We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by openasocket » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

ailideex wrote: post #13

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…

> 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 w…

Lying to an investigator actually isn't obstruction of justice, according to the statute. Obstruction of justice is a blanket term for crimes falling under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73. The only one that comes close is § 1510: Obstruction of criminal investigations. From the name it sure sounds like lying to investigators would fall under it, but if you read the text it only covers certain specific acts of obstruction like bribery. Making false statements to law enforcement falls user 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47, which covers fraud and false statements. In this case it would be § 1001. So yeah, kind of confusing, but that's why there's a separate term for making false statements.

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

#52

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

pgo wrote: post #34

I searched this article on reddit to see how the usual left leaning subreddits are reacting to it and was surprised to see it is nowhere to be found. Truly both sides are living in their own echo chambers

I’ve read plenty about these specific criticism of the FISA system in the media I consume, which is often decried as being “left-leaning”. Indeed the article here by the New York Times is a good example.

So I doubt “the left” is suppressing this issue. The IG report is pretty clear that these issues had little relevance in the investigation of Russian hacking. And if our discourse can no longer achieve this (rather low) level of nuance, we are truly lost.

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

#53

Post by datashow » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

nkozyra wrote: post #45

datashow wrote: post #17

This is not the worst yet. Durham's investigation may reveal something even worse. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-joh...

Hm, I thought this last IG report was going to be the one that had the Deep State perp-walked to Guantanamo and The Hague. Now it's the next one? Then the next one?

I never said anything like "the Deep State perp-walked to Guantanamo and The Hague", nor did anyone on this discussion. Maybe there is a right-win conspiracy theory about that, but it has nothing to do with the discussion here.

FBI / DOJ violation of the protocol in secret courts is really a serious matter in a democratic society.

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

#54

Post by _jal » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #47

shireboy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sec…

> One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process. I don't think that logic follows? That statistic could just mean that they're actually doing most things legally and properly, which is the outcome you'd want, right? I'd be worried if a significant percentage of their requests were turned down. Also, as a comparison point: apparently several fede…

> Do you see these statistics as implying the whole thing is just a rubber-stamp process altogether?

That's overstating my (not the GP) view, but I do believe the operational mechanisms in federal law enforcement push heavily towards conviction once accused.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe there have been zero false convictions in those districts?

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

#55

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #54

mehrdadn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One has only to see that FISA has only turned down 85 out of 40k requests to understand this is a rubber-stamp process. I don't think that logic follows? That statistic could just mean that they're actually doing most things legally and properly, which is the outcome you'd want, right? I'd be worried if a significant percentage of their requests were turned down. Also, as a comparison point: apparently several fede…

> Do you see these statistics as implying the whole thing is just a rubber-stamp process altogether? That's overstating my (not the GP) view, but I do believe the operational mechanisms in federal law enforcement push heavily towards conviction once accused. Let me ask you a question: Do you believe there have been zero false convictions in those districts?

> That's overstating my (not the GP) view, but I do believe the operational mechanisms in federal law enforcement push heavily towards conviction once accused.

Possibly, but that's a separate point from the one I'm making.

> Do you believe there have been zero false convictions in those districts?

Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline.

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

#56

Post by IAmEveryone » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

datashow wrote: post #53

nkozyra wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I thought this last IG report was going to be the one that had the Deep State perp-walked to Guantanamo and The Hague. Now it's the next one? Then the next one?

I never said anything like "the Deep State perp-walked to Guantanamo and The Hague", nor did anyone on this discussion. Maybe there is a right-win conspiracy theory about that, but it has nothing to do with the discussion here. FBI / DOJ violation of the protocol in secret courts is really a serious matter in a democratic society.

How is your insistence that “something even worse will be revealed” not a conspiracy theory? It’s almost literally the definition!

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

#57

Post by noelsusman » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

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.

The court was set up to spy on foreigners and Americans. To get a FISA warrant on a US citizen you have to show probable cause that the person is an agent of a foreign government engaging in intelligence activities.

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

#58

Post by cheeseomlit » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #52

pgo wrote: post #34

I searched this article on reddit to see how the usual left leaning subreddits are reacting to it and was surprised to see it is nowhere to be found. Truly both sides are living in their own echo chambers

I’ve read plenty about these specific criticism of the FISA system in the media I consume, which is often decried as being “left-leaning”. Indeed the article here by the New York Times is a good example. So I doubt “the left” is suppressing this issue. The IG report is pretty clear that these issues had little relevance in the investigation of Russian hacking. And if our discourse can no longer achieve this (rather l…

How can this issue possibly have 'little relevance' to the investigation, we're talking about the conduct of the investigators themselves

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

#59

Post by guelo » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

pgo wrote: post #34

I searched this article on reddit to see how the usual left leaning subreddits are reacting to it and was surprised to see it is nowhere to be found. Truly both sides are living in their own echo chambers

Why do you bring in the left/right partisan divide into this? The left has been criticizing the secret FISA process since the Bush Patriot Act days. The IG report did not find any evidence of political partisan spying, it only faulted the process of getting the warrant.

On the other hand, as an advocate for civil liberties I'm kind of glad that this is becoming a partisan issue since Patriot Act votes in the past were unanimously supported by Republicans and by half of Democrats. Maybe now we'll get momentum to get rid of secret courts.

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

#60

Post by datashow » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

IAmEveryone wrote: post #56

datashow wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything like "the Deep State perp-walked to Guantanamo and The Hague", nor did anyone on this discussion. Maybe there is a right-win conspiracy theory about that, but it has nothing to do with the discussion here. FBI / DOJ violation of the protocol in secret courts is really a serious matter in a democratic society.

How is your insistence that “something even worse will be revealed” not a conspiracy theory? It’s almost literally the definition!

It is not "a conspiracy theory", it is a logical interpretation of Durham's statement.

DOJ's internal investigation already showed lots of violation of its protocol. Durham made clear his investigation is not limited to within the DOJ/FBI, of course he found more damning evidence that's why he made this statement. Otherwise how would you logically interpret? Investigation outside of DOJ/FBI makes DOJ/FBI look better?

"literally the definition"? You have a weird definition of "conspiracy theory". Every interpretation does not fit with your narrative is a conspiracy theory?