact, he did not. He commuted Manning's sentence, which is a very different thing. Not that I see how the issue would be relevant to the rest of the discussion either way.

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

#27

Post by Consultant32452 »

j_m_b wrote: post #2

So secret courts free from alternative adversarial opinions are abused? Shocking!

Don't worry, I'm sure Biden will publicly be held to account for this during the next Democratic debate, and then Trump in the later Presidential debates.. Just kidding, this is going to disappear from public discourse just like the recent revelations that the government consistently lied to us about the Afghanistan war.

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

#28

Post by [deleted] »

bilbo0s wrote: post #3
j_m_b wrote: post #2

So secret courts free from alternative adversarial opinions are abused? Shocking!

If you're a believer in rights you shouldn't even play their game. There shouldn't even be secret courts. Debating their integrity almost glosses over the real, more fundamental, problem. Secret courts themselves, their very existence, are abuses. That's just my opinion, but I really do think you start down a dark path when you create this type of judicial organ.

[deleted]

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

#29

Post by frickinLasers »

dragonwriter wrote: post #26
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…

> Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem. It's not as big of a problemas abuse of power by a federal institution that directed genocide and, incidentally, which that other federal institution answers to, which makes it strange that that's exactly what you are using it to minimize. > Orange man didn't create this system. The manner in which…

> a federal institution that directed genocide

What are you referring to?

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

#30

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN