Live data from Hacker News

The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

bloomberg.com

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#41
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/stor...

FBI/DOJ wiretapped the Facebook comms of 19 illegal aliens who were MS-13 gangsters in North Hollywood. the wiretaps spanned 2017-2019. the gang murdered 6 people. the last murder was a random killing of a homeless guy as an initiation ritual to get into the gang.

i happened to be 50 yards away from that murder when it happened. i didnt hear a thing because i was sleeping and it was rarely raining in LA that night. those gangsters could have randomly picked me to kill instead of the other homeless guy. i was woken up by a cop politely asking me to move. i looked over and there was a tarp tent over the body of the victim with a dozen cops standing guard.

i may have even helped to open the case because 1 year prior, i emailed the Chief of the NoHo LAPD to tell him i was seeing MS-13 graffiti all over that park where the murder occured. he replied back within an hour thanking me for the tip and the graffito was removed the next day. so MS-13 activity in that area was certainly on LE's radar.

i am an obsessive reader of Snowden leaks and am pretty anti-NSA, but i thank god the FBI was able to order Facebook to hand over the comms of that MS-13 gang. those gang bangers were so stupid that they were literally coordinating murders over Facebook Messenger and boasting about their 100's of crimes spanning years on Facebook.

ACLU is in the wrong here and i support not unsealing the wiretap documents. because think of how many other idiot MS-13 gangsters across America will also broadcast their murders and crimes on Facebook? if they all know for a fact that yes, the FBI is using Facebook to track them, then they will all go dark. that means the next time MS-13 attempts to ramdomly murder a guy like me, then FBI won't be able to so easily convict them.

i have read every page of every Snowden leak. my views on mass surveillance have evolved since 2013. at first i was horrified because of the shock that it was happening. but over time i have come to realize there is no closing Pandora's box. every year the CPUs get faster, storage doubles, bandwidth triples and the software gets smarter. there is no way to freeze computing progress in time. which means every year, mass surveillance gets cheaper like Moore's Law. i now see it is entirely naive and unrealistic to stop mass surveillance. there is no technical solution to a political problem. you can't un-invent the machine gun.

all we can do is demand our Intel Overlords only apply mass surveillance to legit protection of our society, like for busting murderers and rapists and MS-13 and cartels. and we must force FBI/DOJ to stay the fuck out of abusing mass surveillance for corrupt political purposes, like spying on Presidents, or wiretapping 37 Congressmen, or bugging SCOTUS for 12 years, or blackmailing Presidents and Congress with sex tapes, or harassing antiwar activists, or persecuting whistleblowers and legitimate joirnalists who publish leaked top secrets.

this FBI operation to crush a murderous MS-13 cell hit pretty close to home for me--it was terrifying to realize i only got lucky that night being in the right place and right time to avoid being the sacrificial victim. this experience definitely changed my perspective on FBI surveilling Facebook. everyone is opposed to FBI surveillance until they almost get murdered. then it's "great job FBI, do more gumshoe police work and less political meddling!"

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#42
post #15

My conspiracy theory hat comes out every time a large US company seems to stand up against the government for the privacy of their users and wins. I always assume the company secretly gave the government what they asked for, and the government agreed to play along for marketing purposes. I suppose that the boring truth is that Facebook just used it's vast financial resources to protect itself in a way that lavabit ne…

Why would that be so? Why wouldn't they just skip the annoying charade and the anti government precedent, and just give over the info secretly in the first place, least work for everyone? And don't you think at some point one of the retired engineers or execs would leak the truth?

"Hey Joe, look at the news! If we use Messenger, we can't get wiretapped!"

That's a limited ruse because at some point evidence has to be entered into the record at trial, and if the fact that the government could reach Messenger after all came out, this scheme wouldn't work again. Of course, often investigators can back-reconstruct evidence that they can present -- and if in some case they can't, well, maybe next time. Other times trial evidence might not even be a goal. So a limited ruse, but not that limited.

Is it plausible? I think so. Is it likely? No idea.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#43
post #10

Why can't these news articles link to the briefs or provide a case number or anything? They didn't even say what freakin' court they were in directly! I know it's the 9th circuit based on the description, but where was the original case heard? Arg! Edit: Fortunatly the 9th circuit is actually pretty good with youtube, which made this easy to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6SeGJQjqyA 19-15472 ACLU Foundation v…

My beef is articles about patent infringement issues that don't cite patent numbers. The storage and transmission costs of text data are essentially free (they burn more on javascript bloat) and such information could be excluded for publications that still have dead tree editions.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#44
post #37
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dave Brubeck comment was tongue in cheek, referencing recent quantum computing developments (not classified)

You're losing me - what developments?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/chance-discovery-bri...

Andrea Morello was on the team. Joe Morello was the t5 drummer. Just a play on last names.

What if the NSA has not only known about this phenomenon but has already built a large scale qubit quantum computer? Could be.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#45
post #22
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment thread really is nonsense. So Facebook and the government are secretly working together in a conspiracy to falsify court records while secretly they cooporate the whole time and the case was never actually tried? What planet are you on? And the proof is Snowden, because... ??? Or are you all just agreeing you have your own conspiracy theories, and aren't directly commenting on what each other are saying?

>secretly working together in a conspiracy to falsify court records A simple & plausible scenario: a governmental agency requests Facebook conducts a broad surveillance sweep. Facebook resists for obvious reasons, goes to court. Somebody at the middle level of one talks to somebody at the middle level of the other, figure out what the agency really wants - a small, well specified chunk of data - which gets requested…

And this is how it's done unfortunately.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#46
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a government in existence now or at any time in the past that didn't solely exist to rubberstamp the rich's laws? The peasants republic of Dithmarschen?

I mean, yeah. There have been a lot of revolutions in world history. They did not exist _solely_ to rubber stamp the laws of the rich.

Even those revolutions that were overtly for the people were subvertly actually for elevating and empowering the inner circle of the revolution leaders. I'd love to find an example of a national government that prioritizes the well being of the majority rather than the personal profits of the oligarchy, but I don't believe one exists or has existed for some time.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprising that partisan tabloids (Breitbart, Daily Beast, etc) provide clickable hyperlinks to the original reporting and source documents more often than major media outlets do. Maybe it's due to their reblog origins, they're less afraid of losing traffic to competitors? Or because of their reputation they have more to prove? Regardless, it should be done by everyone.

> partisan tabloids ... major media outlets Don't buy into the propaganda. Most major media outlets are partisan as well. Sometimes the party is simply the 'increase state authority and support war' party, they simply color it red or blue for your personal preferences.

Not sure why people are downvoting you as if you're attacking their news source, at least here in America I can name two news orgs for which people would easily agree lean on opposite ends: Fox and CNN. The difference in their focus is night and day when you think of how they report on the President. It is astounding. Then there's the lack of following up on sources like the MAGA high schoolers media fiasco.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> partisan tabloids ... major media outlets Don't buy into the propaganda. Most major media outlets are partisan as well. Sometimes the party is simply the 'increase state authority and support war' party, they simply color it red or blue for your personal preferences.

Not sure why people are downvoting you as if you're attacking their news source, at least here in America I can name two news orgs for which people would easily agree lean on opposite ends: Fox and CNN. The difference in their focus is night and day when you think of how they report on the President. It is astounding. Then there's the lack of following up on sources like the MAGA high schoolers media fiasco.

Regardless of how right or wrong he is, it's a digression into partisan-ness unrelated to the topic of hyperlinking practices. HN tends to downvote when that happens.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#49
post #36
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No reasonable person would say som33's comment was an "unrelated controversy," it's a clear response to the question "Why was a case involving a wealthy corporation sealed?" The way HN is moderated does not welcome this line of questioning, though. You're not allowed to suggest that VC-funded tech might be a source of evil or bad ethics. Proof? Here's a similar "flame-baity" comment under this topic that sits on the…

Oh you guys. The GP comment was just the sort of flamebait that we don't want on HN, regardless of flavor. We'd moderate it just the same the other way [1]. Big denunciatory rhetoric is just not what this site is for. Repetition and indignation are the two things that most kill curiosity, so repetition of indignation is the worst. [2] An arbitrary link doesn't prove anything except that we may not have seen a post. T…

There is some irony in claiming that the GP comment kills curiosity.

Nothing kills curiosity faster or more completely than the concealment of relevant facts. Legal opinions in this case. See e.g. USSR.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#50
post #10

Why can't these news articles link to the briefs or provide a case number or anything? They didn't even say what freakin' court they were in directly! I know it's the 9th circuit based on the description, but where was the original case heard? Arg! Edit: Fortunatly the 9th circuit is actually pretty good with youtube, which made this easy to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6SeGJQjqyA 19-15472 ACLU Foundation v…

It somewhat makes sense for articles to be vague. As frustrating as it is when you want to go deep on a story, these articles are not providing a knowledge graph service. They’re condensing a story down to only the most important information. In effect, providing a summarization service for real-world events.

When it works well, it lets you efficiently absorb the gist of a story. Of course, it’s a bit of a subjective art and unable to serve all audiences.

Post reply on HN