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

101–110 of 138 posts

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

#101

Post by coolspot »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #78
NopeNotToday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, the article was posted in 37 different subs. The highest upvotes: /r/politics - 155 karma /r/libertarian - 49 karma /r/conservative - 34 karma I'm not trying to make any case for any side here. Just providing some numbers.

So what are those results, normalized for active users?

No, those are absolute numbers.

/r/politics is default sub-reddit, so every user is subscribed to it unless manually opted out.

r/politics/ - 5.6M members

r/conservative/ - 275K members

r/libertarian/ - 349K members

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

#102

Post by busymom0 »

habnds wrote: post #43
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

curious which subreddits those are.

politics sub being one. 2 of the posts made by others were removed for being “off topic” in that sub. Others were downvoted to oblivion. I won’t comment further as I prefer HN to not get too political.

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

#103

Post by bsder »

hutzlibu wrote: post #87
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…

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 justic…

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

Yes. It's much closer to the end of his talk where there is an erroneous contradicting witness and you can wind up convicted of lying to the police.

He also points to things like "Possession of a lobster can be a felony". You simply can't know all the laws, so getting a lawyer forces the police to narrow the scope immediately. At that point you can address the actual charges rather than letting the police fish through hours of your babbling hunting for something to hang you with.

> When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design.

That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to "cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?

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

#104

Post by busymom0 »

NopeNotToday wrote: post #49
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

So far, the article was posted in 37 different subs. The highest upvotes: /r/politics - 155 karma /r/libertarian - 49 karma /r/conservative - 34 karma I'm not trying to make any case for any side here. Just providing some numbers.

Try comparing it to T_D posts on this topic. Without that, your comparison is useless.

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

#105

Post by yonaguska »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #65
chmod775 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" questio…

The german film , The Lives of Others, captures this technique spectacularly.

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

#106

Post by yonaguska »

busymom0 wrote: post #104
NopeNotToday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, the article was posted in 37 different subs. The highest upvotes: /r/politics - 155 karma /r/libertarian - 49 karma /r/conservative - 34 karma I'm not trying to make any case for any side here. Just providing some numbers.

Try comparing it to T_D posts on this topic. Without that, your comparison is useless.

T_D bans linking directly to sites deemed left leaning. Instead you would post an archived version of the article. It might be difficult to do that analysis given the hoops for posting. r/politics does the same for news deemed right leaning.

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

#107

Post by snowron6 »

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…

A significantly shorter video with a similar message:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs

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

#108

Post by NopeNotToday »

busymom0 wrote: post #104
NopeNotToday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, the article was posted in 37 different subs. The highest upvotes: /r/politics - 155 karma /r/libertarian - 49 karma /r/conservative - 34 karma I'm not trying to make any case for any side here. Just providing some numbers.

Try comparing it to T_D posts on this topic. Without that, your comparison is useless.

I tried searching for the article on T_D. I'm not getting any results (due to the quarantine?).

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

#109

Post by throwawaylalala »

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…

Popehat has a great example of why you shouldn't ever speak with the FBI:

https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea...

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

#110

Post by jaywalk »

maps wrote: post #89
guelo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

James Comey did a victory lap, claiming he was "vindicated" by the report.

Horowitz was asked in the hearing if his report vindicated Comey. He was adamant that his report vindicated no one.

There is definitely a concerted effort to completely mischaracterize the report's contents, mainly because it has proven that the complaining from the Republicans has actually been correct all along.

Post reply on HN