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

#81

Post by pc86 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

basseq wrote: post #76

mdorazio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty Would that even be admissible?

Phone records are used as evidence in criminal proceedings all the time.

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

#82

Post by pc86 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #69

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…

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.

It's important to know that the lying thing is specifically about federal law enforcement. Lying a local PO is not (necessarily) a crime, however it's possible that your state has a statute making it a crime. So at the local and state level, lying law enforcement is possibly, but not certainly, a crime. Lying (even unintentionally!) to a federal LEO is a crime in every jurisdiction.

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

#83

Post by davidw » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

cheeseomlit wrote: post #73

davidw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Biden engaged in blatant corruption. Investigating him is not "cheating".

In the real world, he didn't: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trum...

But in Fox news fantasy land... I'm sure he did!

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

#84

Post by basseq » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #81

basseq wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty Would that even be admissible?

Phone records are used as evidence in criminal proceedings all the time.

Yes, but phone records with your lawyer strikes me as a little different than "we see you called the hitman a week before the murder!"

It comes down to the "calling a lawyer constitutes guilt" argument, which seems like it would cause any judge to roll her eyes.

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

#85

Post by marcusverus » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

noelsusman wrote: post #57

spaginal wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In practice the bar is so incredibly low. Carter Page was wiretapped based on nothing but the word of a foreign intelligence agent. Page had previously aided the US government in an investigation of a Russian asset. There was no other corroborating evidence. Suggesting that Page was committing or contemplating the commission of a crime.

When hearsay from foreigners is sufficient 'probable cause' for a FISA warrant, there is no barrier to obtaining one.

I read in a recent article that, out of more than a thousand FISA applications, ONE was rejected.

FISA courts are a rubber stamp for wonton state surveillance.

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

#86

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

cartoonworld wrote: post #75

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…

>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. I think you're correct that the logic employed doesn't follow. It is useless to look at the statistics alone and conclude one way or the other that FISA is or is not a rubbe…

> I think you are doing a category error: Criminal court proceedings are adversarial, FISA court is not.

That's not my argument—I think you read more into it than I intended! I wasn't trying to compare criminal courts to FISA courts; that was just an (unfortunate) coincidence in the analogy. The only reason I cited conviction rate as an example here was to illustrate why you can't just look at the statistics and draw a conclusion; that's all. It wasn't meant to serve as an argument for or against FISA courts.

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

#87

Post by hutzlibu » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #24

thanksgiving wrote: post #15

Earlier 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…

Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent?

I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid.

But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class justice system, with good outcome for people who can afford good lawers and people qho cannot.

When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. But it makes sense, that lawers think different about that.

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

#88

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

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…

She was accused of making false statements to committing insider trading and the issues surround that claim, so they prosecuted her for statements they claimed false about a crime, insider trading, which they did not charge her with. So combined with charges of security fraud is what they ultimately got her with.

so how can you lie about something you are never taken to court for? if she was guilty of insider trading it would make sense to prosecute that, prove that, then that proves the charge of not telling the truth.

this is all part and parcel of federal prosecutions where they lay on as many charges as possible in order to intimidate you. Welcome to the world that led to Aaron Swartz's death.

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

#89

Post by maps » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #59

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 wer…

>Why do you bring in the left/right partisan divide into this?

Because the right has been complaining about these specific FBI agents biased conduct in this investigation for years now and trying to turn this into a 'we all know fisa is bad' comes off as epic gaslighting.

>The IG report did not find any evidence of political partisan spying, it only faulted the process of getting the warrant.

This is beyond a white washing. He absolutely found evidence that line agents were biased. He did not find clear 'evidence' that the outcome and leadership was biased. The key part is that confessions and a paper trail were not found to lead him to make that conclusion. He stated he made numerous referrals to the doj/fbi about misconduct. If you actually listen to his hearing statements on the 'evidence' for bias he is walking a fine line.

'we did not have documentary or testimonial evidence that (the mistakes) were intentional, but also make note the lack of satisfactory explanations (for the mistakes), from there i cannot draw any further conclusions' - this is during a line of questions from senator whitehouse, but there are many others like it.

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

#90

Post by cheeseomlit » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:52 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #83

cheeseomlit wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden engaged in blatant corruption. Investigating him is not "cheating".

In the real world, he didn't: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trum... But in Fox news fantasy land... I'm sure he did!

This article/PR piece does absolutely nothing to dispute the fact that Hunter got the job because of his relation to Joe. They go after the prosecutor angle because it's all hearsay on both sides and thus easy to spin, but what's indisputably obvious is that Hunter collected those paychecks as a form of influence peddling between Ukraine and his father. You'd have to be hopelessly naive to think otherwise. Don't worry though, the hard-nosed journalists at USA Today are on the case:

>"Hunter Biden? Never heard of him," said Ludmila Rynovaya, 72, a resident of Vodiane's nearby village – population 600 – who was chatting with a friend in a small grocery store.

Case closed! The only defense they can muster is that Hunter was a naive victim who was in over his head:

>"I'm not sure that (Hunter) Biden understood the environment he was getting into" when he agreed to serve on Burisma's board, said Musaieva, the Ukrayinska Pravda editor.

Oh poor Hunter, I'm sure it was all just a misunderstanding.