The FBI tried to ambush my source • Hacker News Board

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#21

Post by lern_too_spel » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #16

GiorgioG wrote: post #4

I hope stories like this open the eyes of folks who are die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. They are not on your side. They are on their own side. I don't doubt that most folks at these agencies are hard-working Americans who believe they're doing what's best for our country. Having said that, this kind of unchecked power is dangerous.

There are no politicians involved in this story at all. This is just the FBI doing police work (and then getting burned by their own informant). Like it or not, distribution of classified material is a crime, and the FBI's job is to enforce the law. There's no "unchecked" power here. The details are complicated because the meeting was international (so presumably there was some coordination with local police), but th…

Exactly. They weren't there to arrest the reporter, who wasn't doing anything illegal, but to arrest the leaker, who was. It doesn't matter which politician you elect. The FBI will enforce the law.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#22

Post by lapcat » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #12

FBI tried to ambush a suspected criminal* I don't understand the controversy.

FBI tried to ambush a whistleblower. You can say that whistleblowing is a crime, but what if the whistleblower has evidence of even greater crimes being committed? That makes the ambush a cover-up.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#23

Post by phpisthebest » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #16

GiorgioG wrote: post #4

I hope stories like this open the eyes of folks who are die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. They are not on your side. They are on their own side. I don't doubt that most folks at these agencies are hard-working Americans who believe they're doing what's best for our country. Having said that, this kind of unchecked power is dangerous.

There are no politicians involved in this story at all. This is just the FBI doing police work (and then getting burned by their own informant). Like it or not, distribution of classified material is a crime, and the FBI's job is to enforce the law. There's no "unchecked" power here. The details are complicated because the meeting was international (so presumably there was some coordination with local police), but th…

The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power

Just like the saying that a "federal prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" like wise the FBI could get a warrant for anything they desire at any time

The warrant requirement is a not a check on power, and has not been for decades, the courts and our legal system is no longer a protector of rights, or justice and has not been for a long long long time.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#24

Post by alaricus » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #14

I'm not really understanding what the newsworthy bits here are. There's an implication that this source had some kind of huge trove of data, but the reporter never got it and that's not what the story is about. Instead, this story alleges: (1) the reporter planned to meet with a source to get a classified leak, (2) the FBI got wind of it, and (3) they planned what amounts to a sting operation (I guess, it's complicat…

No post body was provided.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#25

Post by toma_caliente » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #20

anonporridge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of poli…

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusse…

This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition.

What systems would you prefer?

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#26

Post by anonporridge » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #20

anonporridge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of poli…

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusse…

Yes, we also need multi-member, proportional legislative districts. https://www.fairvote.org/prcv.

Single member districts are a disgusting thing for a society that claims to be a representative democracy. As a very simple example, rural liberals and urban conservatives effectively never get represented in our government, and that's still within the context of the false dichotomy of left/right.

But single winner ranked choice voting is still important for elected positions that necessarily must be one person, like executive seats.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#27

Post by alasdair_ » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

robonerd wrote: post #5

> [the lawyer] told me that he was sometimes involved in international arms deals. [...] The lawyer seemed to be an adrenaline junkie, someone who had found a home on the dark side of international intelligence. [...] While the FBI knows who the lawyer is, I will not name him, even though he betrayed me.) Why protect this asshole? Because he got cold feet and gave warning? This guy seems like 'quite a character' and…

> Why protect this asshole?

Because future sources need to trust you. Protecting sources needs to be absolute, or some of them will wonder what it takes to constitute “betrayal” in the future.

Not betraying a source that has wronged you is fantastic signalling to future sources.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#28

Post by tootie » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

GiorgioG wrote: post #4

I hope stories like this open the eyes of folks who are die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. They are not on your side. They are on their own side. I don't doubt that most folks at these agencies are hard-working Americans who believe they're doing what's best for our country. Having said that, this kind of unchecked power is dangerous.

If I'm reading the story correctly the villain is that lawyer who seemingly mislead everybody. The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities even if they were being overzealous.

I've never been one to put full trust in any politicians or bureaucracy but the balance of value is still overwhelmingly towards democrats. The odd botched investigation is a small price for supporting democracy, human rights and climate justice.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#29

Post by cowmoo728 » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #20

anonporridge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of poli…

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusse…

Real reform is not palatable. The correct reforms include rotating appointments on the Supreme Court, abolishing the Senate, re-apportioning the House, and changing the presidency to have significantly less power. But something like this is not achievable with the current ossification of our dysfunctional political systems in the US.

Given that, I still believe ranked choice voting is the first baby step toward more representative politics.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#30

Post by lapcat » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #14

I'm not really understanding what the newsworthy bits here are. There's an implication that this source had some kind of huge trove of data, but the reporter never got it and that's not what the story is about. Instead, this story alleges: (1) the reporter planned to meet with a source to get a classified leak, (2) the FBI got wind of it, and (3) they planned what amounts to a sting operation (I guess, it's complicat…

> That's... I mean that's the FBI's job. That leak is clearly illegal, it's a crime. Their job is to enforce the law.

Ask yourself if the FBI is investigating the NSA. Did the FBI investigate the NSA before Snowden? You can enforce the law very selectively, prosecuting whistleblowers who are trying to reveal evidence of crimes committed by the government itself.