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

31–40 of 138 posts

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

#31

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#32

Post by Craighead »

spaginal wrote: post #4
j_m_b wrote: post #2

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

Not only that, a secret court setup specifically for foreign surveillance was used to spy domestically. It’s why you don’t give governments secret toys and extra judicial powers, the people that run it are worst than toddlers, and more abusive and dishonest.

Domestically on someone in tuned with foreign intelligence.

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

#33

Post by chmod775 »

frockington1 wrote: post #9
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…

The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.

I don't think you can lie accidentally (it wouldn't be lying), bit you'd have to convince a jury you just didn't know any better or misspoke.

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

#35

Post by creaghpatr »

chmod775 wrote: post #33
frockington1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.

I don't think you can lie accidentally (it wouldn't be lying), bit you'd have to convince a jury you just didn't know any better or misspoke.

More likely you would be pressured to cooperate under a plea bargain to avoid getting Martha Stewart'd.

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

#36

Post by adolph »

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…

Clinton was impeached by the house. He was not convicted and removed from office by the senate. While "lying about sex" may have sounded innocuous at the time, in a post #metoo and Epstein world the behavior has different cultural meaning. In addition, Clinton's impeachable behavior went beyond lying about his own behavior, but witness tampering. In of itself Clinton's behavior might have been a personal matter or an HR issue, but the lies and witness tampering were related to his defence against an previously filed workplace sexual harassment lawsuit.

On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868)[a] when the House formally adopted articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. A trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

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

#38

Post by Mirioron »

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.

When I learned about history in school I learned about how bad the past was, how there were so many abuses of power. One thing that stood out to me was that what enabled many of these abuses of power was the ability for the rulers to keep things secret.

I naively thought that in our day and age we, or at least the West, had done away with secret courts. The time around Snowden was quite shocking to me. I fully agree that secret courts are a bad idea and that a free society has no place for them.

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

#39

Post by zdragnar »

chmod775 wrote: post #33
frockington1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US citizen in question was interrogated for more than 40 hours. I think its safe to say anybody will lie in that time frame intentionally or not.

I don't think you can lie accidentally (it wouldn't be lying), bit you'd have to convince a jury you just didn't know any better or misspoke.

You don't have to lie, but a judge and /or jury need to be convinced that, when you said something that conflicted with some other evidence, you were lying. What you actually believe to be true doesn't matter.

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

#40

Post by shireboy »

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…

One problem with that line of thought is that law is so complex that just about anybody could easily be tripped up by an agent educated on the nuances of the law. While most agents are honest, truth-seeking individuals, clearly some harbor political bias and/or are being used for ideological ends. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria, Chief of Police under Stalin

A system that is highly secretive and whose only accountability is to pretend to investigate itself inevitably will be abused more than an open one with transparent checks and balances. One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...)

Post reply on HN