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
it's a miracle this link even exist here
We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
61–70 of 138 posts
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#62If 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…
Which is why obstruction and false statement type charges should not hold if there is no underlying crime, or if the person is not convicted of it.
Does this have it's own pitfalls? Certainly. But it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Could you submit that video to the jury as reasoning for having called the lawyer?
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline.
Ok, what is, and on who's authority?
And just to be sure I understand, you're judging mechanisms designed to come to factual conclusions by evaluating how many of their decisions lean one way, without reference to or concern with their factual basis?
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#65Earlier 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.
For those who know, this is a standard fed tactic, and yes you absolutely can lie accidentally! Heres how it works:
Interview the person multiple times, grilling them hard, using all the classic techniques. Repeat the exact same questions in each interview, interspersed with variations.
When you don't get any confession or evidence from them, comb through the transcripts to find a place where the "exact same" questions have different answers. All it takes is a slight change, a slip of the memory, a slip of the tongue...
Boom, now you can get them on "lying to the feds", and use that threat to leverage a plea deal or some other information.
It is an abusive tactic used all the time. If I hear someone is getting caught on "lying to the feds" I assume it means the evidentiary case is extremely weak and thats all they can get.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#66Earlier 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…
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.
I realize we live in an upside down world nowadays, but I'd like to point out that FISA reauthorization votes in the past have been unanimously supported by Republicans while half of Democrats would vote against them.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline. Ok, what is, and on who's authority? And just to be sure I understand, you're judging mechanisms designed to come to factual conclusions by evaluating how many of their decisions lean one way, without reference to or concern with their factual basis?
>> Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline.
> Ok, what is
I don't have a number.
> and on who's authority?
By common sense. The only way to get zero error in the absence of perfect information is to avoid convictions entirely. I'm not saying I like this trade-off; I'm just saying this is reality.
> And just to be sure I understand, you're judging mechanisms designed to come to factual conclusions by evaluating how many of their decisions lean one way, without reference to or concern with their factual basis?
No, that's the complete opposite of what I was saying, which was that you have to look a the factual bases and can't just judge by the statistics. Hence my reply earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21773010
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#68If 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…
Not to disagree with you, but maybe, just maybe, the FBI agents and lawyers in this case were consciously not following protocol on purpose. And maybe, just maybe, they do that quite often, and even in completely run-of-the-mill, non-politically-relevent cases. Maybe, just maybe, the protocols they purposefully ignore are there so they can say mistakes were made if caught. Those protocols seem to have no teeth, after all.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#69If 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't avoid lying to them if you speak to them, even if you're completely innocent. This should be required viewing for just about everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
They will use any unconscious fib about any detail, no matter how irrelevant, to impeach you in court. The simplest thing to do is not speak to LEOs at all when they approach you.
Re: We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance
#70If 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…
FYI, it's also a crime to lie to the FISA court and to lie under oath to Congress. The FBI did both, as did other members of the security state, most notably John Brennan and Jim Clapper. If we are a nation of laws not men then those in power need to be held accountable for their crimes too.